-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Actually, you have it backwards. The Bible was written in Hebrew, including the Pentateuch, and a day is always defined as a 24 hour period beginning at sundown.
So Moses, who was inspired by God to write the Books of Moses, wrote according to what he knew. He wrote the first day was a "day" because it was a 24 hour time period, as it was defined in Hebrew. God did not event the Hebrew language as he was creating the earth. That came much later. When I don't know, before Abraham, I would guess. (And Hebrew is a derviative language, just a cursory glance at the alphabet will tell you that! So a language which "evolved" into being - not directly created by God.)
So Moses use the term "day" exactly the way it is defined in the rest of scripture, unless someone is using it allegorically or metaphorically such as in "one day is as a thousand years" (Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8) which is a metaphor, used poetically and with the knowledge that the actual word "yom" is a 24 hour day. Give or take however much the rotation of the earth has slowed down due to various cosmic causes, including large earthquakes, etc.
The language defines the context of the word "day." The use of the word "yom" before the use of evening and morning, still makes it the same word, unless the text indicates otherwise, which it certainly does not in Genesis 1.
Just to make myself clear - literally!
So Moses, who was inspired by God to write the Books of Moses, wrote according to what he knew. He wrote the first day was a "day" because it was a 24 hour time period, as it was defined in Hebrew. God did not event the Hebrew language as he was creating the earth. That came much later. When I don't know, before Abraham, I would guess. (And Hebrew is a derviative language, just a cursory glance at the alphabet will tell you that! So a language which "evolved" into being - not directly created by God.)
So Moses use the term "day" exactly the way it is defined in the rest of scripture, unless someone is using it allegorically or metaphorically such as in "one day is as a thousand years" (Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8) which is a metaphor, used poetically and with the knowledge that the actual word "yom" is a 24 hour day. Give or take however much the rotation of the earth has slowed down due to various cosmic causes, including large earthquakes, etc.
The language defines the context of the word "day." The use of the word "yom" before the use of evening and morning, still makes it the same word, unless the text indicates otherwise, which it certainly does not in Genesis 1.
Just to make myself clear - literally!
J
The word "day" in Genesis 1 is "yom" in Hebrew, which means, a full, complete day. God "created" (in Hebrew, it's bara) Earth and other living creatures out of nothing.
For each day, He said "Let's..." and it happened. So, how shall we take it from here? When God say something to be done, it can be done within split seconds, so, when He created the sun, moon and stars, it happened in seconds, what was done throughout the day? Some says that the whole 6 days happened in 1 day. What do you think?
For each day, He said "Let's..." and it happened. So, how shall we take it from here? When God say something to be done, it can be done within split seconds, so, when He created the sun, moon and stars, it happened in seconds, what was done throughout the day? Some says that the whole 6 days happened in 1 day. What do you think?
I understand why Flat Earthers would disagree about length of day, thinking in terms of one day lasting a thousand years in the past. I had it figured up earlier today how many trillions of years old the earth would have to be to have had one day lasting even 100 years. My pc calculator took it into a a few hundred powers of ten, beyond my conception. It wasn't worth the time re-figuring. Any takers?
The laws of physics happen to allow for an earth revolution still being in the 24 hour range 140 million years ago had the earth been in existence that far back (not so according to true science). Technically, the days are not measured in terms of "24 hours a day", or 12 hours for day plus 12 for night anywhere in scripture, but are defined as sunrise to sunset, which were within a few minutes of length compared to today.
Further, there has not been a significant change in the pattern of days varying in length according to tilt of the earth's axis, supporting the seasons. The ancient Egyptians marked their sun dials with 12 day hours, and much later Greeks developed the 24 hour concept.
Anyway you look at the facts, that hasn't changed even if an evolutionist and old earther holding to a 4.54 billion year old earth.
Add to the absurdity of some modern people still defying science and mathematics, we come to an opinion apparently that the seventh day rest of God has lasted eons. Yet it was God who commanded observing that day, one day out of each week of days.
The laws of physics happen to allow for an earth revolution still being in the 24 hour range 140 million years ago had the earth been in existence that far back (not so according to true science). Technically, the days are not measured in terms of "24 hours a day", or 12 hours for day plus 12 for night anywhere in scripture, but are defined as sunrise to sunset, which were within a few minutes of length compared to today.
