Genesis Brief Overview

  • 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.
Jun 20, 2022
793
181
43
#21
I get very annoyed when people start regurgitating all the liberal nonsense which was debunked ages ago. Everyone in the world has just two options: (1) believe that the Holy Bible is the Word of God and obey it or (2) reject the Bible and face the consequences.
Amen and Agreed 100%
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
3,524
515
113
Oregon
#22
.
Gen 1:1a . . In the beginning God

The very first verse of the first chapter of Genesis doesn't waste words with
an argument to convince skeptic minds that a supreme being exists; rather,
it starts off by candidly alleging that the existence of the cosmos is due to
intelligent design. I mean: if the complexity of the cosmos-- its extent, its
objects, and all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --isn't enough to
convince the critics; then they're pretty much beyond reach.

The creation story wasn't written for the academic community anyway, nor
was it written for people who indulge in debating and perpetual bull sessions
that never get to the bottom of anything, nor for people who regard Genesis
as just another chapter of "Pride And Prejudice" to dissect in a Jane
Austen book club; rather, the creation story was written for the religious
community.

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

Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. He believed that science and
religion complement each other-- science answers questions that religion
doesn't bother to answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot
answer.

For example: theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking understood pretty well
how the cosmos works; but could never scientifically explain why it should
exist at all. Well; in my estimation, the only possible answer to the "why" is
found in intelligent design; which is a religious explanation rather than
scientific. Religion's "why" is satisfactory for most folks. No doubt most
scientists would prefer something a bit more empirical.

Science has been chasing its tail, and pursuing a carrot on the end of a stick,
ever since the 200 inch Palomar telescope was conceived back in the first
half of the 20th century. Astronomer George Ellery Hale envisioned his
monster optic would see all the way to the far side of the universe. Instead it
only saw more universe. And then the Hubble, a.k.a. HST. It too has only
managed to see more universe. Lately the same hopes are in the James
Webb, a.k.a. JWST. But thus far, it too has only seen more universe: same-o,
same-o, same-o.
_
 
Jul 31, 2022
33
8
8
#23
are you a disciple or follower of William Lane Craig?

he also speaks about the "MYTH" and is a big proponent of Evolution, which he tries to fit into the Creation Story of Genesis 1 :unsure:
I’m not an evolution supporter. Not do I follow Craig. Comparative studies between Israel and the ancient near East they were part of shows there was some similarities. It also shows myth wasn’t foreign to the ANE peoples. I don’t want to deny the existence of something that was part of the ANE people simply to defend a version of inerrancy.
 
Jul 31, 2022
33
8
8
#24
Logical fallacy alert. It’s this or that. No. It’s interpretation that’s changed, not my high view of scripture that I’ve changed. I don’t understand how some Christians think their interpretation and view of inerrancy is scripture. It’s as if you and others conflate the two.
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
3,524
515
113
Oregon
#25
.
Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

There are two primary kinds of Days in the first chapter of Genesis. One is a
creation day and the other is a natural day. It's very important to keep those
two kinds of days distinct and separate in our thinking because they are as
unalike as stones and gravel.

Natural days last only until the Sun goes down and night begins; whereas
creation days lasted for as long as the creator needed. In other words: the
evenings and mornings related to creation days aren't solar events. The
terms are merely index flags indicating the end of an unspecified period time
and the beginning of another.

And anyway; when you think about it; a strict chronology of evening and
morning doesn't define day, it defines overnight; viz: darkness. In order to
obtain a full 24-hour day, you'd have to define creation's first Day as a day
and a night rather than an evening and a morning.

Well; thus far Genesis defines Day as a time of light rather than a 24-hour
amalgam of light and dark; plus there was no Sun to cause physical
evenings and mornings till creation's fourth Day so we have to come at this
issue from another angle apart from physical properties.

According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all terra critters on the
sixth Day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other Day did God
create beasts but the sixth.

However; the sciences of geology and paleontology, in combination with
radiometric dating, strongly suggest that dinosaurs preceded humans by
several million years. So then, in my estimation, the Days of creation should
be taken to represent eras rather than 24-hour events. That's not an
unreasonable estimation; for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were.
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six Days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six Days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a stone in the shoe for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the Days
of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so Bible students end up
stumped when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age
of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.

BTW: The era theory is only a second opinion, so to speak. There are other
theories out there to consider; people aren't stuck with this one as if it's the
only possible explanation.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
3,524
515
113
Oregon
#26
.
Gen 1:14-18 . . And God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky
to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the
sky to give light on the earth.

. . . And it was so. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern
the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God
set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the
day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.

At this point in biblical history, "stars" no doubt indicates all luminous
objects in the heavens seeing as how it would be a very long time before
humanity began categorizing some of the stars as planets.

I think it's important to emphasize that in the beginning God "set" the stars
in the sky just as he set the Sun and the Moon in the sky, i.e. celestial
objects didn't arrange themselves all by themselves sans any intelligent
supervision whatsoever; no, they were placed; and not only were they
placed, but also set in motion-- nothing in the entire cosmos is standing still,
though many things appear to be.

