ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Is the Genesis account of literal 6 days just a myth ?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Otangelo


Admin

Is the Genesis account of literal 6 days just a myth ?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2683-is-the-genesis-account-of-literal-6-days-just-a-myth

Claim: " I don't see what is untrue in Genesis 1 if not taken literally ". The claim that God created in six real normal days, and then rested. Then: " science teaches the earth is not 6000 years! "
Response: Exactly what sense does would it make for God to replace the myths of pagan religions with another myth???
So the whole exercise and gymnastics to remove Genesis from a literal historical context, and send it to the orbit of " allegory" and " myth ', and that Genesis just teaches spiritual truth, is, because of Science first ??!!! 

I put my faith in the word and author of the universe FIRST, might science adapt to it !! If science disagrees, scientists are not doing their job and science up to the task. Once they are in accordance with a literal Genesis, i buy their account !!

So - am overall not convinced that your view is sound. Namely that the only goal by God of the Genesis account was to teach the theological and spiritual truth, but not astronomy, biology, and geology, and that  Genesis is just a " myth", or allegorical, and the days are not " real " normal days. If that were so, we are granted to believe anything on the matter, left alone by God of pursuing an understanding of who we are, where we came from, and how. Fundamental questions, which only the author of the universe and life can answer with absolute certainty and truthfulness would remain unanswered.

Why would he not have told us real facts, but an allegorical "myth"? One more besides the ones already extant amongst the surrounding ANE people? Just not to make its message unintelligible to its first readers? Why would they not have had the intellectual ability to understand any account, just not in scientific terms? Seem not to be a good reason to me.

Furthermore, that opens a wormhole of any kind of interpretation, assertions,  and diverging understandings of origins. Exodus 20.11 reaffirms literal 6 days. According to Jesus, Adam and Eve were historical figures, the first human beings made adult, at the sixth day of creation.

It matters little what may be the literal meaning of the word translated "firmament." Although regarded generally among the Jews as signifying a solid firmament, it is far from certain that Moses, who was versed in all Egyptian learning, so considered it.

If the Jews up to a certain time had a poor or false understanding of the shape of the earth, the Bible cannot be blamed, nor did that any harm to them. As God wanted a progression of revelation of spiritual truth, he intended that it would also be so in terms of scientific inquiry and understanding. He handed it over to us to discover his amazing creation in a gradual manner.

i am coming out more convinced and motivated to hold to the view, that the Bible teaches a literal six day creation, a few thousand years back.

Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Book of Genesis page 73 
One more point needs to be discussed before dealing with the actual six days of creation relative to the Hebrew word for “day,” which is yom. People who want to fit Genesis 1 into evolutionary and geological theories try to claim that the word yom does not have to mean twenty-four hours but could mean a longer period of time, even millions of years. Now it is true that when the word yom is used by itself it could mean a longer period of time (though no example exists where it means millions of years). For example, the Day of Jehovah is a period of seven years. However, whenever the word is used with a number or numeral, it always means twenty-four hours. Throughout Genesis 1, each time the word day is found; it is used with a numeral: day one, day two, etc. This alone shows that the days of Genesis are twenty-four hour days. However, there is more: Not only is the word day followed by a numeral, it is also followed by the phrase evening and morning, and this phrase again limits it to twenty-four hours. Furthermore, the Sabbath law, as given to Israel in the Law of Moses, is based upon the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. These laws would become meaningless if these were not twenty-four hour days. Finally, with the fourth day, there is the mention of days, years, signs, and seasons, showing that already within Genesis 1 there is the normal system of time in operation. These terms also would become meaningless if these were not normal twenty-four hour days. By itself, Genesis 1:2 says nothing insofar as it being an old earth or a young earth, and the evidence for one or the other must be based on arguments outside this verse. However, the six days of creation were literal twenty-four hour days.

If the earth is about 6,000 years old, day 6 is right at the beginning of creation. If it is 4.56 billion years old, the creation of Adam and Eve were right at the end of creation, last few seconds.
And if Adam and Eve were created on the 6th 24 hour day, standing on top of thousands of feet of dead things, including dead hominids, from which Hugh Ross says we descended, death came before sin.
And God called everything He had made very very good at the end of day 6. So He calls millions of years of suffering, cancer, thorns predation, and death, very very good, if the fossil record was laid down before Adam sinned.
Romans 5: 12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world
through one man,
and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience, the many will be made righteous.
Death before sin undercuts the foundation of the gospel itself.

Whether a day means a 12-hour workday, a 24-hour solar day, a period of time, "in David's day", his lifetime or a specific time is demonstrated by the context more clearly in Hebrew than it commonly is in English.
The Hebrew word Yom, day, is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. We know precisely in what sense the word is used everywhere, except, of course, in Genesis 1
Sometimes the word means "time" in the day of the Lord" or "in the day(s) of the Judges" where the word is not plural in Hebrew, the word means "time"
So how do we determine when the word means a literal 24 hour period?
Outside of Genesis 1,
The word is used 410 times with the word day PLUS A NUMBER, and it always means a 24 hour period.
The word Yom is used WITH EVENING AND MORNING 38 times and always means a 24 hour period.
It is used WITH MORNING 23 times and WITH EVENING 23 times and each time it means an ordinary day.
The word day is used WITH THE WORD NIGHT 52 TIMES and each time it means a 24 hour day.
To sum up, outside of Genesis 1, Yom means 24 hours when it is used with a number (six days), whenever the phrase "evening and morning" or "evening" or "morning" is used with yom, and whenever the word is used with the word night.
No one ever questions whether Joshua might have marched around Jericho for 100,000 years or millions of years because day with a number always means a 24 hour period or daylight period.
What if we apply these tests to Genesis 1, we have in Genesis 1: 5, night, evening, morning number, 1:8, evening, morning, number, 1:13, evening morning number, 1:18, evening, morning, number, 1:23, evening morning number, and 1:31, evening morning number. So God's intention is clear.

A reply of above article from Creation.com
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j28_3/j28_3_120-127.pdf

Answers from a young-earth perspective:

Why it is certain genesis teaches creationism literally
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com.br/2018/01/why-it-is-certain-genesis-teaches.html

Is there convincing scientific and historical evidence that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is a factual record of historical events? a moderated internet debate
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com.br/2017/10/is-s-there-is-convincing-scientific-and.html

Why Genesis 1 is essential
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com.br/2007/04/why-genesis-1-is-essential.html

(BHS) Biblical Historical Science links
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com.br/2015/11/bhs-biblical-historical-science-links.html

The Gods of the Ancient Near East
https://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.com.br/2017/08/the-gods-of-ancient-near-east.html
So when skeptics try to dismiss the Biblical account because the ANE cultures did not think that way and try to interpret the Bible to fit ANE understanding, they have not fully researched the case. The Bible does not teach nor support the way of thinking of any of the ANE cultures. That is part of why the Law was written, so Israel would be separated from these ANE cultures. That is another reason why they were told to fully drive out the inhabitants of other nations, so the ANE cultures would not influence them. God was mad at Israel when they asked for a king, because they wanted to have a ruler that was not God, and they wanted to be like the other ANE cultures. Our God is not like the ANE gods. The culture he established was not like the ANE cultures. The history is not like the ANE myths. It all stands out to be separated from the rest so with any honest investigation, no confusion could be made between our God and his Word and with any of the other legends.

==============================================================================================================================================

Faulkner, Universe by design, page 104
Another approach to the creation account that is gaining ground in conservative circles is sometimes called the framework hypothesis. Noting the subtle poetic aspects of the creation account, proponents of this idea argue that the creation account is primarily poetry. This theory is fraught with problems as well. First, this is a very new idea. With no real precedent in church history, one must question its legitimacy. As with the day-age theory, it is doubtful that anyone would think of this interpretation without the scientific pronouncements of origins. Another problem is the question of where does poetry end and the history begin? Were Noah and Abraham real people? Was the Tower of Babel a real event? If Noah was fictional but Abraham was real, where are the contextual reasons for such a claim? Most proponents of the framework hypothesis doubt the historicity of Adam and Noah. If this is true, then what are we to make of numerous New Testament references to both men, such as the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:38, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, or Peter in 2 Peter 3? The framework hypothesis overlooks the possibility that the creation account is history told with flair. It can be both poetry and history. Exodus 20:11 is even a larger problem with the framework hypothesis than with the day-age theory. If the six days of creation is merely a poetic device, then how could the Lord hold His people accountable to the very literal demands of the Sabbath and six-day workweek? If the model was poetry, could not the ancient Hebrews have interpreted at least this one commandment as poetry as well?

Those who accept the big bang and make it part of their Christian apologetics are guilty of interpreting the Bible in terms of current science. This is a very dangerous precedent. However this sort of attitude is not new. For instance, the translators of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) rendered the word raqia as stereoma, which Jerome followed as firmamentum in the Latin Vulgate, which in the AV (authorized, or King James Version) was transliterated as firmament. This is a terrible translation, and many modern translations break from this to render raqia as expanse. The word stereoma conveys the meaning of something hard, such as the crystalline spheres of ancient Greek cosmology upon which the stars were implanted. Thus, the translators of the LXX incorporated the current cosmology of their day into their translation. This is very similar to those who wed the big bang to the Genesis creation account today. Other examples of reading current science into the Bible include secular chronologies of history that have caused some Christians to reinterpret biblical chronologies to fit. These attempts include a late date for the Exodus around 1200 b.c., about two centuries later than biblical chronologies will allow. Today there are other pressures bearing on biblical interpretations as well. Very questionable (but politically correct) studies have suggested that homosexuality is innate, that is, homosexuals have no choice in the matter. This does not square with the biblical injunctions against homosexuality. Unfortunately there are those who wish to reinterpret the Bible in the light of all new findings or latest fads of science, all the while claiming that this is what the Bible taught all along. It is imperative that Bible-believing Christians take a right approach to the Bible and science. The Bible is either true or it is not. If it is true, then it is always true. On the other hand science is a very changeable thing. Most theories from a century ago have been replaced or heavily modified. It is very arrogant to think that only now have we really discovered the truth of physical reality. It is tempting to wed the Bible to our current understanding of the natural world, but that would be interpreting the perfect and unchangeable in light of the imperfect and changeable. Why would any Christian want to do that?


Claim:

It was not around 200 BC that the greek established the earth was a sphere. The ANE people view of the cosmos reflects a geo-centric universe with a flat earth. An earth that is immovable, set on foundations, flat and round in shape and surrounded by a circonferential sea and with a firmament above

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/full/1926JRASC..20..193Q/0000193.000.html

Is the Genesis account of literal 6 days just a myth ?  SBEJfAQ

Ancient Hebrew cosmology is full of subtleties that often go unnoticed by the contemporary reader 2
Jul 07, 2016
In a nutshell, ancient Hebrew cosmology, as found in the Old Testament, considers the world in which we live a relatively flat disk, covered by a dome. Something like a gigantic cake stand covered with one of those classic glass domes, if you will.