Further, there has not been a significant change in the pattern of days varying in length according to tilt of the earth's axis, supporting the seasons. The ancient Egyptians marked their sun dials with 12 day hours, and much later Greeks developed the 24 hour concept.
Anyway you look at the facts, that hasn't changed even if an evolutionist and old earther holding to a 4.54 billion year old earth.
Add to the absurdity of some modern people still defying science and mathematics, we come to an opinion apparently that the seventh day rest of God has lasted eons. Yet it was God who commanded observing that day, one day out of each week of days.
T
I understand early Genesis to be historical narrative, as is every other part of Genesis (that isn't a chronogenealogy or genealogy). If we believe these chapters are only figurative, how can we trust any other part of the Bible? Who decides when it becomes literal? There needs to be a First Adam for there to be a Last Adam, Jesus, to be our Kinsman-Redeemer. What are we saved from if early Genesis isn't historically true? There's no foundation for the Gospel when Genesis 1 and 2 and 3 and so on, are seen figuratively.
T
I think that's patently ridiculous. Why don't we believe what God reveals in His Word? If the Bible says God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th, that doesn't mean He created everything in 6 days which really equals 1 day. 6 days is 6 days. It's not that difficult. I'm all for critical thinking, in fact, I embrace a well-reasoned faith, but once we distrust one part of the Bible in what it says (and here we're talking about the very beginning of everything!) it's a short slide into distrusting the rest of God's Word and making up all kinds of nonsense to justify self-made beliefs eg. "Did God really say?" Where have I heard that before? The Bible should be read from a historical-grammatical perspective (plainly except where context indicates figurative language etc.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes Indeed
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
1 At first, God created the heavens and the earth.
Most translations translate ’B’reeshiyt’ as “In the beginning”; but, while Hebrew has a definite article “Ha(w)”, it is not used here. Accuracy demands “In beginning” or “At first”.
The Hebrew word ‘bara’, used to signify creation from nothing, occurs in the first verse and is not seen again until the fifth day when God created sea creatures and birds
For classification purposes, science divides living things into Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and species. While the Bible is not specific about how broad “kind” is, when it says that God created life “after its kind”, it is certain that common usage does not allow an interpretation less narrow than Family. This precludes dogs having evolved from anything but dogs; but allows all dogs (foxes, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, hyenas, etc.) to have come from the same ancestral parents. If you are inclined to interpret ‘Kind’ more narrowly than ‘Family’; I have no quarrel with you. There is nothing in the original language to preclude a narrower interpretation, and I believe that in areas where the Bible is not specific, any interpretation which does not depart from the idiom and common usage of the original language is permissible. If we elect to believe something that is inaccurate and which is not essential to salvation then I believe the Lord will correct us in His own time. (“Howbeit, when He the Spirit Of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth....”) ( Jn 16:13) If you elect to interpret ‘Kind’ less narrowly than ‘Family’, you break with idiom and common usage and I believe that failure to treat the Bible as a higher standard of authority puts one’s salvation in question. It is not my role to determine where you will spend eternity; but I am told to be concerned about your salvation when you put your own thoughts above Biblical teaching.
We know from Jn 1:1-3 and Col 1:13-16, that God performed this creative work in the person of Jesus (Yeshua).
See Jn 1:3.
2 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.
2 Sometime later, the earth was a desolation and a waste and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the ..........Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
While there are no errors in the KJV translation of this verse, my alternate reading is equally free from errors and is set forth as another possible reading NOT as a correction.
In any case, it is noteworthy that the waters are already present.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
3 Sometime later, God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
(See note 1:2)
There is nothing to indicate whether God is creating light for the first time or allowing light from a previously created sun to penetrate the atmospheric mists. In any case, the light already had the cycles of evening and morning which are commonly attributed to the sun’s relatively constant position with respect to the earth’s rotation around its polar axis. (See verse 5)
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God distinguished the light from the darkness.
(See note 1:2) To account for the different treatment of ‘and’ here, I see no reason to apply the grammatical notion of subsequence to events within a single creative day or between days that have morning and evening (the 24 hour variety).