According to Gen 1:15, stars illuminated the Earth on the "day" that God
made them.

Well; the only stars whose shine is of any practical use as illumination are
those of the Milky Way; which is estimated 100,000 to 180,000 light years in
diameter. Obviously then; if left entirely up to nature, light from stars
nearest our location in the galaxy would begin dousing the earth with
illumination long before those at the far side.

For example, light from Alpha Centauri takes only about 4½ years to reach
Earth while light from Alpha Orionis (a.k.a. Betelgeuse) takes about 640.
There are quite a few stars whose illumination reaches Earth in less than 50
years. But whether 4½ years, 50 years, 640 years, or 180,000 years; the
time involved is insignificant if we but allow that the days of creation were
eras rather than 24-hour events.

But what's the point of putting all those objects out there in space? Well, for
one thing, they're not only brain teasers; but they're actually quite pretty.
Celestial objects decorate the night sky like the ornamentation people put up
during holidays. The night sky would sure be a bore if it was totally black.
Decorated with stars; the night sky is like a beautiful tapestry, or a celestial
Sistine Chapel.

"The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork."
(Ps 19:2)

The universe makes better sense that way than to try and find some other
meaning for it. Objects in space are simply a magnificent works of art— just
as intriguing, if not more so, than the works of Picasso, Rembrandt,
Michelangelo, Monet, Vermeer, and/or da Vinci —testifying to the genius of
an engineer-artist without peer.

Sadly, a number of very intelligent people-- e.g. Carl Sagan and Neil
deGrasse Tyson --look to the sky for the wrong reasons. Why not just look
to the sky for inspiration instead of only exploration and discovery? What's
so bad about visiting the sky as a Guggenheim or a Louvre displaying your
maker's many-faceted talents?

"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it
evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes
of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived
in what He has made." (Rom 1:19-20)

One of the things "He has made" is mankind. By observing ourselves, we
can know quite a bit about our maker.

Gen 1:27a . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He
created him

Seeing as how Man is a physical being whereas God is a spirit being, then
we are safe to conclude that Man's image and likeness of God isn't as some
sort of doppelganger, rather, Man's characteristics exhibits some of God's,
e.g. He's sentient, self-aware, disciplined, responsible, intelligent, sociable,
verbal, imaginative, artistic, resourceful, reasonable, and conscionable. No
doubt He constructed Man in His image and likeness so that He and Man
could relate on a meaningful level.
_
 
May 28, 2018
3,524
515
113
Oregon
#27
.
Gen 2:8-9 . .The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the
man whom He had formed. And out of the ground he Lord God made every tree grow
that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of
the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 2:15-17 . .Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to
tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the
garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall
not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Gen 2:25 . . And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Although the forbidden tree was unfit for human consumption, it wasn't toxic. We know
that for sure because the man's wife was the first to taste it and when she did, nothing
happened. She went right on totally naked in full frontal exposure without the slightest
shame until the man tasted it; and then they both became uncomfortable in the buff.

Now; the man didn't drop dead to the floor on the very day that he tasted the forbidden
fruit. In point of fact he continued to live 800 more years after the birth of his son Seth.

The first thing to point out is that in order for his maker's warning to resonate in the
man's thinking; it had to be related to death as he understood death in his own day
rather than death as modern Sunday school classes construe it in their day. In other
words: the man's concept of death was primitive, i.e. normal and natural rather than
spiritual.

As far as can be known from scripture, Man is the only specie that God created in His
own image, viz: a creature blessed with perpetual youth. The animal kingdom was given
nothing like it.

That being the case, then I think it's safe to assume that death was common all around
the man by means of vegetation, birds, bugs, and beasts so that it wasn't a strange new
word in his vocabulary; i.e. God didn't have to take a moment and define death for the
man seeing as how it was doubtless a common occurrence in his everyday life.

He saw grasses spout. He saw them grow to maturity, bloom with flowers, and produce
seeds. He watched as they withered, became dry and brittle, and then dissolve into
nothing. So I think we can be reasonably confident that the man was up to speed on at
least the natural aspects of death and fully understood that if he went ahead and tasted
the forbidden fruit that his body would lose its perpetual youth and end up no more
permanent than grass.

In other words; had the man not eaten of the forbidden tree, he would've remained in
perfect health but the very day that he tasted its fruit, his body became infected with
mortality, i.e. he lost perpetual youth and began to age; a condition easily remedied by
the tree of life.

He was supposed to die on the very day he tasted the forbidden fruit and he did; only in
a natural way-- subtly and not readily observed rather than instantly. The thing is:
mortality is a lingering, walking death rather than sudden death, i.e. mortality is slow, but
very relentless: like Arnold Swarzenegger's movie character "The Terminator"--
mortality feels neither pain nor pity, nor remorse nor fear; it cannot be reasoned with nor
can it be bargained with, and it absolutely will not stop-- ever! - until you are thoroughly
deceased.
_