As you can see in the diagram included, below the disk you would find the Sheol (that is, the place of the dead, but not necessarily Hell; actually, this Sheol is a bit more like what the Greeks called Hades) and the so-called “deep waters”, the “waters underneath” or, even more dramatically, “the great deep.”

Now above the dome, in the “outside” of the dome (who’d say?) you’d find even more water. You guessed it right: those are the “upper waters” and, above them, the “high heaven” or the “heaven of heavens”, where God Himself dwells, as can be seen in the graphic.

Is the Genesis account of literal 6 days just a myth ?  PmHKZX1

Conceptions of Heaven and Earth. 1
As in the Bible, so also in the Talmud, heaven and earth designate the two borders of the universe. The former is a hollow sphere covering the earth. It consists, according to one authority, of a strong and firm plate two or three fingers in thickness, always lustrous and never tarnishing. Another tannaitic authority estimates the diameter of this plate as one-sixth of the sun's diurnal journey; whileanother, a Babylonian, estimates it at 1,000 parasangs. According to others, the diameter of the firmament is equal to the distance covered in 50 or 500 years; and this is true also of the earth and the large sea ("Tehom") upon which it rests (Yer. Ber. i. 2c; Targ. Yer. Gen. i. 6). The distance of the firmament from the earth is a journey of 500 years—a distance equivalent to the diameter of the firmament, through which the sun must saw its way in order to become visible (Yer. Ber. i. 2c, bot.; Pes. 94a). The firmament, according to some, consists of fire and water, and, according to others, of water only; while the stars consist of fire (Yer. R. H. ii. 58a). East and west are at least as far removed from each other as is the firmament from the earth (Tamid. 32a). Heaven and earth "kiss each other" at the horizon; and between the water above and that below there are but two or three fingerbreadths (Gen. R. ii. 4; Tosef., Ḥag. ii. 5). The earth rests upon water and is encompassed by it. According to other conceptions the earth is supported by one, seven, or twelve pillars. These rest upon water, the water upon mountains, the mountains upon the wind, and the wind upon the storm (Ḥag. 12b; Yer. Ḥag. ii. 77a). The nations of antiquity generally believed that the earth was a disk floating on water. There is also mentioned the terrestrial globe, "kaddur," though it may also be translated as "disk." When Alexander the Great attempted to ascend to heaven he rose even higher and higher, until the earth appeared as a globe and the sea as a tray (Yer. 'Ab. Zarah iii. 42c, bot.). The earth is divided into three parts, viz., habitable land, desert, and sea.

Kukil Bora: Invisible Plasma Shield, Which Protects Earth From Radiation, Discovered 7,200 Miles Above Planet 11/27/14
https://www.ibtimes.com/invisible-plasma-shield-which-protects-earth-radiation-discovered-7200-miles-above-1730214?fbclid=IwAR09Y8yCbrjczNDa6N9R-d_GZ4KSd1YomiBi_KxxYqPqKbDx82Lk_y8jagY


The Dome
Raqia comes from the Hebrew verb raqa, which means "beat," "stamp," "beat out" and "spread out." Occurring 11 times in the Old Testament, raqa has the meaning to "stamp one's feet" (twice), stamp something with the feet (once), spreading metal (four times), spreading out the earth (three times), and spreading the sky or the clouds (once).9 So, the verb raqa does not necessarily refer to the beating out of a solid object, but to a spreading out process, whether the object be solid or not.

It matters little what may be the literal meaning of the word translated "firmament." Although regarded generally among the Jews as signifying a solid firmament, it is far from certain that Moses, who was versed in all Egyptian learning, so considered it. 4

Serge Poirier why did ancient people up to the 1600s, including Luther and his contemporaries, believe there was a firmament, i.e. a solid dome?
If the word raqia (we will leave the normal usage of the word in ANW context if you want) derives its meaning from the verb “raqa”, what else but a solid object (normally metal in those days) were they trying to spread out by beating/hammering it up?  I am not trying to take away the integrity of scriptures but want to point out that there might be a better way to deal with this mater without being literal. The Bible is not a book of science as concordists want to make it. At best, it can only provide metaphysical boundaries to science

Gen 1 is a theological/polemical statement on creation couched in ancient cosmology format in light of ANE polytheistic context. It is also spoken in a 6+1 weekly framework.

It is not because Genesis 1 speak of a dome that I take Genesis 1 as a theological statement (not a figurative statement) rather than a literal chronological, scientific, material statement. The dome issue is one issue. And the literary genre combined with ANE cultural context is another issue. Therefore, the dome issue and the genre& cultural issues are 2 different issues.

The dome speaks to or reflect the science of the day and this has implications for the nature of scriptures, hermeneutics and the concept of inerrancy (and BTW, I do hold to inerrancy) as I was suggesting in our meeting with Jeshua and yes, it was for you). The Bible speaks from a geo-centric perspective. The nature of scripture is geo-centric among other features.

Genesis 1 is a new theology of creation for an ancient near eastern (ANE) polytheistic context, the true and revealed one as opposed to the pagan ones. More precisely, it is a theological statement on creation, with a polemical purpose, couched in ancient cosmology format in light of an ANE contest. A Cosmological statement was a common thing in an ANE culture. It is the preface to the worldview of an ANE culture like Genesis 1 is the preface to the book of Genesis. You cannot read Gen 1 and ignore the other ANE creation accounts and their similarities but also differences to Gen 1. They are relevant to the interpretation of Gen 1. And you cannot argue they came after Gen. 1

The first chapter of Genesis is very rich in meaning. It contains at least 3 movements or strata of meaning. First, a movement towards order where God is the one who create and order a chaotic cosmos as per Gen 1 v.2 (the earth was formless and empty,v.2 is often ignored and people jumps directly to the days ) an ANE common concept. In very short, God defines 3 spheres of existence and fill them outs, and at the same time, resolves the issues of v.2. The 6 days serve only as a literary framework for creation, not a factual chronology. These days are analogical days (or God’s days, not earthly days). How can they be since the sun is not created until day 4? Again a polemical statement.

Then you have a movement to the apex of creation from day 1 to day 6 ending with the creation of the apex of God’s handiwork. Then you have a 6+1 movement to create a timeframe for man’s activities, 6 days of work and I day of rest and provide an etymology for Sabbath. We are only touching the surface here...And I am sure that there is more, like the cosmic temple view that add most likely another movement or strata of meaning that escape us for not being sensitive to the ANE concept.

All these 3-4 movements are not new concepts in OT scholarships and they are not mutually exclusive. and it is all about theology, not science.

But it is it in a nutshell at the moment. Gen 1 is meta-physical statement to the Israelite worldview stating in part that the forces of nature are not personified deities or under the control of “specialized” gods but created and under the one true God who happens to be the God of the Israelites.

When taken in this way, there is no conflict with science except maybe with human origins and evolutions, but no view is perfect. However, avoiding conflict with science is not the purpose or motivation to hold this view. It is more from the study of literary genre, the ANE cultural context and theology that I hold this view. I must admit that the issue of the firmament launched a deep reflection on the subject and an understanding reframing as to understand how an inerrant scripture can speak of a dome when we know it does not exist.

Here is an excellent reference on creation. I did not read all of it but the portions I did read were excellent in terms of explaining the context. Hyers interprets the biblical account in light of its relationship to its culture, context, and purpose. (see link)
I hope you would not mind to have your view challenged and expanded in a very diplomatic manner by the author and pick up the read. It is an excellent ressource
Rules of interpretations (ignore these…and missed the point of the message…See my evaluation of YEC consideration of these rules; final score 11/2 )
1. Author’s intent & purpose (YEC, not fully)
2. Audience’s concern (YEC, not so much)
3. Cultural and historical context (YEC, not at all)
4. Rules of hermeneutics
a. Literary genre (YEC; not at all)
b. Grammar (YEC: yes)
c. Etc.
After I re-read what I wrote yesterday I felt I did not do justice to the some of the stuff I tried to convey, (for instance, the creation is/days are organized logically & topically not historically in order to address the 3 problems of v.2 darkness, watery deep and formlessness. See the picture attached in the next post) but anyway…

The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science

I agree, the days of Genesis 1 are “24 hours days”, not ages. It is an exegetical fallacy to import a possible meaning of the word Yom (“age” in this case) in a context that does not demand it even if the meaning is part of the semantic field. As you explains, the grammatical details & the refrain (evening & morning) demands the days are 24 hours days.
However, that being said, I don’t think the days are historical or factual. Bear with me. You asked in another post to state my view again in a nutshell. So, I will cover again what I said yesterday and address the Exodus question also. I am only repeating to recap everything and make sure I am clear although English is a second language to me.

1. Creation is presented in a logical & topical order in relationship to the 3 problems described in v.2, i.e. the primordial state of the earth, and in relationship to the overall theological message and God’s creative action.

2. The days are not factual or literal but a literary feature. Creation did not happen in time & space in 6 literal days. The days/week of creation only serves as a literary framework or vehicle for the message, that’s it. The acts of creations are historical but not the week of creation. In other words, creation happens but we don’t know how in reality, apart from the message vehicle, maybe via ages, I don’t know. The geological columns seems to indicate creation took place in phases/ages.

3. The days are again also not literal or earthly days but analogical days. The days are not earthly days in time and space due to what was explained above. Moreover, without the sun present between day 1-3, we cannot have any earthly days, as we know them. Augustine spoke about the difficulty in understanding of the days as regular days. However, the days or the week is analogical to our days. They are God’s day or week of creation and are analogical to man’s workdays. God presents creation as if he is a workman or journeyman going through his work days or week creating (Jack Collins)

4. Relationship to Ex. 20: 9-11. My understanding is still in process with this passage. However, you can make sense of the fact that Ex. is “refereeing to the pattern set in Genesis, i.e. the pattern of God’s laboring for six days and resting on the 7th day”. A pattern/cycle to be observed by Israel. (WL Craig)
The genre of Gen 1 is an ancient cosmological account or statement
The account is theological, not historical. Gen 1 is an “exalted prose” (Jack Collins), not pure prose, neither Hebrew poetry. It is some kind of a hybrid. It contains rhythms, refrain, and a repetitive pattern which indicate the literary features of the account rather than the “literal” feature of the account

Günter Bechly  Concerning the flat earth issue I think that the case for the Bible teaching a flat earth just like all other contemporary ANE cultures is very well established by OT scholars like John Walton, Paul Seely, and Michael Heiser. This obvious interpretation is only rejected because people know through the external evidence from science that this Biblical cosmology is simply wrong. The ancient authors of the Bible just did not know better, and God did not care to update their cosmology but to teach them spiritual lessons. As Galileo famously said: the Bible does not teach how the heavens go but how to go to heaven!