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first ..........day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide
...........the waters from the waters.
6 And God said, Let there be a horizon (or an expanse) in the midst of the waters, and
..........let it divide the waters from the waters.
Adding more order to the chaos, God places a horizon between the seas and the atmospheric mists.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament
...........from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
7 And God made manifest the horizon, and divided the waters which were under the
..........horizon from the waters which were above the horizon: and it was so.
The Hebrew word translated “God made” (yaahs ) signifies ‘made’ in the broadest sense and includes such ideas as: called forth, made manifest, allowed to appear or observed. Here again there is nothing in the language to help us to determine whether made is intended (original creation) or made manifest is intended (re-creation). We have a clue in that it seems strange that God would create light apart from the sun when he planned to have a sun. If in this verse, He called forth or allowed to appear a sun which was previously created but hidden and was the source of the light in verse 3; it would be much less problematic. I believe that this is re-creation after a cataclysmic upheaval engendered by the fall of Satan.
(See Is 14:12-15 ) {Return to: Gen 1:16 , Ge 7:11 }
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 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.
Here, with no changes in the translation, we see that the dry land is already present and only needs to be uncovered. This seems to me far more consistent with re-creation than original creation.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas:
...........and God saw that it was good.
As in English, the Hebrew text uses the same word ‘haweretz’ for the planet Earth.
(Ge 1:1) and the dry land (Ge 1:10)
11 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.
Here God says nothing about creating or making plants at this time. Rather He calls upon the earth to bring them forth. Furthermore the antecedent of the pronoun itself is the earth NOT grass, tree, or herb which are presented collectively and can not be represented by a singular pronoun. If this seed is already present in the dry land when it appears, then it seems reasonable that it is a vestige of a previous creation.
Whether you accept the ‘gap theory’ or cling to a more traditional view of creation; it is still the same God who made it all.
12 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.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide The day from
..........the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser
...........light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
(See note 1:7)
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
....18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the
...........darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath
...........life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the
...........waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his
...........kind: and God saw that it was good.
Whether Gen 1:3-31 refers to original creation or re-creation; the use of ‘bara’ here signifies that sea life and birds were created from nothing on the fifth day of this creative epoch.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas,
...........and let fowl multiply in the earth.
See: Lk 1:25.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping
...........thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every
............thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
made Here the verb used is ‘asah’ just as in verse seven yet the use of ‘bara’ in verse 27 against ‘asah’ in this verse suggests that creation is intended here also. In fairness, one might question why we treat ‘asah’ differently here than in verse seven. The fact is that there is linguistically no compelling reason to do so; but there is no compelling reason not to. It comes down to a matter of preference.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have
...........dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle,
...........and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(See note 1:25) Let us consider in what way we are in the image of God. Certainly if I look in the mirror and say that I see God, that would be blasphemy or at least a grave misunderstanding. So the reference must not be to the physical image of God. What characteristics does man have in common with God? Intellect, will, and emotions are the characteristics we share with God. God reasons (Is 1:18), God decides
(2 Chr 25:16), God loves (Jn 3:16), becomes angry (Ex 4:14), and grieves (Ep 4:30). I believe that at creation, man’s intellect, will and emotions were aligned with God’s. The fall, when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, disrupted the alignment; and the indwelling Holy Spirit (when we follow his leadership) restores it.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male
...........and female created he them.
Nothing has been said to this point about the creation of woman; so we have here a clear indication that Chapter Two is not a second creation narrative: but rather a more detailed account of the sixth day of this narrative.
