January - Reading 1

Are the “six days of creation” literal 24-hour periods or are they ages? Were there gaps between the first two to three days?

On day one: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Genesis 1:3 (ESV)
On day four: And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. Genesis 1:16 (ESV)

This has caused great speculation and ridicule concerning the accuracy/believability of the Bible. What are your thoughts on the “light” created three days before the “sun and moon?”

Genesis 1:7 (ESV)
7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse.

What do you think is the “waters that were above the expanse?"

Was God exhausted after the seventh day, thus requiring rest, or was there some other purpose for God’s resting?

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

Very good. Two thumbs up on today's reading!

 

In todays reading Genesis 1:26 what was ment by our image?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:
Are the “six days of creation” literal 24-hour periods or are they ages? Were there gaps between the first two to three days?

On day one: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Genesis 1:3 (ESV)
On day four: And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. Genesis 1:16 (ESV)

This has caused great speculation and ridicule concerning the accuracy/believability of the Bible. What are your thoughts on the “light” created three days before the “sun and moon?”

Genesis 1:7 (ESV)
7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse.

What do you think is the “waters that were above the expanse?"

Was God exhausted after the seventh day, thus requiring rest, or was there some other purpose for God’s resting?

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: John Wells ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi John and all,

I think the MOST important thing we can say regarding this is that God knows how to communicate, and communicate clearly, and we can trust the Bible. It is, and always has been HIS Word, and although He has used men to translate and keep it through the ages, He is still the one who has assumed responsibility for the fact that it has remained trustworthy.

Is there a 'gap' between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. No. Genesis 1:1 states the beginning of the universe as we know it and the second verse centers in on earth immediately and gives us the condition of our planet. It is interesting to note, however, that the Bible already -- at the second verse -- disagrees with the evolutionary idea that the earth was formed of hot gases which accreted, or started 'clinging together'. The Bible says the surface was watery. That means cool. The heating of the interior of the earth happened after that (very probably from the rapid radiodecay of elements -- and, no, 'decay' here is not a term used as a result of sin, but of atomic processes!).

With that said, yes, the days of Genesis are real days of 24 hours each. So what about the sun? The sun is NOT necessary for a 24 hour day. The earth rotating on its axis in relation to a light source is what is necessary.

I know this is not the creation/evolution forum, but there is no way of escaping the subject today. What was the light source for the first few days? Some want to say it was the Lord Himself. But that doesn't hold biblically, for the Lord said "Let there be light," meaning it was not there before -- not physically. So there is the appearance of physical light at creation, for the first time.

As we look out through the universe, we see something called 'quasars.' These are extraordinarily bright objects in the centers of galaxies. They shine brighter than entire galaxies by themselves. Keep in mind that the further we look out, the further back in time we are looking (no matter if you are 'old' or 'young' creationist). What we see with quasars is the incredibly rapid accumulation of material into a black hole, thus resulting in the massive amount of light released as that much material is attracted to it.

At the center of our Milky Way Galaxy is a black hole. It is not a far stretch to understand that the first days of creation involved that same sucking in of such vast amounts of material that a quasar there gave the first light to the newly rotating earth.

That's the science of it. If you are allergic to science, just believe the Bible. That is perfectly safe!

"Let there be light" on the first day may well be referenced by God when He was speaking to Job in Job 38:7. There, the morning stars are said to be singing AND the angels shouting for joy. That "and" marks them as two separate things, or parts of creation, even though stars are often used to represent angels figuratively several times in the Bible.

As for the 'expanse' on day 2 -- this is often referred to as a possible 'vapor canopy.' Some try to say the waters of earth were separated in such a way that the upper waters now surround the entire universe.

Earth did not have enough water for that.

At the other end of the scale, there was, for a long time, the idea that the 'waters above' were responsible for Noah's Flood, but Genesis 7:11 states that there was an explosion of waters from the earth itself at first and this has led some to believe that the almost instant recycling of what extra-biblical stories recall as scalding waters (which, thinking about Yellowstone certainly makes sense), which would have evaporated and rained down again very quickly.

So what about these waters? My personal opinion, given what has been found by spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere, is that there was a vapor canopy, but it was MUCH higher than the clouds we see, which are in our lowest atmospheric level, the troposphere. I think the vapor canopy was in a higher area called the 'thermosphere' which encompasses about a 300 mile thick blanket around the earth above the stratosphere, and above the ozone layer. Evidence of some strange 'water droplets' is still up there, sparking some really strange theories from those who are not remembering the Bible.