Interpreting Genesis One 5
Much of the controversy arises from a misunderstanding of what the Genesis account of creation intends to teach. What message was it meant to convey to ancient Israelites in their struggle against the pagan mythologies of the surrounding countries? How does that meaning apply in a post-Christian culture whose gods and values infiltrate even the church?  

Although it has no trace of rhetoric, the passage does use figurative language for describing God's activity: anthropomorphisms which represent God as if he were a human being-speaking and seeing, working and resting. Yet a conclusion that Genesis 1 is semipoetic and has figurative language by no means determines the main question--the connection of the narrative with actual events.

Approach to Genesis 
An interpretation of Genesis 1 must deal with three elements: 

- historical context
- literary genre 
- textual content

Many commentaries skip lightly over the first two in an eagerness to grasp the meaning of today. As a result, their interpretations at critical points would hardly have been intelligible to ancient Israel, much less equip God's people to resist the influence of pagan mythologies. Therefore, we will adhere to the following principle: What the author meant then determines what the message means now. 

Historical Context
What was the situation of the Israelites who received the message of Genesis, especially their cultural and religious environment? The answer to that question depends to a large extent on certain assumptions about the authorship and date of the document. Two main approaches have dominated the interpretation of Genesis during the last century. The style of Genesis 1 is remarkable for its simplicity, its economy of language. Yet to ask whether it is prose
or poetry is a serious oversimplification. Although we do not find here the synonymous parallelism and rhythms of Hebrew, poetry, the passage has a number of alliterations. The prominence of repetition and of its corollary, silence, brings the writing close to poetry; its movement toward, a climax places it in the order of prose. Sometimes called a "hymn," it appears to be a unique blend of prose and poetry.

Although it has no trace of rhetoric, the passage does use figurative language for describing God's activity: anthropomorphisms which represent God as if he were a human being-speaking and seeing, working and resting. Yet a conclusion that Genesis 1 is semi poetic and has figurative language by no means determines the main question--the connection of the narrative with actual events.

Once for all we need to get rid of the deep-seated feeling that figurative speech is inferior to literal language, as if it were somewhat less worthy of God. The Hebrew language is rich in figures of speech. Scripture abounds with symbols and metaphors which the Holy Spirit has used to convey powerfully and clearly the message he intended. What would be left of Psalm 23, for example, if it were stripped of its figurative language? Further, we must give up the false antithesis that prose is fact while poetry is fiction (prose = literal = fact, and poetry = figurative = fiction). Indeed, prose writing often has figures of speech and can recount a legend or parable as well as history; by the same token, poetry may have little if any figurative language and narrate actual events. The prophets, for example, recalled past facts and predicted future events with a welter of symbols and images as well as literal description. (See Ezekiel 16 and 22 for two versions of the same events.) Jesus summarized centuries of Hebrew history in his parable of the wicked tenants (Mt. 21:33-41). Good biblical interpretation recognizes and appreciates this marvelous and effective variety of literary expression. 

Genesis 1 appears to be a narrative of past events, an account of God's creative words and acts. Its figurative language is largely limited to anthropomorphisms. (For a highly imaginative and figurative account of creation, read Job 38:4-11.) The text does not have the earmarks of a parable, a short allegorical story designed to teach a truth or moral lesson. That genre generally deals with human events and often starts with a formula like "There was a man who had two sons" in Jesus' parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-31). Genesis 1 is "historical" in the sense of relating events that actually occurred. Modern historians distinguish between "history," which began with the invention of writing or the advent of city life, and "prehistory."2

The writer's use of the significant numbers 3, 7 and 10 also highlights the careful construction of the creation account. It starts with three problem elements (formless earth, darkness and watery deep) which are dealt with in two sets of three days; the verb "create" is used at three points in the narrative, the third time thrice. Both the completion formula, "and it was so," and the divine approval, "God saw that it was good," appear seven times. The phrase "God said," the verb "make" and the formula "according to its/their kind" appear ten times. In both its overall structure and use of numbers the writer paid as much attention to the form as to the content of the narrative, a fact which suggests mature meditation. The historico-artistic interpretation of Genesis 1 does justice to its literary craftsmanship, the general biblical perspective on natural events and the view of creation expressed by other writers in both Old and New Testaments. 

Interpretation of Genesis 1 
The third step, after determining the historical context and literary genre, is to discover what this account of creation means to the first readers. Although a thorough exegesis cannot be done in a few pages, we can note the narrative's development and the meaning of several key words. The Bible's opening statement may be taken as either the beginning of God's creative activity or a summary of the account that follows. Either way, the "beginning" includes not only the material universe but also time itself. Since all of our thought and action occurs within a time scale of past/present/future, we find it difficult if not impossible to conceive of timelessness. Yet as Augustine observed many centuries ago, God created not in time but with time.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light .... And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. (vv. 3-5) Here is the first of eight creative commands distributed over six days. A major focus of the narrative is the word of God: God "speaks" and it is done. The Hebrew amar has a variety of meanings.8 Its use in Genesis 1 emphasizes God's creative command, his pledge to sustain the creation and his revelation as the Creator (this theme is echoed in Psalm 148:5 and Hebrews 11:3). The words leave no room for the divine emanation and struggle so prominent in pagan religions. Nevertheless there has been too much emphasis on God's creating simply by command. Only verses 3 and 9 report creation by word alone; the other six occurrences include both a word and an act of some kind, indicated by verbs such as make, separate and set. 

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.". .. And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day. (vv. 6-8 ) 
An expanse or firmament separates the waters below (the seas and underground springs) from those above in the clouds which provide rain. Unlike the first day, the creative command here is followed by an action: "So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so" (v. 7). That combination of word and act also occurs on the fourth day: "God made two great lights ... made the stars ... set them in the expanse of the sky" (vv. 16-17); and on the fifth day, "God created the great creatures of the sea ... "(v. 21). The wording for the sixth day is unusual in that God commands himself, so to speak, and then does it: "Then God said, ‘Let us make man'. .. So God created- man. .. "(vv. 26-27). This variety of wording for the eight creative events/ processes should caution against an attempt to formulate one basic procedure or mechanism for the creation. 

The Creation Days 
Much controversy over the interpretation of Genesis focuses on the meaning of the word day. Many commentaries wade into that question first and soon bog down in a hermeneutical quagmire. First one's perspective on the chapter should be defined. Since no one is completely objective, it is not a question of whether we have an interpretive model but which one we are using. 

The comparative religion approach views Genesis 1 as the work of an unknown author long after Moses, and considers its creation account as being similar to the primitive stories in other Semitic religions. 
The concordist model assumes a harmony between the Genesis 1 and scientific accounts of creation, and seeks to demonstrate the Bible's scientific accuracy. 
The historical-cultural approach views the narrative as given by Moses to Israel in the wilderness, and tries to discover what the message meant then without any attempt to harmonize it with either past or present scientific theories.

Throughout the Old Testament the word "day" (yom) is used in a variety of ways. Usually meaning a "day" of the week, the word can also mean "time" (Gen. 4:3), a specific "period" or "era" (Is. 2:12; 4:2), or a "season" (Josh. 24:7). We have already noted the literary symmetry of eight creative words linked to six days, which occur in two parallel sets of three. The six days mark the development from a dark, formless, empty and lifeless earth to one that is lighted, shaped and filled with teeming varieties of life, culminating in the creation of man and woman. The author's purpose--teaching about God and his creation in order to counteract the pagan myths of neighboring countries--has become clear in our exposition of Genesis 1

Israel's God is the all-powerful Creator of heaven and earth. His world is orderly and consistent. Man and woman are the culmination of creation, made in the image of God, to enjoy and be responsible for their stewardship of the earth. The literary genre is a semi-poetic narrative cast in a historico-artistic framework consisting of two parallel triads. On this interpretation, it is no problem that the creation of the sun, necessary for an earth clothed with vegetation on the third day, should he linked with the fourth day. Instead of turning hermeneutical handsprings to explain that supposed difficulty, we simply note that in view of the author's purpose the question is irrelevant. The account does not follow the chronological sequence assumed by concordist views. The meaning of the word day must be determined (like any other word with several meanings) by the context and usage of the author. A plain reading of the text, with its recurring phrase of evening and morning, indicates a solar day of twenty-four hours. That would have been clear to Moses and his first readers. The context gives no connotation of an era or geological age. Creation is pictured in six familiar periods followed by a seventh for rest, corresponding to the days of the week as Israel knew them. But the question still remains whether the format is figurative or literal, that is, an analogy of God's creative activity or a chronological account of how many hours He worked. 

God is a spirit whom no one can see, whose thoughts and ways are higher than ours. So (apart from the Incarnation) we can know him only through analogy, "a partial similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based." In the Bible, the human person is the central model used to reveal God's relationship and actions in history. God is pictured as seeing, speaking and hearing like a person even though he doesn't have eyes, lips or ears. Those figures of speech (anthropomorphisms) assure us that God is at least personal and can be known in an intimate relationship. (Science also uses analogies; for example, a billiard-ball model in physics helps us understand the behavior of gas molecules which we cannot see.)

The human model appears throughout Genesis 1, The writer also links God's creative activity to six days, marked by evening and morning, and followed by a day of rest. In the light of the other analogies, why should it be considered necessary to take this part of the account literally, as if God actually worked for six days (or epochs) and then rested? Biblical interpretation should not suddenly change hermeneutical horses in the middle of the exegetical stream. 

A stringent literalism disregards the analogical medium of revelation about creation, raising meaningless questions about God's working schedule. For example, did he labor around the clock or intermittently on twelve-hour days? If God created light instantaneously, was the first day then mostly one of rest like the seventh? How will the plant and animal reproductive processes he constituted on succeeding days fit so neatly into that schedule? The fact that the text speaks of twenty-four-hour days does not require that they be considered the actual duration of God's creative activity. Even on a human level, when we report the significant achievements of someone in a position of power, the length of the working day is generally irrelevant. For example, a historian might write, "President Roosevelt decided to build the atomic bomb and President Truman ordered its use to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war with Japan. Two days radically changed the entire character of modern warfare." The exact details of how and when the commands were implemented over years or weeks are unimportant to the main concern of who and why, and what resulted.