See note: Genesis 2:4.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
...........replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea,
...........and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
While there is certainly a commandment here to procreate, it does not necessarily follow that there is a mandate against contraception after the world was populated. I am not sure whether the Bible gives a specific command on this issue; and until one is convinced that it does, he is free to follow his own conscience. {Return to Is 4:1 }
(I have elected to use he or his to signify unspecified gender (following the old convention) This is not intended as a sleight against women; and I hope it will not be taken as such. I am generally quite sympathetic toward and in agreement with most of the goals of the women’s movement over the past 75 years; but, I am persuaded that the English language was more beautiful before we became overly concerned with political correctness.) 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
In 17th century English, it was common for meat to signify food of any sort. The same word was also used to signify animal flesh to be eaten (as it is used today). The only way to distinguish between the two usages is context, and context is not always clear. In such cases it becomes a matter of preference.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
...........every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have
...........given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
There is a good case here for supposing that God originally intended us all to be vegetarians; and we are still at liberty to follow that lifestyle; but 1Tim 4:1-3 clearly warns against imposing any such restriction on another person.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
...........And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
I am aware that both Merrill F. Unger (Unger’s Bible Dictionary) and the McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia cite a similar gap theory. In any case I have come to the above ‘Gap Theory’ on my own. While I am aware of Unger’s, and McClintock and Strong’s citations, I have not relied on them and to the best of my knowledge my treatment of the subject is original.
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
1 At first, God created the heavens and the earth.
Most translations translate ’B’reeshiyt’ as “In the beginning”; but, while Hebrew has a definite article “Ha(w)”, it is not used here. Accuracy demands “In beginning” or “At first”.
The Hebrew word ‘bara’, used to signify creation from nothing, occurs in the first verse and is not seen again until the fifth day when God created sea creatures and birds
For classification purposes, science divides living things into Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and species. While the Bible is not specific about how broad “kind” is, when it says that God created life “after its kind”, it is certain that common usage does not allow an interpretation less narrow than Family. This precludes dogs having evolved from anything but dogs; but allows all dogs (foxes, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, hyenas, etc.) to have come from the same ancestral parents. If you are inclined to interpret ‘Kind’ more narrowly than ‘Family’; I have no quarrel with you. There is nothing in the original language to preclude a narrower interpretation, and I believe that in areas where the Bible is not specific, any interpretation which does not depart from the idiom and common usage of the original language is permissible. If we elect to believe something that is inaccurate and which is not essential to salvation then I believe the Lord will correct us in His own time. (“Howbeit, when He the Spirit Of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth....”) ( Jn 16:13) If you elect to interpret ‘Kind’ less narrowly than ‘Family’, you break with idiom and common usage and I believe that failure to treat the Bible as a higher standard of authority puts one’s salvation in question. It is not my role to determine where you will spend eternity; but I am told to be concerned about your salvation when you put your own thoughts above Biblical teaching.
We know from Jn 1:1-3 and Col 1:13-16, that God performed this creative work in the person of Jesus (Yeshua).
See Jn 1:3.
2 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.
2 Sometime later, the earth was a desolation and a waste and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the ..........Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
While there are no errors in the KJV translation of this verse, my alternate reading is equally free from errors and is set forth as another possible reading NOT as a correction.
In any case, it is noteworthy that the waters are already present.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
3 Sometime later, God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
(See note 1:2)
There is nothing to indicate whether God is creating light for the first time or allowing light from a previously created sun to penetrate the atmospheric mists. In any case, the light already had the cycles of evening and morning which are commonly attributed to the sun’s relatively constant position with respect to the earth’s rotation around its polar axis. (See verse 5)
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God distinguished the light from the darkness.
(See note 1:2) To account for the different treatment of ‘and’ here, I see no reason to apply the grammatical notion of subsequence to events within a single creative day or between days that have morning and evening (the 24 hour variety).
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first ..........day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide
...........the waters from the waters.
6 And God said, Let there be a horizon (or an expanse) in the midst of the waters, and
..........let it divide the waters from the waters.
Adding more order to the chaos, God places a horizon between the seas and the atmospheric mists.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament
...........from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
7 And God made manifest the horizon, and divided the waters which were under the
..........horizon from the waters which were above the horizon: and it was so.
The Hebrew word translated “God made” (yaahs ) signifies ‘made’ in the broadest sense and includes such ideas as: called forth, made manifest, allowed to appear or observed. Here again there is nothing in the language to help us to determine whether made is intended (original creation) or made manifest is intended (re-creation). We have a clue in that it seems strange that God would create light apart from the sun when he planned to have a sun. If in this verse, He called forth or allowed to appear a sun which was previously created but hidden and was the source of the light in verse 3; it would be much less problematic. I believe that this is re-creation after a cataclysmic upheaval engendered by the fall of Satan.
