Literal reading of Genesis 1&2

  • 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.

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
779
113
#81
Light MUST be the first thing in creation order and this is very scientific. Darkness is like energy in the opposite direction and for you to have anything, you must have energy that overcomes darkness and this energy is light. From light we can now get elements/atoms from which we get substance used for every other thing.
I said that in history, Genesis was seen in many different ways. And this statement is true.

Which way of reading the Genesis is "the right one" is an ongoing discussion.
 

Deuteronomy

Well-known member
Jun 11, 2018
1,268
1,258
113
63
#82
Thats not true. Many of them in history saw it and tried to solve it in various ways. For example to solve problem with light before sun, some said that "light" are angels, not literal light. Etc.

For example Augustin, Clement of Alexandria, Origen did not read Gen 1 as calendar days.

"Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time. In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution"
https://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/early-interpretations-of-genesis

Allegorical explanation of Genesis was quite common.
Hi Trofimus, I was speaking specifically of the contradiction, or to be more exact, the fact that there is no contradiction where you believe there is (Gen 1:24, 26-27 ~vs~ Genesis 2:19). Whether Genesis is a lie/deception/fable/myth, a combination, or the truth of God as it is written, does not change that fact.

We'll talk about the rest if you'd like to, including St. Augustine's beliefs, but I still have more to say first in reply to that last post. Unfortunately, that will need to wait until later today.

~Deut
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
486
118
43
#83
Red lines could also indicate free fall rather than expansion, i'm not an expert in this but the evidence provided is not convincing.
I don't believe that what we are seeing in sky is history because i don't believe light travels- just because it has a source (point A) and is felt/seen some distance from the source (point B) doesn't mean it travels.

Light is just a field just like darkness is a field and the size or intensity of the field depends with the amount energy in the source, no one ever thinks darkness travels.

When something is so far away from you in distance, it takes time for it to appear to you. Even in our immediate world, people in the USA cannot see what is happening in Europe even if the earth did not rotate. Prime example was this last solar eclipse. Residents of the USA watched the eclipse take place in Europe hours before they actually witnessed it themselves in their real time.

Do you see the stars?
To fly to anyone of those stars literally takes years. Even the closest star we see would take 10 years (3,650 days) to get to it. Now, if it takes a person 10 literal years to get to a star, the light we see nightly from that star IS NOT in real time. It has traveled 10 actual years to get to us, just like it would take 10 literal years to get to that star.

So NO, light from a star IS NOT just a field. It is an existence that has taken literal years for us to see.

So when you look at the stars next time you have the opportunity, many of those stars traveled (have existed) 100, some 1,000 times your age (I am 49 x 100 = 4,900 years : 49 x 1,000 = 49,000 years) just so you can see it.
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#84
Light is just a form of electromagnetism. The terminology that is used in the Bible is given to try to explain science, unscientifically. So Spirit, pneuma, we all try to conceptualize, but can’t, because instead of attempting to understand what was written, we litereralize it based on our definition of the word. People’s unwillingness to read the Bible metaphorically, won’t understand it.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
4,512
833
113
#85
When something is so far away from you in distance, it takes time for it to appear to you. Even in our immediate world, people in the USA cannot see what is happening in Europe even if the earth did not rotate. Prime example was this last solar eclipse. Residents of the USA watched the eclipse take place in Europe hours before they actually witnessed it themselves in their real time.

Do you see the stars?
To fly to anyone of those stars literally takes years. Even the closest star we see would take 10 years (3,650 days) to get to it. Now, if it takes a person 10 literal years to get to a star, the light we see nightly from that star IS NOT in real time. It has traveled 10 actual years to get to us, just like it would take 10 literal years to get to that star.

So NO, light from a star IS NOT just a field. It is an existence that has taken literal years for us to see.

So when you look at the stars next time you have the opportunity, many of those stars traveled (have existed) 100, some 1,000 times your age (I am 49 x 100 = 4,900 years : 49 x 1,000 = 49,000 years) just so you can see it.
I don't think light travels, for light to travel you have to assume that darkness is nothing.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,322
5,718
113
#86
When something is so far away from you in distance, it takes time for it to appear to you. Even in our immediate world, people in the USA cannot see what is happening in Europe even if the earth did not rotate. Prime example was this last solar eclipse. Residents of the USA watched the eclipse take place in Europe hours before they actually witnessed it themselves in their real time.

Do you see the stars?
To fly to anyone of those stars literally takes years. Even the closest star we see would take 10 years (3,650 days) to get to it. Now, if it takes a person 10 literal years to get to a star, the light we see nightly from that star IS NOT in real time. It has traveled 10 actual years to get to us, just like it would take 10 literal years to get to that star.

