Genesis Chapter One

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

31 minutes ago, Pete said:

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.

 

 

Yes.     

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Key]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

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.

This may well be true, as "history" was orally passed down for many centuries, or, for some people's beliefs, after many generations before finally being written down. Men have always felt the need to explain the unknown. Thus, stories were made to explain things that were out of reach for them to understand, like the stars, the moon, or even how and where different lifeforms came about.

Not saying there couldn't be a God of all creation. Just that these passages may just be simplified explanations of something no one could truly grasp at the time. Thus, may not be literal, as some folks do take.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, Key said:

This may well be true, as "history" was orally passed down for many centuries, or, for some people's beliefs, after many generations before finally being written down. Men have always felt the need to explain the unknown. Thus, stories were made to explain things that were out of reach for them to understand, like the stars, the moon, or even how and where different lifeforms came about.

Not saying there couldn't be a God of all creation.

 

Just that these passages may just be simplified explanations of something no one could truly grasp at the time.

 

 

Thus, may not be literal, as some folks do take.

 

 

Not saying there couldn't be a God of all creation.     Yes.  Such a god could exist.  Is there any solid reason to believe, that such a god does exist?

 

 

Just that these passages may just be simplified explanations of something no one could truly grasp at the time.  Alright.  Not bad for that time.  That was then.  This is now.  In the distant future, nobody will be studying the Cosmology and Physics of today.

 

 

Thus, may not be literal, as some folks do take.     No.  Not literal.  That leaves the legitimate issues of poetry and culture.  Is there enough spiritual truth  and insight -- in poetic language -- to make these passages relevant to the present?  To the future?  Maybe.  These are cultural issues.  Yes.  I think that these are important cultural artifacts.  They should be studied.  At minimum, Genesis as early literature, will always be important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RabbiO]

On May 24, 2019 at 4:34 AM, RevBogovac said:

 

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

Why?

[RabbiO]

On May 23, 2019 at 12:36 PM, Pastor Dave said:

For example, the first three words of the Bible state, in the beginning. 

Maybe.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, RabbiO said:

Why?

 

 

 

 

Oh, those invisible assumptions.  I'm going to have to think about this.     

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, RabbiO said:

Maybe.

 

 

 

     Of course.  Hebrew language.    So obvious.  Now.     

 

 

[Pastor Dave]

Sorry folks, I had internet problems Friday and a very busy weekend.

 

It looks like not much progress has been made in going through the Genesis account of creation. I'll try to move thing forward a little if I can.

 

First let me make a few responses.

 

On 5/24/2019 at 2:08 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

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.

 

 

I believe that to be The Living Bible translation.

Although I do not use that translation much when studying the Bible I can certainly see your point.

 

On 5/24/2019 at 2:13 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

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.     

 

 

 

Agreed!

 

 

[Pastor Dave]

On 5/24/2019 at 3:26 AM, 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...

 

Is science moving back to the steady state theory? I hadn't heard that before.

 

We may understand the big bang theory a little differently. My understanding of the Big Bang Theory is that the entire universe (not just our galaxy or each individual galaxy) came into being when some unknown force (which we won't, for any reason, call or attribute, to any God) caused the entire universe to expand from a singularity not a "massive" black hole.  "The entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before the "Big Bang"  when space and time did not exist. According to the predominant cosmological models that explain our universe, an indescribable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature , that was unbelievably dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy, but space and time itself." 

 

You do however bring up a very interesting point. The universe is said to be filled with black holes, each of which has a singularity at it's center. Given that science says that there was no need for a first cause for the big bang it stands to reason that any of those singularities could, without reason, explode into a new verse at any time. My question here would be "Would those new verses exist within our verse or would they exist outside our verse in a multiverse?"

[Pastor Dave]

On 5/24/2019 at 3:34 AM, RevBogovac said:

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

 

Since most of us o not read or speak Biblical Hebrew we have to work through translations. A large part of translating is choosing the best word from the new language to use. Sometimes the language being translated to does not have a single word that means exactly the same thing as the original language. My favorite example of this is the Hebrew word shalom. Most English translations use peace, but shalom means so much more. Interpretation will always be needed also because if I tell ten people the same story with the exact same words we would likely get ten different views when they are asked what was said. IMHO

[Pastor Dave]

On 5/25/2019 at 2:25 AM, Dan56 said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

Hmmm, where to go with this one?

 

I'm glad to see you are at least open to the possibility of other meanings Dan.