Preoccupation with how long it took God to create the world, in days or epochs, deflects attention from the main point of Genesis 1. Such "scientific" concerns run interpretation onto a siding, away from the main track of God's revelation. Once we get past arguments over the length of the days, we can see the intended meaning of these days for Israel. First, their significance lies not in identity, a one-to-one correlation with God's creative activity, but in an analogy that provides a model for human work. The pattern of six plus one, work plus rest on the seventh day, highlights the sabbath. In doing so, it emphasizes the uniqueness of humanity. Made in the image of God, and given rule over the world, man and woman are the crown of creation. They rest from their labor on the sabbath, which is grounded in the creation (Gen. 2:2, Ex 20:11). 

Tthe fact that the day in Genesis 1 has its ordinary work-a-day meaning, and does not refer to an epoch of some kind, makes possible the metaphor of God's creative activity as a model for human work of six days followed by sabbath rest. Linking God's creative activity to days of the week serves as another element in the antipagan polemic. “By stretching the creation events over the course of a series of days the sharpest possible line has been drawn between this account and every form of mythical thinking. It is history that is here reported--once for all and of irrevocable finality in its results.”12 Genesis 1 contrasts sharply with the cyclical, recurring creations described by Israel's pagan neighbors.

Conservative concentration on implications for science misses its intended meaning.

Israel at Mount Sinai 
Genesis 1 achieves a radical and comprehensive affirmation of monotheism versus every kind of false religion (polytheism, idolatry, animism, pantheism and syncretism); superstition (astrology and magic); and philosophy (materialism, ethical dualism, naturalism and nihilism). That is a remarkable achievement for so short an account (about 900 words) written in everyday language and understood by people in a variety of cultures for more than three thousand years. Each day of creation aims at two kinds of gods in the pantheons of the time: gods of light and darkness; sky and sea; earth and vegetation; sun, moon and stars; creatures in sea and air; domestic and wild animals; and finally human rulers. Though no human beings are divine, all--from pharaohs to slaves--are made in the image of God and share in the commission to be stewards of the earth. For Israel those were life-and-death issues of daily existence. 

God's people do not need to know the how of creation, but they desperately need to know the Creator. 

Their God, who has brought them into covenant relationship with himself, is no less than the Creator and Controller of the world. He is not like the many pagan gods who must struggle for a period of time in their creative activity. He is stronger than all the powers that stand between his people and the Promised Land, the only One worthy of their worship and total commitment. Creation is the ground of Israel's hope for preservation as God's chosen people. For them, the doctrine of creation is not so much a cosmogony as a confession of faith repeatedly expressed in psalms and prophecies throughout the Old Testament.

Genesis 1 prepared the way for our age by its own program of demythologizing. By purging the cosmic order of all gods and goddesses, the Genesis creation account "de-divinized" nature. 

The universe has no divine regions or beings who need to be feared or placated. Israel's intensely monotheistic faith thoroughly demythologized the natural world, making way for a science that can probe and study every part of the universe without fearing either trespass or retribution. That does not mean that nature is secular and no longer sacred. It is still God's creation, declared to be good, preserved by his power and intended for his glory. The disappearance of mythical scenes and polytheistic intrigues clears the stage for the great drama of redemption and the new creation in Christ.

Before 1750 it was generally held that God created the world in six twenty-four-hour days, although some early church fathers like Augustine viewed them allegorically. Archbishop Ussher around 1650 even calculated the date of creation to be 4004 B.C. But as the science of geology matured in the 1800' s, many were shocked to discover that the earth was millions of years old. Since modern science had gained so much prestige, many interpreters strove to retain credibility for the Bible by attempting to demonstrate its scientific accuracy. Therefore, a variety of concordistic (harmonizing) views were proposed to correlate biblical teaching with current scientific theories. For example, "flood geology" attempted to account for fossil discoveries through the catastrophe of a universal flood. When new geological discoveries questioned that view, it was replaced by the "restitution" or "gap" theory popularized by a Scottish clergyman, Thomas Chalmers, in 1804. According to that view a catastrophe occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 to allow the necessary time for the geological formations to develop. Eventually it became necessary to assume a series of catastrophies or floods to account for newer scientific findings. Although such theories accounted for the time that science required, they could not explain the sequence of the geological record. The "day-age" interpretation considered the Genesis days to be metaphorical for geological ages. That view was advocated by influential North American geologists J. W. Dawson and James Dana as well as many theologians. The Genesis days were then correlated, more or less accurately, with the proposed epochs. Another version retained literal twenty-four-hour days of creative activity, but separated them by geological epochs. The above views, with varying degrees of credibility, have in common three major problems. First, they attempt to find answers to questions the text does not address, about the how or the mechanism of natural forces. (To see how inappropriate such an approach is, consider its opposite: suppose one tried to derive information about the meaning and purpose of life from a technical treatise on astronomy in which the author had no intention of revealing his philosophy.) 

The biblical accounts of creation do not provide scientific data or descriptions. 

John Calvin emphasized that point: "The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy.... He made use by Moses and the other prophets of the popular language that none might shelter himself under the pretext of obscurity." Adapting Calvin's principle to the present we can affirm, The Holy Spirit had no intention of teaching geology and biology.” Second, not only do the concordistic views strain Genesis by importing concepts foreign to the text, but any apparent success in harmonizing the message with "modern science" guarantees a failure when current scientific theory is revised or discarded. During the last two centuries, that pattern has been evident in the continual efforts of harmonizers to keep abreast of rapidly changing scientific views. The credibility of the Bible is not enhanced by thrusting it into the scramble of catch-up in a game it was never intended to play. What is the point of trying to correlate the ultimate truths of Scripture with the ever-changing theories of science? No wonder that when those theories go out of date, in the minds of many people the Bible joins them in gathering dust on the shelf. Third, any extent to which Genesis teaches modern scientific concepts would have made its message unintelligible to its first readers, and to most of the people who have lived during the last three thousand years. Even in our own century, what percent of the people understand the abstract language of science? And of those who do, how many use it in the communications of daily life with which the biblical writers are primarily concerned?

If one wishes to argue for deeper meanings and mysteries in scripture, they are certainly there. But they are not scientific in character. They are theological and spiritual 6

The literary framework hypothesis.
In this interpretation the 1st chapter is a poem that displays didactic parallelism. Thus the purpose is to give an allegorical message as to the philosophical differences with pantheism.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
"creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984


The Confessions of a Disappointed Young-Earther
http://www.theologyforthechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Disappointed-young-earther-03-06-13.pdf

·         In the Beginning... We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context
https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-We-Misunderstood-Interpreting-Original/dp/0825439272
 
·         How to Read Genesis (How to Read Series) (How to Read Series How to Read)  https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Genesis/dp/0877849439/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517455502&sr=1-1&keywords=how+to+read+genesis
 
·         Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Genesis-1-2-Evangelical-Conversation/dp/1598568884/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517455564&sr=1-1&keywords=reading+genesis+1-2+an+evangelical+conversation
 
 
·         In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis
https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Opening-Chapters-Genesis/dp/0877843252/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517455705&sr=1-1&keywords=in+the+beginning+blocher
 
·         The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science
https://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Creation-Genesis-Modern-Science/dp/0804201250/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517456043&sr=1-1&keywords=the+meaning+of+creation

Answer: 

Claim: " I don't see what is untrue in Genesis 1 if not taken literally ". The claim that God created in six real normal days, and then rested. Then: " science teaches the earth is not 6000 years! "
Response: Exactly what sense does would it make for God to replace the myths of pagan religions with another myth???
So the whole exercise and gymnastics to remove Genesis from a literal historical context, and send it to the orbit of " allegory" and " myth ', and that Genesis just teaches spiritual truth, is, because of Science first ??!!! 

I put my faith in the word and author of the universe FIRST, might science adapt to it !! If science disagrees, scientists are not doing their job and science up to the task. Once they are in accordance with a literal Genesis, i buy their account !!

So - am overall not convinced that your view is sound. Namely that the only goal by God of the Genesis account was to teach the theological and spiritual truth, but not astronomy, biology, and geology, and that  Genesis is just a " myth", or allegorical, and the days are not " real " normal days. If that were so, we are granted to believe anything on the matter, left alone by God of pursuing an understanding of who we are, where we came from, and how. Fundamental questions, which only the author of the universe and life can answer with absolute certainty and truthfulness would remain unanswered.

Why would he not have told us real facts, but an allegorical "myth"? One more besides the ones already extant amongst the surrounding ANE people? Just not to make its message unintelligible to its first readers? Why would they not have had the intellectual ability to understand any account, just not in scientific terms? Seem not to be a good reason to me.

Furthermore, that opens a wormhole of any kind of interpretation, assertions,  and diverging understandings of origins. Exodus 20.11 reaffirms literal 6 days. According to Jesus, Adam and Eve were historical figures, the first human beings made adult, at the sixth day of creation.

It matters little what may be the literal meaning of the word translated "firmament." Although regarded generally among the Jews as signifying a solid firmament, it is far from certain that Moses, who was versed in all Egyptian learning, so considered it.

If the Jews up to a certain time had a poor or false understanding of the shape of the earth, the Bible cannot be blamed, nor did that any harm to them. As God wanted a progression of revelation of spiritual truth, he intended that it would also be so in terms of scientific inquiry and understanding. He handed it over to us to discover his amazing creation in a gradual manner.

i am coming out more convinced and motivated to hold to the view, that the Bible teaches a literal six day creation, a few thousand years back.

Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Book of Genesis page 73 
One more point needs to be discussed before dealing with the actual six days of creation relative to the Hebrew word for “day,” which is yom. People who want to fit Genesis 1 into evolutionary and geological theories try to claim that the word yom does not have to mean twenty-four hours but could mean a longer period of time, even millions of years. Now it is true that when the word yom is used by itself it could mean a longer period of time (though no example exists where it means millions of years). For example, the Day of Jehovah is a period of seven years. However, whenever the word is used with a number or numeral, it always means twenty-four hours. Throughout Genesis 1, each time the word day is found; it is used with a numeral: day one, day two, etc. This alone shows that the days of Genesis are twenty-four hour days. However, there is more: Not only is the word day followed by a numeral, it is also followed by the phrase evening and morning, and this phrase again limits it to twenty-four hours. Furthermore, the Sabbath law, as given to Israel in the Law of Moses, is based upon the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. These laws would become meaningless if these were not twenty-four hour days. Finally, with the fourth day, there is the mention of days, years, signs, and seasons, showing that already within Genesis 1 there is the normal system of time in operation. These terms also would become meaningless if these were not normal twenty-four hour days. By itself, Genesis 1:2 says nothing insofar as it being an old earth or a young earth, and the evidence for one or the other must be based on arguments outside this verse. However, the six days of creation were literal twenty-four hour days.