So NO, light from a star IS NOT just a field. It is an existence that has taken literal years for us to see.

So when you look at the stars next time you have the opportunity, many of those stars traveled (have existed) 100, some 1,000 times your age (I am 49 x 100 = 4,900 years : 49 x 1,000 = 49,000 years) just so you can see it.
I would encourage you to spend a little time on YouTube listening to Dr. John Hartnett and Dr. Jason Lisle. They have some fascinating views on the subject of light speed.
 

Yahshua

Senior Member
Sep 22, 2013
1,638
327
83
#87
Some people read Genesis 1 and 2 literally and base various teachings on it (flat earth, solid dome, young earth). Basically, they usually come with some kind of scientific conspiracy against God to keep themselves in their faith.

I have some biblical questions about this view:

1. Gen 2:4 says it was all created in 1 day - so, was it 6x 24h days or 1 day?
2. Universe, the planet and covering waters and angels were created before the first day?
3. In Gen 1, man was created after animals, in Gen 2, man was created before animals. Literal days order does not seem to work, there.
4. In Gen 2, Adam had to name all animals and got lonely (impossible to happen in 24 hours)
Hmm.

1. No Gen 2:4 doesn't literally say it was all created in "1" day (i.e. "ehad" Yom). It literally says in "the" day (i.e. "be" Yom); in the day that Yah made them, as correctly rendered in the KJV. It's a figure of speech marked by a definite article, just like when we read Yah warning Adam not to eat of the forbidden tree:

"...for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die."

It doesn't say "for in 1 day...you shall surely die", but marks the particular day the event occurs:

- What day will Adam die? THE particular day on which he eats of the forbidden tree.

- What day was earth & heaven created? THE particular day on which Yah made the things of heaven and earth.


2. Sure. Notice that none of the days are marked at their "beginning" but marked at their "ending", AFTER the events of the particular day take place. Yah determined when each day would end. While man follows the time of day, the time of day follows Yah.

There are at least two instances I can remember in scripture where the day either stopped or reversed at Yah's command: the day stood still during Joshua's campaign into the promised land in Joshua 10:13; and the day moved backwards as a sign to king Hezekiah in 2 kings 20:1-11.

If we're going to argue against a literal interpretation of creation we have to also address the literal interpretation of both of these events in scripture since each involves time manipulation.


3. The account doesn't literally say "Adam was created before the animals". It literally gives no indications of time or words used for sequence (i.e. first, next, then, ...etc). The only thing we can glean from chapter 2 with regard to time/sequence is that Woman was the very last creature made after everything else.


4. It's literally not determined how long it took Adam to name all of the animals. We're just told that he did. So we can't use non-literal speculation (that Adam performed this task in 24 hours) as proof to argue against a literal reading.
 
L

LPT

Guest
#88
Hmm.

1. No Gen 2:4 doesn't literally say it was all created in "1" day (i.e. "ehad" Yom). It literally says in "the" day (i.e. "be" Yom); in the day that Yah made them, as correctly rendered in the KJV. It's a figure of speech marked by a definite article, just like when we read Yah warning Adam not to eat of the forbidden tree:

"...for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die."

It doesn't say "for in 1 day...you shall surely die", but marks the particular day the event occurs:

- What day will Adam die? THE particular day on which he eats of the forbidden tree.

- What day was earth & heaven created? THE particular day on which Yah made the things of heaven and earth.


2. Sure. Notice that none of the days are marked at their "beginning" but marked at their "ending", AFTER the events of the particular day take place. Yah determined when each day would end. While man follows the time of day, the time of day follows Yah.

There are at least two instances I can remember in scripture where the day either stopped or reversed at Yah's command: the day stood still during Joshua's campaign into the promised land in Joshua 10:13; and the day moved backwards as a sign to king Hezekiah in 2 kings 20:1-11.

If we're going to argue against a literal interpretation of creation we have to also address the literal interpretation of both of these events in scripture since each involves time manipulation.


3. The account doesn't literally say "Adam was created before the animals". It literally gives no indications of time or words used for sequence (i.e. first, next, then, ...etc). The only thing we can glean from chapter 2 with regard to time/sequence is that Woman was the very last creature made after everything else.


4. It's literally not determined how long it took Adam to name all of the animals. We're just told that he did. So we can't use non-literal speculation (that Adam performed this task in 24 hours) as proof to argue against a literal reading.
I enjoyed the read, since it appears your are quite knowledgable in translations of words help me to understand the word breath and how it was used, for in my mind I view a breath as plural and breaths as multiple

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
 
L

LPT

Guest
#89
From what I've read the words Morning and evening orgin comes from boqer and ereb


also 'ereb and boqer appear in Daniel 8:14,


Danial
8:14 "And he saith unto me, Till evening -- morning two thousand and three hundred, then is the holy place declared right."

