Old Universe/Recent Biosphere

Marcia,

I don't need "stars" to be literal in Job 38 to prove Gray's interpretation.

But Michelle and others do need "stars" to be figurative to prove their interpretation, because if the stars are literal, it would disprove their intepretation of day four(stars already existing while the earth was wrapped in thick clouds of darkness).

I also know all about parallelism in Hebrew poetry. But that is only one piece of evidence in determining context. The scientific content of Job 38 also needs to be considered.

Could stars be figurative in Job 38? Sure. Could the stars be literal stars? Sure.

Now when every reference to "stars" in the OT is literal, and when the content of Job 38 is God explaining to Job scientific facts about the universe, I would be hesitant to simply call it a Hebrew literary device. It might be, but I would be very cautious before I went in that direction.

Can stars sing and angels shout for joy and not be the same things. Yep. And by the way, what has been translated angels in English is "sons of God" in Hebrew. Do we really know what "sons of God" means?

What I'm suggesting is this, don't be so confident that your understanding of what the Hebrew text means is right, especially based on the literay device of Hebrew parallelism.

 

Michelle,

With all due respect and toleration, please don't debate with me concerning your views of the English Bible.

Thanks.

 

Michelle,

This is my last post to you. I've asked you politely not to debate with me over your heretical views concerning the English Bible.

This thread should be of interest to those who have questions regarding the age of the universe. I'm sorry that you have to hi-jack it with your KJO heresy.

It took me a while to realize why you rejected "sky" and "land." You are operating from a totally different view of Scripture which makes discussion impossible.

Therefore, I again ask you not to debate your views of Scripture with me on this thread. In fact, I wish you wouldn't post at all on this topic, because it gets in the way of serious discussion. We got your point. The English words say what God meant. OK? We get it. We also disagree.

I would encourage you to start your own thread on the English meaning of the creation account.

 

Good.

Back to a normal discussion of exegesis.

Let the games begin.

 

Phillip,

The idea of clouds wrapped around the sea that covered the earth resulting in thick darkness comes from Job 38:4-9.

I believe based on Genesis 1:2 and Job 38:4-9 that the earth's land mass (foundation) was covered in water and clouds causing thick darkness.

It's my opinion that there would have been no air on the planet until God separated the waters creating the expanse that he called "sky." But that's just speculation.

 

Trotter,

I was exagerating to prove a point. Those who often claim literalness drop it as soon as it doesn't help their point of view.

Please read my post to Charles Meadows.

As for personal opinion, you come on mighty strong yourself.

As to the Words of Scripture: God himself defines the meaning of words in Genesis 1:8, 10. God is also the one quoting the poetry in Job 38, a significant scientific treatise on the facts of the universe.

It seems you are not able to grasp that fact.

[ November 09, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

Good post, Michael.

Leupold and Keil-Delitzsch both answer this question.

I don't agree with everything they say. And for the record, both believe the sun was created on day four, which I think is problematic. I don't believe you can have evening and morning, a literal 24 hour day, without the earth revolving around the sun. So I believe that the sun, moon, stars, solar system, was created in its completeness out of nothing in verse one.

Keil-Delitzsch:

Chap. i.1. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

"This sentence which stands at the head of the records of revelation, is not a mere heading, nor a summary of the history of the creation, but a declaration of the primeval act of God, by which the universe is called into being." p. 46

"The statment, that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, not only precludes the idea of the eternity of the world a parte ante, but shows that the creation of the heaven and the earth was the actual beginning of all things." p. 47

"the heaven and the earth." "This expression is frequently employed to denote the world, or universe, for which there was no single word in the Hebrew language." p. 47

Now Keil-Delitzsch take this to mean that the universe was created out of nothing at verse one but was organized or developed during the six days of creation. Thus, the universe existed without the sun, moon, and stars for three days.

I interpret it to mean the universe was developed in totality. Picture the completed universe in your mind except for the earth's biosphere. The earth was a barren and empty planet without life, covered in water and darkness because it was wrapped in thick clouds(as KeithS has pointed out, we don't really know what the clouds were made out of). If the universe was complete at verse one, and verse two describes the condition of planet earth, then the sun already existed, the earth already orbited, but there was no evening or morning, from the vantage point of earth, because light had yet to reach the earth's surface. The earth is in pitch darkness, though there is a stunning universe beyond the water-covered/cloud-covered earth.

In verse three, "Let there be light" is not the command to create light out of nothing, but rather the command to let light reach the earth's surface.

Now to address your question of "evening and morning."