A reply of above article from Creation.com
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j28_3/j28_3_120-127.pdf

Answers from a young earth perspective:

Why it is certain genesis teaches creationism literally
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com.br/2018/01/why-it-is-certain-genesis-teaches.html

Is there convincing scientific and historical evidence that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is a factual record of historical events? a moderated internet debate
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com.br/2017/10/is-s-there-is-convincing-scientific-and.html

Why Genesis 1 is essential
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com.br/2007/04/why-genesis-1-is-essential.html

(BHS) Biblical Historical Science links
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com.br/2015/11/bhs-biblical-historical-science-links.html

The Gods of the Ancient Near East
https://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.com.br/2017/08/the-gods-of-ancient-near-east.html
So when skeptics try to dismiss the Biblical account because the ANE cultures did not think that way and try to interpret the Bible to fit ANE understanding, they have not fully researched the case. The Bible does not teach nor support the way of thinking of any of the ANE cultures. That is part of why the Law was written, so Israel would be separated from these ANE cultures. That is another reason why they were told to fully drive out the inhabitants of other nations, so the ANE cultures would not influence them. God was mad at Israel when they asked for a king, because they wanted to have a ruler that was not God, and they wanted to be like the other ANE cultures. Our God is not like the ANE gods. The culture he established was not like the ANE cultures. The history is not like the ANE myths. It all stands out to be separated from the rest so with any honest investigation, no confusion could be made between our God and his Word and with any of the other legends.

==============================================================================================================================================


1. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2052-astronomy#anchor12
2. https://aleteia.org/2016/07/07/when-the-earth-was-flat-a-map-of-the-universe-according-to-the-old-testament/
3. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/dome_of_heavens.html
4. https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/dana_creation_bsac.pdf
5. https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/hummel_gen1_jasa.pdf
6. https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/hyers_gen1_jasa.pdf



Last edited by Otangelo on Tue 12 Sep 2023 - 15:21; edited 3 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Faulkner, Universe by design, page 104
Another approach to the creation account that is gaining ground in conservative circles is sometimes called the framework hypothesis. Noting the subtle poetic aspects of the creation account, proponents of this idea argue that the creation account is primarily poetry. This theory is fraught with problems as well. First, this is a very new idea. With no real precedent in church history, one must question its legitimacy. As with the day-age theory, it is doubtful that anyone would think of this interpretation without the scientific pronouncements of origins. Another problem is the question of where does poetry end and the history begin? Were Noah and Abraham real people? Was the Tower of Babel a real event? If Noah was fictional but Abraham was real, where are the contextual reasons for such a claim? Most proponents of the framework hypothesis doubt the historicity of Adam and Noah. If this is true, then what are we to make of numerous New Testament references to both men, such as the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:38, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, or Peter in 2 Peter 3? The framework hypothesis overlooks the possibility that the creation account is history told with flair. It can be both poetry and history. Exodus 20:11 is even a larger problem with the framework hypothesis than with the day-age theory. If the six days of creation is merely a poetic device, then how could the Lord hold His people accountable to the very literal demands of the Sabbath and six-day workweek? If the model was poetry, could not the ancient Hebrews have interpreted at least this one commandment as poetry as well?

Those who accept the big bang and make it part of their Christian apologetics are guilty of interpreting the Bible in terms of current science. This is a very dangerous precedent. However this sort of attitude is not new. For instance, the translators of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) rendered the word raqia as stereoma, which Jerome followed as firmamentum in the Latin Vulgate, which in the AV (authorized, or King James Version) was transliterated as firmament. This is a terrible translation, and many modern translations break from this to render raqia as expanse. The word stereoma conveys the meaning of something hard, such as the crystalline spheres of ancient Greek cosmology upon which the stars were implanted. Thus, the translators of the LXX incorporated the current cosmology of their day into their translation. This is very similar to those who wed the big bang to the Genesis creation account today. Other examples of reading current science into the Bible include secular chronologies of history that have caused some Christians to reinterpret biblical chronologies to fit. These attempts include a late date for the Exodus around 1200 b.c., about two centuries later than biblical chronologies will allow. Today there are other pressures bearing on biblical interpretations as well. Very questionable (but politically correct) studies have suggested that homosexuality is innate, that is, homosexuals have no choice in the matter. This does not square with the biblical injunctions against homosexuality. Unfortunately there are those who wish to reinterpret the Bible in the light of all new findings or latest fads of science, all the while claiming that this is what the Bible taught all along. It is imperative that Bible-believing Christians take a right approach to the Bible and science. The Bible is either true or it is not. If it is true, then it is always true. On the other hand science is a very changeable thing. Most theories from a century ago have been replaced or heavily modified. It is very arrogant to think that only now have we really discovered the truth of physical reality. It is tempting to wed the Bible to our current understanding of the natural world, but that would be interpreting the perfect and unchangeable in light of the imperfect and changeable. Why would any Christian want to do that?

The Bible Teaches That the Heavens Were a Solid Dome, Embedded with Stars ?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/dome_of_heavens.html

Genesis 1:8 says that God Himself defines what the raqia is, saying "God called the expanse heaven." So, the so-called firmament is nothing more than heaven itself and does not comprise a separate structure. This fact is further emphasized in Genesis 1:20, where God says, "... let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."10 Obviously, birds cannot fly through a solid structure, clearly indicating that raqia is not a solid object.



Last edited by Admin on Sat 30 May 2020 - 20:33; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

3Is the Genesis account of literal 6 days just a myth ?  Empty The Book of Jubilee Tue 8 May 2018 - 1:33

Otangelo


Admin

The Book of Jubilee

The Chinese Han that has an accurate account of Genesis in their culture ( if you have not watched yet this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AczRnue7zeY  watch it, its well worth it, mention details, that are not contained in Genesis, the books of Moses, but the Book of Jubilee. It strengthens in my view quite a bit more a literal interpretation of Genesis, as historical facts, not allegorically, or a myth.  

Wike writes about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jubilees

Jubilees cover much of the same ground as Genesis, but often with additional detail, and addressing Moses in the second person as the entire history of creation, and of Israel up to that point, is recounted in divisions of 49 years each, or "Jubilees". The elapsed time from the creation, up to Moses receiving the scriptures upon Sinai during the Exodus, is calculated as fifty Jubilees, less the 40 years still to be spent wandering in the desert before entering Canaan – or 2,410 years.

Four classes of angels are mentioned: angels of the presence, angels of sanctifications, guardian angels over individuals, and angels presiding over the phenomena of nature. Enoch was the first man initiated by the angels in the art of writing, and wrote down, accordingly, all the secrets of astronomy, of chronology, and of the world's epochs

Jubilees make an incestuous reference regarding the son of Adam and Eve, Cain, and his wife. In chapter iv (1–12) (Cain and Abel), it mentions that Cain took his sister Awan to be his wife and Enoch was their child. It also mentions that Seth (the third son of Adam and Eve) married his sister Azura

According to this book, Hebrew is the language of Heaven, and was originally spoken by all creatures in the Garden, animals and man; however, the animals lost their power of speech when Adam and Eve were expelled. Following the Deluge, the earth was apportioned into three divisions for the three sons of Noah, and his sixteen grandsons. After the destruction of the Tower of Babel, their families were scattered to their respective allotments, and Hebrew was forgotten, until Abraham was taught it by the angels.

http://biblehub.com/library/deane/pseudepigrapha/the_book_of_jubilees.htm

The Book of Jubilees, or the Little Genesis, is mentioned by name continually in the writings of the early Fathers, and by a succession of authors reaching to Theodorus Metochita (A.D.1332). Allusions to information contained therein, without actual naming of the origin of the statements, are very numerous, particularly in the Byzantine chroniclers, so that the work was well and widely known up to the middle of the fourteenth century; but from that time the original has been entirely lost. For four hundred years nothing but a few scattered fragments was known to exist.

As additions to the inspired account may be mentioned such particulars as these: Adam took five days to name all the animals which came unto him, and having seen them all, found none like himself, which could be a helpmate for him (chap. iii.); as soon as Eve had eaten of the fruit, she was ashamed, and made herself a garment of fig leaves; Adam was seven years in the garden of Eden, where he guarded the ground from birds and beasts, collected and stored the fruits, "dressed and kept it;" in the days of Jared the angels came down to earth to teach men righteousness (chap. iv.); Adam was the first who was buried in the earth; Cain met with his death by the fall of his house, a just retribution, that he who had slain his brother with a stone should himself be killed by a stone; the three sons of Noah built three towns on Mount Lubar, the part of Ararat on which the ark grounded, and where Noah was afterwards buried (chap. vii.). To these may be added the prolix account of Noah's distribution of the earth among his sons, and the curse laid on either who sought to take any portion which had not fallen to his share (chap. ix.); the statement about the position of the Tower of Babel, that it stood between the territory of Assyria and Babylon in the land of Shinar, and that the asphalt used in its construction was brought from the sea and the springs in Shinar;

You can download the book here, for free:
https://ia800201.us.archive.org/25/items/cu31924060029984/cu31924060029984.pdf

It begins on page 96.

http://tccsa.tc/broadberry/



Last edited by Admin on Mon 16 Jul 2018 - 1:11; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

4Is the Genesis account of literal 6 days just a myth ?  Empty Answer to WLC Mon 16 Jul 2018 - 1:10

Otangelo


Admin

Answer to WLC
https://pages.e2ma.net/pages/1787618/9062?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=READ%20MORE&utm_campaign=Monthly%20Report%20-%20July%202018

WLC:
" The question of the historical Adam is a multi-faceted problem "
It is a problem for whom questions the historicity of the Genesis account of origins. It was a non-issue for Jesus and Paul.

" Vital to this question is understanding exactly what the Bible requires us to believe about the historical Adam. the contribution of Old Testament and New Testament scholars is absolutely vital ".
Why are we not simply to believe their historicity and trust what principally Christ said?

" For example, one of the Old Testament scholars discussed the genre of literature represented by Genesis 1-11. "
I have discussed this topic exhaustively at my FB timeline, and as a result, concluded:

Is the Genesis account of literal 6 days just a myth ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2683-is-the-genesis-account-of-literal-6-days-just-a-myth

Why would God not have revealed and told us real facts, but an allegorical "myth"? One more besides the ones already extant amongst the surrounding Ancient Near Eastern people? Just to make its message intelligible to its first readers? Why would they not have had the intellectual ability to understand a narrative of real facts and events, just not in scientific terms?  Furthermore, that opens a wormhole of any kind of interpretation, assertions,  and diverging understandings of origins. Exodus 20.11 reaffirms literal 6 days. According to Jesus, Adam and Eve were historical figures, the first human beings made adult, on the sixth day of creation.