(See Is 14:12-15 ) {Return to: Gen 1:16 , Ge 7:11 }
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 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.
Here, with no changes in the translation, we see that the dry land is already present and only needs to be uncovered. This seems to me far more consistent with re-creation than original creation.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas:
...........and God saw that it was good.
As in English, the Hebrew text uses the same word ‘haweretz’ for the planet Earth.
(Ge 1:1) and the dry land (Ge 1:10)
11 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.
Here God says nothing about creating or making plants at this time. Rather He calls upon the earth to bring them forth. Furthermore the antecedent of the pronoun itself is the earth NOT grass, tree, or herb which are presented collectively and can not be represented by a singular pronoun. If this seed is already present in the dry land when it appears, then it seems reasonable that it is a vestige of a previous creation.
Whether you accept the ‘gap theory’ or cling to a more traditional view of creation; it is still the same God who made it all.
12 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.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide The day from
..........the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser
...........light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
(See note 1:7)
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
....18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the
...........darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath
...........life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the
...........waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his
...........kind: and God saw that it was good.
Whether Gen 1:3-31 refers to original creation or re-creation; the use of ‘bara’ here signifies that sea life and birds were created from nothing on the fifth day of this creative epoch.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas,
...........and let fowl multiply in the earth.
See: Lk 1:25.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping
...........thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every
............thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
made Here the verb used is ‘asah’ just as in verse seven yet the use of ‘bara’ in verse 27 against ‘asah’ in this verse suggests that creation is intended here also. In fairness, one might question why we treat ‘asah’ differently here than in verse seven. The fact is that there is linguistically no compelling reason to do so; but there is no compelling reason not to. It comes down to a matter of preference.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have
...........dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle,
...........and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(See note 1:25) Let us consider in what way we are in the image of God. Certainly if I look in the mirror and say that I see God, that would be blasphemy or at least a grave misunderstanding. So the reference must not be to the physical image of God. What characteristics does man have in common with God? Intellect, will, and emotions are the characteristics we share with God. God reasons (Is 1:18), God decides
(2 Chr 25:16), God loves (Jn 3:16), becomes angry (Ex 4:14), and grieves (Ep 4:30). I believe that at creation, man’s intellect, will and emotions were aligned with God’s. The fall, when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, disrupted the alignment; and the indwelling Holy Spirit (when we follow his leadership) restores it.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male
...........and female created he them.
Nothing has been said to this point about the creation of woman; so we have here a clear indication that Chapter Two is not a second creation narrative: but rather a more detailed account of the sixth day of this narrative.
See note: Genesis 2:4.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
...........replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea,
...........and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
While there is certainly a commandment here to procreate, it does not necessarily follow that there is a mandate against contraception after the world was populated. I am not sure whether the Bible gives a specific command on this issue; and until one is convinced that it does, he is free to follow his own conscience. {Return to Is 4:1 }
(I have elected to use he or his to signify unspecified gender (following the old convention) This is not intended as a sleight against women; and I hope it will not be taken as such. I am generally quite sympathetic toward and in agreement with most of the goals of the women’s movement over the past 75 years; but, I am persuaded that the English language was more beautiful before we became overly concerned with political correctness.) 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
In 17th century English, it was common for meat to signify food of any sort. The same word was also used to signify animal flesh to be eaten (as it is used today). The only way to distinguish between the two usages is context, and context is not always clear. In such cases it becomes a matter of preference.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
...........every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have
...........given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
There is a good case here for supposing that God originally intended us all to be vegetarians; and we are still at liberty to follow that lifestyle; but 1Tim 4:1-3 clearly warns against imposing any such restriction on another person.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
...........And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
I am aware that both Merrill F. Unger (Unger’s Bible Dictionary) and the McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia cite a similar gap theory. In any case I have come to the above ‘Gap Theory’ on my own. While I am aware of Unger’s, and McClintock and Strong’s citations, I have not relied on them and to the best of my knowledge my treatment of the subject is original.