 

Arnold Murry, I remember when I had Dish network as my television provider Arnold Murry had the Shepard's Chapel channel. I tried to watch it a few times as I like to have multiple views to compare. I was never able to watch that channel for very long at a time. Whether it was Pastor Murry himself or other   speakers on the channel I always got the impression that these would be the religious leaders one might find at a ** rally or some other white supremacist gathering. I may have just been tuning in at the wrong times, but it seemed to me that none of the speakers I saw could go a full 30 minutes without making some kind of antisemitic remark.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

30 minutes ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

Is science moving back to the steady state theory? I hadn't heard that before.

 

We may understand the big bang theory a little differently. My understanding of the Big Bang Theory is that the entire universe (not just our galaxy or each individual galaxy) came into being when some unknown force (which we won't, for any reason, call or attribute, to any God) caused the entire universe to expand from a singularity not a "massive" black hole.  "The entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before the "Big Bang"  when space and time did not exist. According to the predominant cosmological models that explain our universe, an indescribable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature , that was unbelievably dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy, but space and time itself." 

 

You do however bring up a very interesting point. The universe is said to be filled with black holes, each of which has a singularity at it's center. Given that science says that there was no need for a first cause for the big bang it stands to reason that any of those singularities could, without reason, explode into a new verse at any time. My question here would be "Would those new verses exist within our verse or would they exist outside our verse in a multiverse?"

 

None of us are in a position to argue the latest Cosmological physics.  A few findings are gaining wide acceptance.

 

The scientific consensus is not going to Steady State.  The speed in which the Universe is expanding -- is increasing.

 

I want to be clear on that.  The galaxies are not flying through space.  The space between the galaxies is expanding.  More, the space between the galaxies is expanding at an increased speed.

 

The real Universe is strange enough.  Invoking the supernatural is not helpful.

 

 

 

 

[Pastor Dave]

6 hours ago, RabbiO said:

Maybe.

 

You have me slightly bewildered this time RabbiO. Usually when you point out that our English translations may not reflect the Hebrew accurately I am able to find some alternate reading to help me understand what could have been translated differently. Even the OJB and the CJB (both Messianic translations, I admit, still Jewish translations) start with In the beginning

 

So I went to my Strong's Hebrew concordance and this is what I find;

Genesis  1:1 (Hebrew)
beginning: 7225   re'shiyth ray-sheeth': from the same as 7218; the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically, a firstfruit):--beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing. HW 7218

 

I suppose this could make the reading slightly different. I'll have to meditate on this for a while.

 

Thanks

[Pastor Dave]

Moving past 1:1 let me make a few more observations on what the Bible says about the creation.

 

The Bible tells us........
 .And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.  

Science tells us.......
 Just after the big bang all of the matter in the universe floated in the darkness.. As the Universe expanded, and thus cooled, matter began to coalesce into gas clouds, and then stars and planets. 

My observation............
  Both science and the Bible tell us that right after this universe began neither the earth, nor the sun and stars were instantly there.

The Bible tells us........
 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first (Age).
Science tells us.......
 As our planet rotates on it's axis, the planet is alternately exposed to the sun and then to the vastness of space, giving us day and night.
My observation............
 The word translated Night by the KJV means more than just darkness. According to Strong's concordance the word Night - (Hebrew: 3915 layil lah'-yil:  properly, a twist (away from the light), i.e. night; ...) implies knowledge of the earth's rotation as the reason for day and night.

 

Edited May 27, 2019 by Pastor Dave

[Pastor Dave]

Moving on ....

 

The Bible tells us........
 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament {atmosphere} in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.  And God made the firmament {atmosphere}, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament {sky} from the waters which [were] above the firmament {sky}: and it was so.  And God called the firmament{sky}  Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second (Age).

Science tells us.......
It is thought that the creation of the Earth's early atmosphere was due to the late buildup of meteorites and comets rich in 'volatile elements', such as hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, which would have vaporized on collision with the Earth. Because of the abundance of hydrogen in the solar nebula, the early atmosphere of the Earth was probably laden with hydrogen and hydrogen rich molecules such as methane, ammonia and water vapour (similar to that on Jupiter and Saturn today). With the subsequent formation of seas , the atmosphere continued to evolve. The Earth's surface and atmosphere gradually cooled. Cooling caused some of the water vapor to condense into clouds, and rains gave rise to the first rivers, lakes, and seas. The global water cycle had begun.  It was like that for billions of years.