" The doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin to us is not one that is clearly attested biblically. "

Psalm 58:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

https://creation.com/review-of-adam-the-fall-and-original-sin
The idea that we all inherited Adam’s sin in some sense is necessary, because it means that all humans have the same problem—and that Jesus is equally the Saviour of all people. In fact, “The doctrine of original sin directly affects what it means to say that Jesus is Savior” (p. 223). If the Fall was not a historical event that corrupted the human race, Jesus becomes more like an example or a teacher, not a Saviour in the sense of reversing the Curse.

" the central theological issue raised by the historical Adam will be, not original sin or the Fall, but rather biblical inspiration and authority. Can we in a scientific age trust what the Bible teaches? "
Agreed, that is a contemporary issue: What is more trustworthy: The Bible, or secular science claims? After studying the issue, my conclusion is, Genesis is best interpreted by a literal six-day creation. Are we going to re-interpret it in order to fit to what science says, or shall we trust God and his word, and put it first? Hard issues which have made the belief of a young earth, like the starlight problem, are being solved:

The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1524-the-starlight-problem-the-starlight-distance-a-problem-for-a-young-universe-interpretation

The book of Jubilee also strenghtens the view of a literal interpretation:
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2683-is-the-genesis-account-of-literal-6-days-just-a-myth#5963

Jubilees make an incestuous reference regarding the son of Adam and Eve, Cain, and his wife. In chapter iv (1–12) (Cain and Abel), it mentions that Cain took his sister Awan to be his wife and Enoch was their child. It also mentions that Seth (the third son of Adam and Eve) married his sister Azura

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Is the Creation account in Genesis historical?


If you ask most Christians if they believe God created the universe and the earth, they will answer yes.  The book of Genesis provides an account of that creation in Chapters 1 and 2.   But when you ask Bible believers whether they can take Genesis 1 and 2 as straightforward history, the stumbling begins.  Some will say that you can take it literally and plainly, that God created in six literal twenty four hour days, some will say that the days were eons or geological ages, and still others will take the Genesis accounts as non historical poetry or even reworked myths from ancient Babylonian creation accounts.

What all of these different groups have in common is this; none of us observed the creation process, we simply weren’t there, so it is not part of our recorded history.  We can look at historical and scientific evidence and interpret it to make extrapolations and draw conclusions, but the bottom line is this: the only way we could know for sure how it happened would be from an eyewitness account from the only one who was there, namely the Creator.

So, how do we read this supposed eyewitness account of creation in Genesis?  Let me say at the outset of this discussion that there are genuine Christians in all three groups.  This author himself has been in two of them over his lifetime.  But our worldview that we bring to the Genesis accounts profoundly affects the way we read them, and also how we interpret the scientific and historical evidence to support our views.

I’m going to look at each method of reading Genesis in reverse order.  First, could these just be borrowed from ancient Babylonian myths, as is currently taught in many seminaries?
Most who hold this view emphasize the similarities in the accounts. But similarities would indeed be expected if the human race originated from one family and had a common creation or flood account which they took with them as they spread out across the earth.

There are also significant differences. Erwin Lutzer[1] points these out:

  • In the Babylonian account there are many gods who quarrel and fight and who sprang from preexisting matter.

  • The Babylonian accounts confuse the Creator with His creation.

  • The Babylonian account has the kind of garblings and embellishments to be expected when a historical account has been mythologized. The Genesis account gives a sober history of only one God who created space, time and matter from nothing.

  •  In fact, Genesis is the only account that agrees with modern science in that matter, space, and time all came into existence at a finite point in the past.  All other ancient creation accounts have matter already pre-existing, with the “gods” springing out of the matter.


Some have said the Genesis account is simply the Babylonian account condensed and reworded without the polytheistic elements. But in the ancient Near East the evidence shows that simple accounts are embellished into complex legends, not the other way around. Lutzer quotes A.R. Millard: “All who suspect or suggest a borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion which cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing.”[2]
A theory that better fits the evidence is that God revealed His creation message to early generations, but as it was passed down through the generations in many different cultures it was corrupted and mythologized as it was handed down, and either God revealed to Moses the original record or Moses had possession of the original account as handed down from tablets written by the patriarchs.
There are many other reasons why the Babylonian myth theory doesn’t fit the evidence.
Is Genesis poetry or historical narrative?  Hebrew poetry has a very different grammatical structure from Hebrew prose (historical narrative).  Detailed studies have been done on the text [3}, and the ratio of preterite verbs to total finite verbs, in particular, tell whether the authors are intending to produce an historical account or a poetic account.  Another way of telling Hebrew prose from poetry is the lack of parallelism in meaning in Hebrew prose vs. poetry.
So reading Genesis as poetry or as borrowed mythology does not seem to fit what the writer intended. In the next few articles we will examine the debate on how to read the days of creation, as well as the passages on the Genesis flood.
[1] Erwin Lutzer, Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust the Bible, Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1998, 70.
[2] Ibid., 70-71.

[3} Stephen W. Boyd, Radioistopes and the Age of the Earth, Institute for Creation Research, 2005, pp. 631-734.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

6Is the Genesis account of literal 6 days just a myth ?  Empty Human origins: Created, or evolved? Mon 23 Nov 2020 - 12:02

Otangelo


Admin

Human origins: Created, or evolved?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2683-is-the-genesis-account-of-literal-6-days-just-a-myth#8168

THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY IS IN OUR GENOME. WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT mtDNA OF HUMANS FITS THE 6000-YEAR TIMESCALE, EXPLAINS THE THREE HAPLOGROUPS, AND THE RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRE AND POST FLOOD HUMANITY. One Eve in the beginning, population shrinks to 8 people (Noah, Noahs wife, 3 sons, 3 wives of Noahs sons). 3 boys get MTDNA from mom and then it ends. Genesis 9 says from these 3 the entire world was repopulated. We get our MTDNA from their 3 wives. Population would then grow and shrink to 8 at the time of the flood and then grow again momentarily ending with the splitting of people groups at the Tower of Babel.

The widely presumed “pre-humans” such as Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, and Homo naledi were neither pre-human nor less-than-human. They were members of our own species who were undergoing accelerated genetic degeneration due to severe and extended inbreeding

The population of the human race at the time of the flood and immediately afterward certainly qualifies as a population size that would enable mutated alleles to become common as the population grew. With a starting population of only eight people, alleles, such as the O allele, could easily have increased in frequency through random genetic drift in the post-flood population, reflecting the present levels that are observed today and consistent with computer simulations modeling fixation.

" Dr. Robert Carter has spent considerable time analyzing the HapMaP data and has come to some intriguing conclusions. In his article “Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple?
“The HapMap Project3 was designed to catalog a significant fraction of human genetic diversity. They analyzed millions of variants in thousands of people from around the world and made the data freely available.  What have we learned?
The human genome is young: shared blocks of DNA are large and there has not been enough time to scramble them to randomness.
The human population came from a single source: most blocks are shared among all world populations.
The human genome is falling apart: deletions tend to NOT be shared among populations, but are unique to subpopulations (this is further evidence for the youth of the genome and that we came from a single source population in the recent past).”

Critics have put forth the argument that the highly variable positions found within the genome is a contradiction to the created heterozygosity hypothesis. Dr. Robert Carter addresses this objection in his article titled “Adam, Eve, and Noah vs Modern Genetics” :

“ Most variable places in the genome come in two versions and these versions are spread out across the world. There are some highly variable places that seem to contradict this, but most of these are due to mutations that occurred in the different subpopulations after Babel.

There are indications, however, that Eve may not have been a clone. The ABO blood group is a textbook example of a gene with more than two versions. 3 There are three main versions of the blood type gene (A, B, and O). However, many, but not all, people with type O blood carry something that looks very much like a mutant A (the mutation prevents the manufacturing of the type A trait on the outside of cells). So here is a gene with more than two versions, but one of the main versions is clearly a mutation. This is true for many other genes, although, as usual, there are exceptions. The important take home point is that essentially all of the genetic variation among people today could have been carried within two people, if you discount mutations that occurred after our dispersion across the globe. This is a surprise to many.”
Source: Robert W. Carter , “Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics,” Creation Ministries (May 11, 2010)

Mutations can clearly occur after the flood and after Babel. These mutations would create additional versions of the original created alleles. There is no contradiction to the hypothesis that suggests God would have encoded Adam and Eve with front-loaded DNA diversity."

Genetics vs. Genomics Fact Sheet September 7, 2018 1
All human beings are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup. Differences in the remaining 0.1 percent hold important clues about the causes of diseases.

Harmful protein-coding mutations in people arose largely in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years November 28, 2012
A study dating the age of more than 1 million single-letter variations in the human DNA code reveals that most of these mutations are of recent origin, evolutionarily speaking. These kinds of mutations change one nucleotide – an A, C, T or G – in the DNA sequence.  Over 86 percent of the harmful protein-coding mutations of this type arose in humans just during the past 5,000 to 10,000 years.

Evidence for a Human Y Chromosome Molecular Clock: Pedigree-Based Mutation Rates Suggest a 4,500-Year History for Human Paternal Inheritance 3
Pedigree-based mutation rates act as an independent test of the young-earth creation and evolutionary timescales. Currently, evolutionary papers use published Y chromosome pedigree-based mutation rates to argue for an ancient origin of humanity. However, their published studies rely on low-coverage sequence runs. We show that pedigree-based mutation rates from high-coverage sequence runs are hidden in the evolutionary literature, and we demonstrate that these rates confirm a 4,500-year history for human paternal ancestry.

The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence 2
We have calculated the consensus sequence for human mitochondrial DNA using over 800 available sequences. Analysis of this consensus reveals an unexpected lack of diversity within human mtDNA worldwide. Not only is more than 83% of the mitochondrial genome invariant, but in over 99% of the variable positions, the majority allele was found in at least 90% of the individuals.

Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock
Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics. Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondria1 Eve, the woman which mDNA  was ancestral to that in all living people-lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. 4

A Complete Neandertal Mitochondrial Genome Sequence Determined by High-Throughput Sequencing 5
The evolutionary dates are clearly dependent on many tenuous assumptions

Is the Genesis account of literal 6 days just a myth ?  Noahs_10

Is the Genesis account of literal 6 days just a myth ?  Harmfu10

1. https://www.washington.edu/news/2012/11/28/harmful-protein-coding-mutations-in-people-arose-largely-in-the-past-5000-to-10000-years/
2. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-"Eve"-Mitochondrial-Consensus-Sequence-Carter-Criswell/425f35ec312fd2d615e76671748db9eacd467fe8
3. https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/molecular-clock/evidence-human-y-chromosome-molecular-clock/
4. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/279/5347/28.summary
5. https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(08)00773-3

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Question: Does the word Yom in Genesis 1 mean a literal 24h day?
Reply: From what can be understood in Genesis 1. YOM cannot mean a long period of time, or epochs, attempting to substantiate an Old Earth. Here is why: (And this is also why I am defending the YEC view, giving honor to Gods word, which is authoritative and always true. I put if first, before whatever science claims and says).
The word YOM is actually a general term for time. It can mean either a 24-hour day or an indefinite period of time (such as days, weeks, months and years).
How could it be possible for a Jew to determine whether the word YOM used in a text would have the meaning of a 24-hour day or not?
The answer is simple: by the Hebrew grammar. There are three specific cases.
If a numeral is related to the word YOM, such as "in the tenth YOM of the seventh month" (as in Leviticus 25: 9), the meaning of YOM will be a 24-hour day.
Or if a definite article is related to the word YOM, such as “the YOM of Atonement” (Leviticus 23:28), the meaning of YOM will be a 24-hour day.
Also, the expression “afternoon and morning” is always used to determine a 24-hour period (Exodus 18:13). When this expression is related to the word YOM, its meaning will be one day with 24 hours.
In all the verses in Genesis 1 where the word YOM was used - verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31 - the grammatical form used was: the expression “afternoon and morning” + the definite article + an ordinal number + YOM. This form with the three elements appearing simultaneously means that there is no other possible interpretation for the meaning of YOM other than a 24 hour period of time.
Grammatically speaking, the word YOM used in Genesis 1 can only be interpreted as a 24-hour day and not as long periods of time.
Some people have questioned: But what about the text in II Peter 3: 8 that says: "... for the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day." ... A day for God can't it be like a thousand years? Couldn't the days of Genesis be eras instead of literal days?
It is important to note that the text of II Peter is not related to the text of Genesis 1. This is taking a text out of its context to try to establish a pretext. Those who study hermeneutics know this.
The days of Genesis can only be interpreted as literal. The text of Exodus 20: 8-10, the fourth commandment, shows this.
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. You will work six days and do all your work there, but the seventh day is the Sabbath dedicated to the Lord your God. On that day you will not do any work, neither you nor yours. Sons or daughters, neither your male or female servants, nor your animals, nor the foreigners who live in your cities. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything in them, but on the seventh day he rested Therefore, the Lord blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. ”
The word "day" used here is YOM. So how long should each of these six days of work be? How could anyone know the correct meaning? None of the three ways to identify the term YOM as a 24-hour period appears in this text.
So, should we work “thousands of years” days? Of course not! Why not?
We know that YOM in this text means a 24-hour day. But how? The answer is in verse 10.
God commands through the fourth commandment that we work six days out of 24 hours, just as He worked six days out of 24 hours. The text is clear. Notice the conjunction “for” at the beginning of verse 10 linking the 6 YOMs that we are to work with the 6 YOMs that God has worked with.

Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Book of Genesis page 73
One more point needs to be discussed before dealing with the actual six days of creation relative to the Hebrew word for “day,” which is yom. People who want to fit Genesis 1 into evolutionary and geological theories try to claim that the word yom does not have to mean twenty-four hours but could mean a longer period of time, even millions of years. Now it is true that when the word yom is used by itself it could mean a longer period of time (though no example exists where it means millions of years). For example, the Day of Jehovah is a period of seven years. However, whenever the word is used with a number or numeral, it always means twenty-four hours. Throughout Genesis 1, each time the word day is found; it is used with a numeral: day one, day two, etc. This alone shows that the days of Genesis are twenty-four hour days. However, there is more: Not only is the word day followed by a numeral, it is also followed by the phrase evening and morning, and this phrase again limits it to twenty-four hours. Furthermore, the Sabbath law, as given to Israel in the Law of Moses, is based upon the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. These laws would become meaningless if these were not twenty-four hour days. Finally, with the fourth day, there is the mention of days, years, signs, and seasons, showing that already within Genesis 1 there is the normal system of time in operation. These terms also would become meaningless if these were not normal twenty-four hour days. By itself, Genesis 1:2 says nothing insofar as it being an old earth or a young earth, and the evidence for one or the other must be based on arguments outside this verse. However, the six days of creation were literal twenty-four hour days.

Is the Genesis account of literal 6 days just a myth ?  Dfasdf10

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

1. Sometimes ‘day’ can mean other than an ordinary day No one denies that ‘day’ can have several meanings, as it does in English, but the context of a numbered day with an evening and a morning defines the days in Genesis 1 as ordinary days. ‘In the day that…’ in Genesis 2:4 is a Hebrew idiom for ‘when’, as explained earlier, and it does not have a number or evening or morning to define it as an ordinary day. Some cite ‘with the Lord, a day is as a thousand years’ (2 Peter 3:8 ) to make each of the days of Creation a thousand years long (or longer). This is a misuse of Scripture. Note that the Bible compares the thousand years with a day (it is as or like a day), not that it is a day. The Bible teaches us here simply that what might seem like a long time to us waiting for the second coming of Christ is nothing to the eternal God —He is patient, waiting for people to repent of their sin. This has nothing to do with the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1. In fact, the figure of speech is so effective precisely because the day is literal and contrasts so vividly with 1,000 years—to the eternal Creator of time, a short period of time and a long period of time may as well be the same. A parallel passage in Psalm 90:4, compares a thousand years to a watch in the night (three or four hours) in God’s sight, yet no one claims that the night watch could last a thousand years! This passage again underlines that Scripture here contrasts God’s eternal perspective with our temporal one. As the respected commentator John Gill said, ‘the words aptly express the disproportion there is between the eternal God and mortal man’. They have nothing to do with the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1.35

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Genesis 1:1 introduces the biblical creation narrative with the statement: "In the beginning, God created the heavens (שָׁמַיִם shamayim) and the earth (אֶרֶץ ereṣ)." The term shamayim, often translated as "heavens," is inherently plural in Hebrew, though its exact form suggests a duality. This linguistic nuance allows for varying translations, with some versions opting for the plural "heavens," and others presenting it in the singular as "heaven." This variance reflects the translator's interpretative choice, given shamayim's broad application across 421 instances in the Old Testament. Shamayim, representing the realms above, encompasses three distinct layers in biblical cosmology. These layers, though not explicitly labeled as such in the Old Testament, can be categorized for clarity as the first, second, and third heavens. The first heaven includes the immediate atmosphere surrounding Earth, characterized by clouds, birds, and weather phenomena, as depicted in passages like Psalm 104:12 and Isaiah 55:10. The second heaven extends to the celestial expanse, housing the stars and astronomical bodies, as suggested in Genesis 22:17. The third heaven signifies God's dwelling, a divine realm beyond the physical, as expressed in Psalm 115:3. This trifurcated concept of the heavens finds a rare New Testament acknowledgment in 2 Corinthians 12:2–4, where Paul references a transcendent experience in the "third heaven." Within this framework, Genesis 1:1 serves as an encapsulating prelude to the Creation Week, succinctly summarizing God's creative acts. This interpretative approach posits that the events of Day Two, specifically the formation of the "firmament" or "expanse" (רָקִיעַ raqia), pertain to the creation of the astronomical heaven, laying a foundational stone for a biblically rooted model of astronomy.

Such an understanding potentially offers a novel perspective on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). This pervasive radiation, seen as a relic of the universe's nascent thermodynamic state, could align with a divine orchestration of the cosmos, wherein the initial conditions and subsequent expansions reflect a Creator's intent. This perspective weaves the scientific observation of the CMB into biblical creation, suggesting that even the most ancient light bears witness to a purposeful divine act, encapsulated in the opening verse of Genesis.

The concept of "heavens" or "heaven" in Scripture, denoted by the Hebrew term שָׁמַיִם (shamayim), carries a nuanced significance due to its varied application within the biblical text. The term's plural form, often interpreted phenomenologically, suggests a layered understanding of the heavens, encompassing the immediate sky, the celestial realm, and the divine abode. However, the distinction among these layers is not explicitly defined in Scripture, urging a careful approach when applying these categorizations to biblical narratives. The observable dynamics of the "first heaven," such as the flight of birds and the movement of clouds, contrast with the seemingly static nature of the "second heaven," where celestial bodies reside. This apparent dichotomy stems from our modern understanding of the atmosphere and outer space, distinctions likely unfamiliar to the ancient Hebrews. Consequently, the biblical text sometimes blurs the lines between the atmospheric and celestial realms, treating them interchangeably in certain contexts.

Genesis 1:6–8 introduces the term רָקִיעַ (raqia), often translated as "expanse" or "firmament," further complicating the scriptural depiction of the heavens. The narrative describes God's creation of this expanse on the second day, naming it shamayim, thus presenting a textual dilemma where the heavens appear to be created twice. Resolving this requires careful consideration of the raqia's nature and its implications for biblical cosmology. The raqia's significance in the Creation Week narrative, appearing 17 times across the Old Testament—predominantly within Genesis 1—positions it as an essential element in understanding biblical cosmology. Interpretations of raqia have varied among creationists, ranging from the earth's atmosphere to interstellar space, and even the earth's surface. Such diverse interpretations highlight the challenges in defining the raqia and underscore the importance of context in developing a coherent biblical model of the cosmos. This exploration into the biblical heavens and the raqia seeks to navigate these complexities, recognizing the limitations of our modern conceptual frameworks when applied to ancient texts. As we delve into the scriptural accounts of creation and the cosmos, our approach must harmonize reverence for the text's historical and cultural backdrop with the pursuit of a consistent biblical cosmology.

Exploring the Firmament: Diverse Interpretations and Their Cosmological Implications

The term רָקִיעַ (raqia), often translated as "firmament" or "expanse," plays a critical role in biblical cosmology, particularly in the creation narrative of Genesis. However, interpretations of raqia vary widely, leading to different cosmological models and understandings of the Earth, its atmosphere, and the broader universe. The debate over raqia's nature highlights a deeper inquiry: do specific interpretations of raqia shape our cosmological conclusions, or do our desired conclusions dictate how we interpret raqia? For example, the perspective that raqia refers to Earth's atmosphere has historically been associated with the theory of a pre-Flood water canopy encircling the Earth. This view was central to Morris' Flood model, where the collapse of this water canopy was proposed as a primary source of the Flood waters. However, as the canopy model has largely fallen out of favor among contemporary creationists, it prompts a reassessment of the traditional interpretation of raqia as the atmosphere. Recent reconsiderations among creation scientists reflect this shift. For instance, Humphreys' white hole cosmology necessitates an understanding of raqia as interstellar space, while Hartnett's theories on the abundance of water in the solar system associate raqia with the expanse of the solar system itself. Brown's hydroplate model, on the other hand, interprets raqia as the Earth's primordial surface, demarcating the waters above from those below. These varied interpretations underscore the importance of a thorough review of raqia's potential meanings within a biblical cosmological framework, especially given the limited engagement with Hebrew scholarship in much of the creationist literature.