Actually, you have it backwards. The Bible was written in Hebrew, including the Pentateuch, and a day is always defined as a 24 hour period beginning at sundown.
Thank you for the information. I always wondered what those funny letters were. But actually I read Hebrew, so I did know 
Perhaps you will show me where in the Bible a day is defined as a 24 hour period beginning at Sundown?. Jesus said, 'are there not twelve hours in a day'. He clearly had not read the Scriptures? And you say ALWAYS. That's strange. Elijah fled for forty days and forty nights. Were those days 24 hours long?
You see you are demonstrably WRONG.
But it is NOT defined in Hebrew. It is defined in certain American text books. Moses wrote quite clearly, 'and the light He called day -- and the evening and the morning was of the first day.
If the meaning of a word is defined in a sentence and then that word is used again in that sentence it is normal good practice (apart from among bigots) to assme the word is being used in the same way.
well if I felt like it I could give you the history of proto hebrew, so please don't teach granny to suck eggs. Moses did however give the inspire revelation in Hebrew, and we have nothing else to go by.
will you tell Jesus that He was wrong, or shall I?
There are large numbers of verses in Scripture where 'day' does not mean a 24 hour period. I can prove it often means a period of light. Can yu PROVE otherwise (except by dogmatic statements based on no facts) You are talking in ignorance.
There was no earth when 'day' was defined. So it has nothing to do with the earth.
yes it said that 'day' = light',
yes it still makes it mean a period of light with a morning and an evening. If evening in the first yom does not mean the end of that yom, there was no evening on the first yom. It began in total blackness. You simply glide over the meaning of words without thinking about them. Evening is the end of the day. IT IS NOT NIGHT.
you make very clear that you do not know what you are talking about Just American dogma.
Perhaps you will show me where in the Bible a day is defined as a 24 hour period beginning at Sundown?. Jesus said, 'are there not twelve hours in a day'. He clearly had not read the Scriptures? And you say ALWAYS. That's strange. Elijah fled for forty days and forty nights. Were those days 24 hours long?
You see you are demonstrably WRONG.
But it is NOT defined in Hebrew. It is defined in certain American text books. Moses wrote quite clearly, 'and the light He called day -- and the evening and the morning was of the first day.
If the meaning of a word is defined in a sentence and then that word is used again in that sentence it is normal good practice (apart from among bigots) to assme the word is being used in the same way.
well if I felt like it I could give you the history of proto hebrew, so please don't teach granny to suck eggs. Moses did however give the inspire revelation in Hebrew, and we have nothing else to go by.
will you tell Jesus that He was wrong, or shall I?
There are large numbers of verses in Scripture where 'day' does not mean a 24 hour period. I can prove it often means a period of light. Can yu PROVE otherwise (except by dogmatic statements based on no facts) You are talking in ignorance.
There was no earth when 'day' was defined. So it has nothing to do with the earth.
yes it said that 'day' = light',
yes it still makes it mean a period of light with a morning and an evening. If evening in the first yom does not mean the end of that yom, there was no evening on the first yom. It began in total blackness. You simply glide over the meaning of words without thinking about them. Evening is the end of the day. IT IS NOT NIGHT.
you make very clear that you do not know what you are talking about
Just American dogma.
E
I used to accept the gap theory. However, after much study I have changed my view. and no longer believe in that view.
I take Gen 1:1 - 2 to means what it says, In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth, In the origional state of creation, the earth was void and without form. for the next 6 days, God formed the earth to the state it was in on Day 7, when he rested. but all of these happened in 6 days,'
We can look at it like this, God put all the pieces together in the very begining, all the parts where there already in that original state. So when the word bara is not used, it is not (in my view) showing an origional state following some gap. but a part of the creation puzzle which was there on day 1, which was being put together and formed into a cohesive universe which was created to support live.
It never says God created out of "nothing". He used things not seen. Today we understand that could refer to individual atoms brought together through His thoughts and spoken words. I have to believe that through faith, though I also take by faith what science tells me about the elements. We too are cautioned about the power of our own tongue. It can set on fire the course of nature (Jas 3:6)
Hebrews 11:1-3 (KJV)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
[SUP]2 [/SUP] For by it the elders obtained a good report.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Hebrews 11:1-3 (KJV)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
[SUP]2 [/SUP] For by it the elders obtained a good report.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
T
Letting the END JUSTIFY THE MEANS. What a terrible way of understanding the Word of God! The literal approach has caused a lot of headache, confusion and contention. And God is not the Author of confusion.