Keil-Delitzsch:

"The first day did not consist of the primeval darkness and the origination of light, but was formed after the creation of light (I would say the filtering through of light to earth) by the first interchange of evening and morning. The first evening was not the gloom, which possibly preceded the full burst of light as it came forth from the primary darkness, and intervened between the darkness and full, broad daylight (Again, I would argue for filtered sunlight, not broad daylight). . . . It follows from this, that the days of creation are not reckoned from evening to evening, but from morning to morning. The first day does not fully terminate till the light returns after the darkness of night." p. 51

In other words, the light appears in verse three, then evening comes, and then morning comes again. Therefore a full 24 hour day is described in Genesis 1:5 as "And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day."

From morning (the first appearance of light) to evening and then back to morning marks a full day. Thus, "Let there be light" and there was light and "There was evening, and there was morning" would be the proper way to describe a full day.

Light starts the day, evening and then morning again complete the day.

If the sun was not already created in verse 1 and was therefore not the source of light for the revolving planet in verse 3, something is out of wack.

Keil-Delitzsche try to solve the problem, but I think you can see the difficulty one creates if one believes the sun is not created until day four.

Keil-Delitzsche:

"The only way in which we can represent it to ourselves, is by supposing that the light called forth by the creative mandate, "Let there be," was separated from the dark mass of the earth, and concentrated outside or above the globe, so that the interchange of light and darkness took place as soon as the dark chaotic mass began to rotate, and to assume in the process of creation the form of a spherical body. The time occupied in the first rotations of the earth upon its axis cannot, indeed, be measured by our hour-glass; but even if they were slower at first, and did not attain their present velocity till the completion of our solar system, this would make no essential difference between the first three days and the last three, which were regulated by the rising and setting of the sun." p. 52

Two interpretations are possible:

Either the earth, covered in water and darkness, was suspended in a partially created solar system without light from any source, including the sun, and therefore was not revolving around anything for three days.

Or

The earth was orbiting the sun in a completed solar system, but was without light because it was covered in water and clouds resulting in thick darkness.

The first interpretation is wracked with all sorts of problems. When light appeared, how was it separated to create "day" and "night"? Was the earth revolving? If so, where was the light source located that was created? How did the light only eminate from one location?

But if interpretation two is correct, the problems go away. If God created a complete solar system in verse one, the problem of rotation and light and darkness are solved. The sun already exists. The sun already gives off its light. The earth remains in complete darkness because of thick clouds (Job 38:4-9). Now when God says, "Let there be light" in verse three, the clouds thin and light reaches the earth's surface for the very first time. Thus morning, evening and back to morning complete the first day. The sun, moon, and stars, weren't created on day four, they were appointed on day four to govern the day and night. The sky cleared completely and the sun, moon, and stars were seen for the very first time from the vantage point of earth. The Hebrew word "asa" can be translated "did, made, appoint, fashioned, etc." There are 72 different ways in English that "asa" has been translated. It does not have to mean "made" in the sense of creating.

Interpretation two, also allows for verses one and two to be part of day one, if you interpret the hovering to be accomplished in a short time.

Thus:

God creates the universe completely (including the earth's solar system) in verse one. God describes the earth in verse two. And God thins the clouds letting there be light in verse three. All of this on day one.

Or, if the Holy Spirit hovers indefinately, God creates the universe completely in verse one and describes the sterile planet earth in verse two. God's Spirit then hovers indefinately. And then God starts the six days of making the earth's biosphere with the command to "Let there be light."

Either way, the interpretation is sound and does not distort the Scriptures.

[ November 10, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

Hi Phillip,

I retract my thoughts on air.

Maybe the clouds were composed of water and air and vapor. Maybe the clouds were hydrogen clouds. I don't know. But if air wasn't created in Genesis 1:1-2, perhaps it was created when God made the expanse. That's all that I was saying.

Phillip, I don't have a problem with a person interpreting Genesis 1:1-5 as day one. But please think it through in terms of the interpretation. The most critical idea is what did God create when the Bible says, "heaven and earth."

If it is the complete universe and the earth's solar system, you will have gone a long way in resolving tens of problems that cannot be resolved otherwise.

verse one - God creates the universe completely.
verse two - God describes the planet earth's foundation
verse three - God focuses on making earth habitable for life by fashioning the earth's biosphere
verse 26 - God makes man in his image.

Notice the focus.
Universe
Planet earth
Earth's biosphere
Man.

The questions man has always asked: "Who am I?, How did I get here?, Where am I going?"

Genesis has the answers!

God created the universe.
God created the planet earth.
God created the earth's biosphere.
God created me.

Thanks for the discussion.