My observation............
  The formation of an atmosphere and a water cycle were the next major developments. The atmosphere separates the clouds from the rivers and oceans. This allows continual renewal of the water supply. It is important to note that the word translated as Heaven by the KJ is not speaking of the place we go if we lead a Godly life. According to Strong's concordance the word Heaven - (Hebrew: 8064 shamayim shaw-mah'-yim; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky... ) in this case (and others) simply means sky.

 

[Pastor Dave]

The Bible tells us........
  ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.  And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.  And the evening and the morning were the third (Age).

Science tells us.......
 In those seas, the first primitive forms of life appeared and with the coming of the first marine plants, photosynthesis began.The evolution of the plants and animals most familiar to us occurred only in the last 550 million years. The development of plant communities such as the relatively ancient clubmosses, horsetails, and ferns, are examples of early plantlife. Plants were the first living organisms in the sea and on the land. And the earth filled itself with plants, first came the simpler plants and then the more complicated plants such as the more recent gymnosperms (for example, conifers) and angiosperms (flowering plants).  It was like that for millions of years.

My observation............
  While science makes it clear that the first plants developed in the sea and then later on land, it is interesting to note that the Bible puts plants on earth as the first life forms. In fact the Hebrew word translated grass here may have been better translated as vegetation, which could mean any type of vegetation including sea plants.The Bible also shows a lineage from simpler plants to the more complex plants. Plants were the first life forms on earth.

 

Enough for today, maybe tomorrow I can get to Jonathan's query about the fourth Day.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

Moving past 1:1 let me make a few more observations on what the Bible says about the creation.

 

The Bible tells us........
 .And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.  

Science tells us.......
 Just after the big bang all of the matter in the universe floated in the darkness.. As the Universe expanded, and thus cooled, matter began to coalesce into gas clouds, and then stars and planets. 

My observation............
  Both science and the Bible tell us that right after this universe began neither the earth, nor the sun and stars were instantly there.

The Bible tells us........
 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first (Age).
Science tells us.......
 As our planet rotates on it's axis, the planet is alternately exposed to the sun and then to the vastness of space, giving us day and night.
My observation............
 The word translated Night by the KJV means more than just darkness. According to Strong's concordance the word Night - (Hebrew: 3915 layil lah'-yil:  properly, a twist (away from the light), i.e. night; ...) implies knowledge of the earth's rotation as the reason for day and night.

 

 

In this translation, Spirit gets a capital S.  That's already a theological statement.  Spirit -- one third part of the Trinity.  The word in Jewish translations, is wind.  The Hebrew word is Ruach.  

 

No matter how we dance around it, Genesis has the Earth show up, before the Sun and other stars.  This violates planetary physics.  In addition, Plant life shows up before the Sun.  Trees and grass without Sunlight?  No.  Not even sea plankton.  

 

 

 

The Earth has no firmament.  The Earth is not a snow globe.  

 

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

9 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

Hmmm, where to go with this one?

 

I'm glad to see you are at least open to the possibility of other meanings Dan.

 

Arnold Murry, I remember when I had Dish network as my television provider Arnold Murry had the Shepard's Chapel channel. I tried to watch it a few times as I like to have multiple views to compare. I was never able to watch that channel for very long at a time. Whether it was Pastor Murry himself or other   speakers on the channel I always got the impression that these would be the religious leaders one might find at a ** rally or some other white supremacist gathering. I may have just been tuning in at the wrong times, but it seemed to me that none of the speakers I saw could go a full 30 minutes without making some kind of antisemitic remark.

 

I never got that impression or even a hint that Murray was antisemitic or a white supremacist. There are some untrue attacks on the internet about him, but they are baseless opinions from partial statements made by Murray that were  taken way out of context. The only thing I've seen is that he once suggested that in Genesis 2 we find THE ADAM (in the singular) created. The Hebrew word, "aw-dawm" (rendered "Adam" in English) is from a root word meaning "to show blood in the face" or "of a ruddy complexion". So by insinuating that Adam may have been lightly complected, he was called a racist. The real objection was that the status quo disagreed with many of his teachings, so they launched attacks to discredit his character. Christians can be nasty.

[RevBogovac]

20 hours ago, RabbiO said:

Why?

 

Because being the all-mighty, all-knowing, omnipresent god wanting all people to be united in eternal love and peace; he might want to speak with one voice so there would be no misunderstandings (which are the mother of all F#@&-ups)...? Just a thought...