This vapor canopy would have at least in part been destroyed by the scalding waters of the Flood disturbing the temperature gradients of our atmospheric layers. Evidence for this would be in the radically reduced age spans of the humans after the Flood. An average age span of about 900 years is in evidence before the Flood, while afterwards it drops to about 400-450 almost immediately. This would indicate that the vapor canopy's main purpose was protection from UV radiation, which is what not only is the main known cause of mutations in our genetic structure, but the main cause of premature aging as well.

And was God exhausted on the seventh day? Hardly! He was setting a pattern for us. See Exodus 20:11. The days, months, and years, as well as the seasons, are determined astronomically, just as God said on day 4. But the week? What is the reason for a week? God did it Himself. The very existence of the seven-day week is evidence of Genesis being true.

A couple of other notes about the first two chapters of Genesis.

1. Please note that all animals and plants were created BY KIND -- meaning they did not evolve one from another. There were distinct original populations, and the variations that these populations produced within themselves is what allows zebras, donkeys, mules, horses, etc. to all be 'horses', or 'equines.'

2. Man is a unique creation, apart from all else. We may have a body FORMED from the elements of the earth (Gen. 2:7), and we have 'nephesh' or the breath of life (also translated 'soul') the same as many of the animals (Gen. 2:7), but we are unique in possessing a spirit, thus being made in the image of God Himself, who, Jesus told the woman at the well in John 4, IS Spirit.

3. Genesis 1 and 2 do NOT contradict each other. For any of you who have seen "The Sound of Music", you might remember the grand panorama of the Austrian Alps which begins during the opening credits. Then the camera zooms down on where the action will start -- with Maria walking through the hills and singing the title song. Genesis 1 and 2 do approximately the same thing: the grand panorama is following by a zooming in on where the action will start.

In line with all that, look at Psalm 1 and know you can trust what God has said. Don't 'sit in the seat of mockers,' but think and ponder what the Lord has said in His Word. You can trust it. You can trust HIM. The Bible is clear about where it is presenting allegories. It is clear about when it is presenting symbols and parables. Genesis is none of those. It is direct and clear truth. God knows how to communicate. The point is, do we know how to listen?

The geneology of Christ in Matthew 1:1-17 is the legal geneology proving His right to the throne of David via inheritance. Inheritance comes through the father's side, and adoption by the father, as Jesus was adopted by Joseph, was as fully legal then for purposes of inheritance as it is today. Please note that in verse 16, Joseph is NOT listed as the father of Jesus, but as the husband of Mary, "of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Acts 1:1-11 is Luke's recounting of the ascension of Jesus into heaven after His resurrection and a short time with the disciples. It ends with the promise that Jesus is coming again from heaven, just as He was seen going up into heaven. This is with the caution from Jesus, however, that it is not up to us to know the times when this will happen.

God bless us all.

 

Matt 1:1-7 – Since these are not complete genealogies (Ahazia, Joash, & Amazia are missing from vs 8 - between Joram & Uzziah), why do you think it is said in verse 17 there are 14 generations in each of the three groups (Abraham to David, David to Babylon, Babylon to Jesus)? I understand the numerical equivalent of David is 14 (dolad - 4, vov -6, dolad - 4 = 14). I wonder if Matthew understood that at the time of the writing. Any ideas?

In His Grace
KayDee

 

I think it is great that Jesus' lineage has a "history", that God uses people. .. that Ruth and Obed got together, that even in the midst of David's lack of splendour, here came Solomon.. .

 

I just love Psalm 1....

 

Genesis - A lady in our Sunday School class once said the earth was created for Lucifer. I had never heard this before; I think it has something to do with the Gap theory. She is quite elderly and has trouble explaining things so was unable to give the Scriptures. I tried to find anything that would even suggest the Lucifer idea but came up with nothing. Has anyone heard this before and know what Scriptures people are using to suggest it?

 

Jesse, did you realize that you were named after the father of King David?!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KayDee:
Matt 1:1-7 – Since these are not complete genealogies (Ahazia, Joash, & Amazia are missing from vs 8 - between Joram & Uzziah), why do you think it is said in verse 17 there are 14 generations in each of the three groups (Abraham to David, David to Babylon, Babylon to Jesus)? I understand the numerical equivalent of David is 14 (dolad - 4, vov -6, dolad - 4 = 14). I wonder if Matthew understood that at the time of the writing. Any ideas?