And the Septuagint, an early translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek adds the word days.
"14 And he said to him, Evening and morning there shall be two thousand and four hundred days; and then the sanctuary shall be cleansed."
 

Yahshua

Senior Member
Sep 22, 2013
1,638
327
83
#90
I enjoyed the read, since it appears your are quite knowledgable in translations of words help me to understand the word breath and how it was used, for in my mind I view a breath as plural and breaths as multiple

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
From what I know...

Breath = Ruach (Heb.), understood as - and also translated several places to mean - spirit and/or wind. As far as the Hebrew concept, everything is real not ethereal (like with Greco-Roman thought). So Ruach is considered "the unseen force that moves or acts upon an object", hence its relationship to wind.

Ezekiel 37:9 (kjv)
Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe [naphash = blow] upon these slain, that they may live.

Each of the bold words above are "Ruach".

----

If we move onto the new testament we see this same relationship even though Greek words are used:

John 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit:

Breath = Spirit


John 3:5-8
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit. Do not be amazed that I said, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit

Breath = Ruach = Wind = Spirit.

So we can see that Psalm 33:6 perfectly matches the events of the genesis 1:2:

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit [Ruach = wind = breath] of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath [Ruach = Wind = Spirit] of his mouth.

----

If we go further, scripture also says Christ is the Word of Yah and that the world was made by him. Well what's carried on the breath of a person? Their words.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Where is the breath and words of a person contained? In their bosom.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
 
L

LPT

Guest
#91
From what I know...

Breath = Ruach (Heb.), understood as - and also translated several places to mean - spirit and/or wind. As far as the Hebrew concept, everything is real not ethereal (like with Greco-Roman thought). So Ruach is considered "the unseen force that moves or acts upon an object", hence its relationship to wind.

Ezekiel 37:9 (kjv)
Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe [naphash = blow] upon these slain, that they may live.

Each of the bold words above are "Ruach".

----

If we move onto the new testament we see this same relationship even though Greek words are used:

John 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit:

Breath = Spirit


John 3:5-8
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit. Do not be amazed that I said, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit

Breath = Ruach = Wind = Spirit.

So we can see that Psalm 33:6 perfectly matches the events of the genesis 1:2:

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit [Ruach = wind = breath] of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath [Ruach = Wind = Spirit] of his mouth.

----

If we go further, scripture also says Christ is the Word of Yah and that the world was made by him. Well what's carried on the breath of a person? Their words.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Where is the breath and words of a person contained? In their bosom.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
I like that my friend thanks for the info... :)
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
486
118
43
#92
I don't think light travels, for light to travel you have to assume that darkness is nothing.

In reality, it does not travel. It exists in its current location which then takes years to reach us. Or a better way of saying it, It shines and then however far away it is from us takes that amount of time for us to finally see it.

Let's say a new star is born and begins to shine on today's date (8-16-18). We won't actually see it shine until right away. We will see the light when time has passed that equates how far away it is from us. And when we do finally see it, it could literally be 10 to 1,000 years old by then depending how far away it is. So basically, if a star is born today, we may never actually see it in our lifetime.
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
486
118
43
#93
I would encourage you to spend a little time on YouTube listening to Dr. John Hartnett and Dr. Jason Lisle. They have some fascinating views on the subject of light speed.


Speed of light in light years is something completely different then what I am discussing. I am using basic logistics of distance verses time. But I definitely will check them out!! Thank You!!
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
4,512
833
113
#95
Speed of light in light years is something completely different then what I am discussing. I am using basic logistics of distance verses time. But I definitely will check them out!! Thank You!!
This is what i said is circular reasoning. The speed of light is fully dependent on time and time is fully dependent on Earth's movement because earth is the clock. You want to use the clock (earth) to get time and you also want to use a rate generated by that time, to date the clock (earth)- it doesn't work.

Light travel.
I don't have to agree with everything science says and more on this issue of light. The basic assumption is that light from a source at point A and its effects can be felt at a distance at point B, so it must have traveled. But if you look at it in the concept of a field then nothing travels- light and darkness are fields and light being an energy field in which darkness is overcome. So basically light and darkness are the same but in opposite ends of the spectrum.

Q1. If light travels, why and how does it pass through a very thick clear glass (1 m) and emerges on the other side in a straight line (without much interference) but can not pass through a very thin fabric (0.5mm)?
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
11,802
1,056
113
#96
Light MUST be the first thing in creation order and this is very scientific. Darkness is like energy in the opposite direction and for you to have anything, you must have energy that overcomes darkness and this energy is light. From light we can now get elements/atoms from which we get substance used for every other thing.