These chapters are written for ALL the peoples of the world in thousands of different languages and yet we have to resort to the original Hebrew to continue arguing over their meaning. I feel sorry for the hundreds of millions of Christians who do not have access to all of the study tools of the scholars and have to stick to a non-defensible literal position (not that the ones who have the tools can defend it any better as it is so obvious from this thread and many others like it.)
Stop and think! Why would God make the opening pages of His Book so contentious, hard to understand and divisive?! Couldn't there possibly exist another interpretation that protects the Gospel also?
These chapters are written for ALL the peoples of the world in thousands of different languages and yet we have to resort to the original Hebrew to continue arguing over their meaning. I feel sorry for the hundreds of millions of Christians who do not have access to all of the study tools of the scholars and have to stick to a non-defensible literal position (not that the ones who have the tools can defend it any better as it is so obvious from this thread and many others like it.)
Stop and think! Why would God make the opening pages of His Book so contentious, hard to understand and divisive?! Couldn't there possibly exist another interpretation that protects the Gospel also?
E
Its not hard to understand in any language.
People make it hard to understand by not taking it literally and trying to add things which are not there.
Sometimes the hebrew (or greek) just gets us back on track. Especially the greek, it is a much more meaningful and precise language, especially as compaired to english, which is a lose language, and not so tight.
Originally Posted by thebesttrees
Letting the END JUSTIFY THE MEANS. What a terrible way of understanding the Word of God! The literal approach has caused a lot of headache, confusion and contention. And God is not the Author of confusion.
These chapters are written for ALL the peoples of the world in thousands of different languages and yet we have to resort to the original Hebrew to continue arguing over their meaning. I feel sorry for the hundreds of millions of Christians who do not have access to all of the study tools of the scholars and have to stick to a non-defensible literal position (not that the ones who have the tools can defend it any better as it is so obvious from this thread and many others like it.)
Stop and think! Why would God make the opening pages of His Book so contentious, hard to understand and divisive?! Couldn't there possibly exist another interpretation that protects the Gospel also?
Letting the END JUSTIFY THE MEANS. What a terrible way of understanding the Word of God! The literal approach has caused a lot of headache, confusion and contention. And God is not the Author of confusion.
These chapters are written for ALL the peoples of the world in thousands of different languages and yet we have to resort to the original Hebrew to continue arguing over their meaning. I feel sorry for the hundreds of millions of Christians who do not have access to all of the study tools of the scholars and have to stick to a non-defensible literal position (not that the ones who have the tools can defend it any better as it is so obvious from this thread and many others like it.)
Stop and think! Why would God make the opening pages of His Book so contentious, hard to understand and divisive?! Couldn't there possibly exist another interpretation that protects the Gospel also?
Tell me, EG. Are you an expert in Hebrew and Greek? If not how can it get you back on track? By manoeuvring it to suit yourself?
But you are right. YOU certainly add things which are not there.
Last edited:
E
they were days. period.
The period of time from sunrise to sunset has been the same since the begining of time, DO you not realise how inticrite our universe is, if things change even in a minor way, life on earth ceases to exist.
So what, yuo have the earth turning so slow in genesis 1 that the period of light lasted what we would consider hundreds or thousands of years. That is slow. so much for gravity!
The period of time from sunrise to sunset has been the same since the begining of time, DO you not realise how inticrite our universe is, if things change even in a minor way, life on earth ceases to exist.
So what, yuo have the earth turning so slow in genesis 1 that the period of light lasted what we would consider hundreds or thousands of years. That is slow. so much for gravity!
There was no earth on yom 1. The sun did not determine days (light periods) until yom 4. Light and darkness, days and nights, as spoken of in Genesis were dictated solely by God, not by the earth turning. But you are so blind that you cannot see,
How does Genesis 1 define days? As a period of light . That is the FACT