In His Grace
KayDee<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi KayDee,
I looked up the material you asked about in a couple of places. The NIV Study Bible has the best explanation -- the most complete -- that I found. The footnote for this secton of Matthew referred me to an explanation of biblical genealogies given at their introduction to 1 Chronicles. It's a little long, but I'll type it for you anyway because I think it is interesting:

Analysis of genealogies, both inside and outside the Bible, has disclosed that they serve a variety of functions (with different principles governing the lists), that they vary in form (some being segmented, others linear) and depth (number of generations listed), and that they are often fluid (subject to change).
There are three general areas in which genealogies function: the familial or domestic, the legal-political, and the religious. In the domestic area an individual's social status, privileges and obligations may be refleted in his placement in the lineage (see 1 Chr 7:14-19); the rights fo the firstborn son and the secondary status of the children of concubines are examples from the Bible. In the political sphere genealogies substantiate claims to hereditary office or settle competing claims when the office is contested. Land organization and territorial groupings of social units may also be determined by genealogical reckoning -- e.g., the division of the land among the 12 tribes. In Israel military levies also proceeded along genealogical lines; several of the genealogies in Chronicles reflect military conscription (5:1-26; 7:1-12, 30-40; 8:1-40). Genealogies function in the religious sphere primarily by establishing membership among the priests and Levites (6:1-30; 9:10-34; Neh 7:61-65).
As to form, some genealogicallists trace several lines of descent (segmented genealogies) while other are devoted to a single line (linear genealogies).
Comparison of genealogical lists of the same tribal or family line often brings to light surprising differences. This fluidity of the lists may reflect variation in function. But sometimes changes in the status or relations of social structures are reflected in the genealogies by changes in the relationships of name in the genealogy (see 1:35-42; 6:22,27) or by the addition of names or segments to a lineage (see 5:11-22; 6:27; 7:6-12). The most common type of fluidity in Biblical materials is telescopin, the omission of names fro the list. Unimportant names are left out in order to relate an individual to a prominent ancestor, or possibly to achieve the desire number of names in the genealogy. Some Biblical genealogies, for example, omit names to achieve multiples of 7: For the period from David to the exile, Matthew gives 14 generation (2 times 7), while Luke gives 21 (3 times 7), and the same authors give similar multiples of 7 for the period from the exile to Jesus (Mt 1:1-17; Lk 3:23-38).

I hope that helps a little.

Helen
( I don't have time to proof this, so I hope I typed it relatively clearly....)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KayDee:
Genesis - A lady in our Sunday School class once said the earth was created for Lucifer. I had never heard this before; I think it has something to do with the Gap theory. She is quite elderly and has trouble explaining things so was unable to give the Scriptures. I tried to find anything that would even suggest the Lucifer idea but came up with nothing. Has anyone heard this before and know what Scriptures people are using to suggest it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

She is wrong, KayDee.
Man was given dominion: Genesis 1:28
We fell under Satan's (Lucifer's) sway with sin, and thus he sort of has de facto dominion through sinful man, but the earth is not and will not be his ever.

He appears to have been created to be a guardian cherub of Eden, actually (Ezekiel 28:13-14) and really blew it. What WAS created for him was hell (Matt. 25:41).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FLYROD:
In todays reading Genesis 1:26 what was ment by our image?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a reference to the trinity...we also are in three parts...reference that with I Thess. 5:18 (KJV) Body, soul, and spirit.
da Gina

 

Thanks Helen. I totally agree. I'm just trying to understand where this idea is coming from. I don't see it in Scripture. It seems a lot of "stuff" is put in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. We are going to study Genesis starting this Sunday and I'm sure the topic will come up again.

 

Helen - thank you so much for taking the time to type all that. It's just what I was looking for. I've always been a detail person but sometimes it sure makes things more difficult.

In His Grace
KayDee

 

27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Was the man God created an eternal being?... Just curious on everyones views... Brother Glen

 

Originally posted by FLYROD: In todays reading Genesis 1:26 what was ment by our image?

John 1:2-3 says (refering to Jesus), "He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

God the Father was issuing the commands "Let there be . . ." and God the Son was actually doing the creating. Remember, God the Son was only apart from God the Father in the incarnate form of Jesus Christ. "In the beginning" they are two essences of one God creating all that there is ex nihilo - out of nothing.

 

tyndale1946: Was the man God created an eternal being?

IMO, in his initial unfallen state, yes Adam was created an eternal being. Sin caused God's curse to bring death into the world. When this creation comes to an end, at the Great White Throne Judgment, Jesus will throw "Death and Hades . . . into the lake of fire." (Rev 20:14) Death is defeated and ended. The created state of things are restored to the pre-Fall condition. All believers ARE eternal beings!.

 

Hmm.
Kinda interesting concept...I used to hope that it could possibly mean that the lost would be destroyed once and for all and not suffer eternally until I learned what "everlasting destruction" meant and all that. Still not done with it yet..
John, can you clarify what you meant by "All believers are eternal beings?" Do you think unbelievers have an end?
Gina

 

John IMHO I don't think he was! I will explain my position tomorrow because we don't want to get ahead of the story... Brother Glen