God created the universe (all the planets to include the Sun )on day one by the glory of His presence or hidden glory light and darkness . Establishing twelve hour of darkness and 12 hours of light. God is Light.

Day two
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.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. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Genesis 1:6-7

Having established the firmament. The light source was switched from the glory of His presence to the representation of His glory "creation" the Sun and Moon

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:And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 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. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 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. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 14-19

The speed of light is in respect to the Sun which God switched on in the twinkling of the eye on the fourth day (not the glory of God ). God's glory exists outside of time, as supernatural, no beginning.

In the new heavens and earth as it was for the first three day the glory of God will be that light forever more . The Sun and the mon the temporal have served there temporal purpose.

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.2 Corinthians 4:18

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.Revelation21:23
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
11,802
1,056
113
#97
Thats not true. Many of them in history saw it and tried to solve it in various ways. For example to solve problem with light before sun, some said that "light" are angels, not literal light. Etc.
I would offer. God's glory as the light did come before the Sun.

As far as angels as messengers God did you them as a representative glory.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Lucifer meaning “bearer of light” or “morning star,” rebelled against God and fell from the place of honor .As sons of God that are led by the Spirit of God that did not leave the first place of habitation

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

The difference between that dark messenger and Christ as the Holy Spirit... is not only is he a represented as a representation of the glory of God but is the brightness, as the glory. Just ss the Sun is the brightness of the lesser light the Moon .So does the Son reflect the glory of Father not seen .

As Jesus replied .The father and I are one

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Revealtion 22:16

Both the Bright light and the reflection .Unlike other messenger a reflection as representative glory.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,322
5,718
113
#98
Speed of light in light years is something completely different then what I am discussing. I am using basic logistics of distance verses time. But I definitely will check them out!! Thank You!!
"Light years" is a unit of distance; speed of light is velocity, which is distance divided by time. Both are inherent to the discussion of the time between the generation of light from a source and the observation of that light on earth.

For those who haven't checked out the videos, the gist is this: the speed of light in only one direction cannot be measured. That limitation makes it absolutely impossible to say with certainty that the light from distant stars takes "X" amount of time to get to earth. There are other theories (covered by Hartnett) which also may explain the issue.
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
486
118
43
#99
light year
[ˈlīt ˈˌyi(ə)r]

NOUN

astronomy
a unit of astronomical distance equivalent to the distance that light travels in one year, which is 9.4607 × 1012 km (nearly 6 trillion miles).


speed of light
• SPEED OF LIGHT (noun) The noun SPEED OF LIGHT has 1 sense: 1. the speed at which light travels in a vacuum; the constancy and universality of the speed of light is recognized by defining it to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. Familiarity information: SPEED OF LIGHT used as a noun is very rare.



As you can plainly see, in both definitions according to science, neither a light year nor speed of light have any relationship to the earth spinning on its axis. In fact, both have no relation to earth at all UNLESS... both are being related to earth by distance of travel (but still, both are defined on the basis of its own existence, not on relationship to the earth).
 

Hungry

Senior Member
Nov 26, 2012
1,962
547
113
I honestly can’t believe how foolish we all are. If someone has to be so emphatically convinced down to the specifics of how light can exist or be seen on “day one” to validate the authority of scripture, than they are obviously looking for reasons not to believe. It’s a story! It doesn’t have to be scientifically proven! Either you accept that God is Creator, or you don’t. What’s really the argument here is whether or not we can trust the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. People go at length debating theoretical physics in an attempt to convince others, or themselves that the Bible is inerrant. Moses was writing to shepherds, not Stephen Hawking. They didn’t conceptualize light in a vacuum, the vastness of the universe, gravitation, nuclear forces and electromagnetism. They just wanted to believe that the God that they are following to the Promised Land is capable of getting them there. We too want to believe so we argue, in an effort to keep every card in these card houses we build, supported in faith, from falling.

Does any of the time we spend here expounding our knowledge and sharing our wisdom bring anyone closer to the Almighty? For anyone who wants to believe, no proof is needed and anyone who doesn’t, no amount of proof is enough. A better question to ponder is how the faith of a believer is instrumental in physically altering reality. As well how the collective faith of the church can change a nation. I don’t have to understand the flow of electrons, on a copper wire, the induction of a current making AC power or the incandescence of filament to make a lightbulb function. I just have to know how to flip the switch. God taught us how to flip the switch. It’s time we use it. Instead of dividing the Body with information that only God can know and understand, we should be uniting in love and prayer. The time is short, Christ is coming.