The translation history of raqia further complicates its interpretation. The Septuagint's rendering of raqia as stereoma, aligning with the Greek cosmological concept of a hard, transparent celestial sphere, reflects an attempt to harmonize biblical cosmology with the prevailing scientific views of the time. This historical context suggests that interpretations of Genesis 1, including those related to raqia, are often influenced by contemporary cosmological theories, a trend that continues with modern attempts to reconcile Scripture with the Big Bang model. Jerome's translation of raqia into Latin as firmamentum, implying a hard substance, further entrenched the idea of raqia as something solid, an interpretation perpetuated by many English translations, including the King James Version. This enduring view of raqia as a firm structure reveals the lasting impact of historical translations on our understanding of biblical cosmology. In navigating these diverse interpretations of raqia, it becomes evident that our approach to biblical cosmology must carefully balance scriptural fidelity with an awareness of historical and cultural contexts. Engaging with the Hebrew scholarship and considering the broader implications of each interpretation of raqia will enhance our understanding of the biblical depiction of the cosmos and its foundational elements.

Reassessing the Firmament: Historical Translations and Interpretations

The interpretation of Genesis 1:1 as indicating the simultaneous creation of the Earth and the universe's expanse on the first day has been a prevalent view among recent creationists. However, this perspective is not as widely held outside creationist circles. More contemporary scholarship suggests that Genesis 1:1 serves as an introductory encapsulation, which implies that this verse summarizes the events of the Creation Week, with subsequent verses providing detailed elaboration. For example, stating "Carl had a great morning" encapsulates the essence of a series of positive events, which are subsequently elaborated on, such as a hearty breakfast, smooth traffic, and a canceled appointment with a difficult client. Similarly, "Harry took his family on a great day trip" succinctly captures the essence of a day filled with activities, with the elaboration detailing the trip up the coast, exploration of a state park, a delightful seafood dinner, and a contented return home. This narrative technique is evident throughout Genesis, where introductory statements often precede detailed accounts of the events they summarize. Applying this understanding to Genesis 1:1 suggests that it encapsulates the entirety of the Creation narrative, with the following verses providing a detailed account of how God's creative acts unfolded day by day. This approach to Genesis 1:1 encourages a reevaluation of traditional interpretations, urging a consideration of the broader narrative structure of Scripture and its storytelling techniques. By acknowledging the influence of historical contexts on biblical interpretation and embracing a nuanced understanding of narrative techniques, we can gain deeper insights into the meaning of the firmament and the Genesis creation account.

Genesis 1:1 as a Prelude to Creation: The Literary Framework of Genesis

Genesis 1:1 suggests that this opening verse serves as a thematic overview of the Creation account, encapsulating the act of creation in a succinct statement. The subsequent verses from Genesis 1:2 to 2:3 then provide a detailed account of how the universe, including the heavens and the earth, came into being, day by day. The use of "heaven and earth" in Genesis 1:1 exemplifies a literary device known as merism, where two contrasting or distinct parts are mentioned to represent the entirety of something. In the context of Genesis 1:1, "heaven and earth" symbolizes the whole of creation. In the absence of a specific term for "universe" in ancient Hebrew, the phrase "heaven and earth" serves as a comprehensive reference to all of physical existence.

https://answersresearchjournal.org/raqia-cosmic-microwave-background/

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies

In 1965, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson marked a significant milestone in cosmology. They observed that the intensity of the CMB varied by less than 10% in different directions, indicating its nearly uniform presence throughout the cosmos. The CMB consists of electromagnetic energy at microwave frequencies, detectable from every direction in space, and its characteristics can be compared to those of an ideal 'black body' radiator at a temperature of about 2.7 K.

Further investigations, such as those by Smoot and others in 1977, revealed patterns of 'hot' and 'cold' spots in the CMB across the sky, indicating slight variations in temperature. These variations were initially attributed to Earth's motion and later, with more refined analyses, intrinsic fluctuations on the order of 10 µK were identified. Advanced observations, like those from the Boomerang experiment involving a microwave telescope flown over Antarctica, provided higher-resolution data on these temperature fluctuations. The CMB suggests the existence of a preferred frame of reference in the universe, related to the general expansion of the cosmos. This notion doesn't contradict the principle of relativity, which posits that the laws of physics should be the same for all inertial observers, without implying a universal preferred frame based on physical laws. Measurements have shown Earth's motion to be approximately 370 km/sec towards the constellation Leo, with our galaxy moving around 600 km/sec relative to this cosmological frame.

These findings have been seen to align with certain creationist cosmological models, which fit the observations within a creationist timeframe and suggest a universe with bounded matter distribution. Contrarily, these observations challenge the conventional Big Bang models that assume an unbounded universe.

In the realm of cosmology, the debate between bounded and unbounded matter distributions constitutes a fundamental aspect of our understanding of the universe's structure. This distinction is crucial in the exploration of cosmological models and has significant implications for the geometry and topology of the cosmos.

Bounded Matter Distribution: A universe with a bounded matter distribution is characterized by a finite spatial extent, where the distribution of matter does not extend infinitely but is limited to a certain region of space. This concept implies the existence of a demarcation beyond which space and matter cease to exist or are undefined. The geometry of such a universe might resemble a closed system, akin to the surface of a sphere, where one could theoretically traverse the cosmos and return to the starting point without encountering a definitive boundary. This model raises questions about the overall shape and edge of the universe, although "edge" in this context does not refer to a physical cliff but rather to the limit of space-time itself.

Unbounded Matter Distribution: Contrastingly, an unbounded universe presupposes an infinite spatial framework, with matter dispersed throughout this endless expanse. This model negates the concept of a cosmic boundary or edge, proposing instead that the universe extends indefinitely in every direction. The geometric interpretation of an unbounded universe might be flat, where parallel lines remain equidistant indefinitely, or open, with parallel lines diverging over vast distances, suggesting a hyperbolic curvature of space.

### Evaluation of the Models:

The compelling nature and evidence base of these two models vary significantly, influenced by observational data and theoretical frameworks.

- **Observational Evidence**: Modern cosmological observations, including the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, large-scale structure distributions, and Type Ia supernovae measurements, have provided substantial insights into the universe's geometry. The prevailing evidence suggests a universe that is flat on large scales, with a matter distribution consistent with an unbounded model. The CMB, in particular, offers a snapshot of the early universe that supports a spatially flat geometry, aligning with predictions of inflationary Big Bang cosmology.

- **Theoretical Considerations**: Theoretical models, underpinned by General Relativity and quantum field theories, have been more consonant with an unbounded universe. Inflationary theory, an extension of the Big Bang model, proposes a period of exponential expansion that would lead to a universe that is flat and spatially infinite, or at least so large that any curvature is undetectable within our observable horizon.

### Conclusion:

While the concept of a bounded universe presents intriguing philosophical and theological considerations, the preponderance of empirical evidence and theoretical support leans towards an unbounded matter distribution model. The flat geometry inferred from CMB measurements, combined with the large-scale uniformity of the universe's structure, renders the unbounded model more compelling within the current scientific paradigm. Nonetheless, cosmology remains a field ripe with discovery, and our understanding of the universe's ultimate structure continues to evolve with advancements in observational technology and theoretical physics.





Gentry's model, in particular, proposes a finite universe that accounts for the red-shifts, the CMB, and the distribution of quasars, aligning with the available observational data without requiring the assumption of an expanding universe posited by the big bang theory.







After the motion of the Earth and our galaxy is removed, there are found, buried in the CMB radiation, at sufficiently small angular resolutions, small intrinsic variations of the order of 1 part in 105, actually ≤ 70 µK.4,10 This in itself is a problem, because cosmologists have stated that variations greater than 1 part in 104 are needed for galaxies and clusters to form in the cosmological time available to gravity.11

‘Blotches’

The elongated shapes or ‘blotches’ in the two-dimensional temperature maps (shown in Figure 1) in the CMB have been interpreted by Gurzadyan as the effect of geodesic (trajectory) mixing on the properties of a bundle of CMB photons propagating through space.12–14 That is, because a bundle of photons is not a point object, the individual photons follow different paths from the source to the receiver. The result at the receiving end is an enlarged and smeared image as illustrated in Figure 2. This results in a distinct signature and depends on the geometry of space, indicating that a negatively curved Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) universe will produce the observed elongated anisotropy spots (Figure 2). Thus, the blotches are not the result of some ‘clumpiness’ of the radiation density soon after the big bang.

The negatively curved FRW universe refers to the standard big bang cosmology where the curvature constant k = –1, which usually means the space is open and infinite. This may be contrasted with a closed universe with a positive curvature constant k = +1 or a flat universe where k = 0. The latter is usually referred to as Euclidean space and is what we are familiar with on a local scale. However, on a galactic or universal scale, reality may be different.

Cold dark matter

The dynamic behaviour of galaxies and galactic clusters begs for dark matter, as will be explained later, but to date none has been found. According to McGaugh,10 recent Boomerang data,4 which contain the amplitudes in the angular power spectrum of the anisotropies in the CMB radiation, suggest that the universe is filled with normal (baryonic) matter, and not with exotic particles or cold dark matter (CDM).

Looking at the velocity of stars distributed in spiral galaxies, typically the stars in the extremities of the arms have higher centripetal velocities than those in the hub.15 This observation has been made based on a well-established physical law—one of Kepler’ equations. In addition, Isaac Newton showed that only the mass lying within the orbit of the star affects its motion; the rest can be neglected. From these facts the mass of the galaxy (m) can be determined through:

where v is the velocity of the outer-most stars determined from Doppler measurements of their proper motions, r is their distance from the centre, and G is the universal gravitational constant. This mass calculation is then compared with the mass of the observed number of stars in the galaxy and found to be an order of magnitude larger. Hence the need for additional non-luminous matter to balance the calculation—dark matter.

Also, the virial theorem can be used to calculate the mass of either a single galaxy or a galaxy cluster, typically of the order of a few hundred members. The theorem relates the potential and kinetic energies of a system that is gravitationally stable, without collapse or disintegration taking place. Evolutionary astrophysicists suppose galaxies and galaxy clusters must be gravitationally bound. Otherwise, over the billions of years since their alleged birth, they would have flown apart. The theorem states that the total gravitational potential energy of the star system equals exactly twice the total kinetic energy. If this condition is not met, the component objects will either cascade inward or escape, depending on the direction of imbalance. From the virial theorem,16 the mass of a galaxy cluster (M) can be calculated as follows:

where V is the rms averaged velocity of the member galaxies, and R the estimated radius of the entire cluster.

Essentially the same calculation can be performed on a cosmological scale when assumptions about the cosmology of the universe are made. These calculations determine whether the universe has sufficient mass density for closure to occur and the current expansion (as the red-shift of galaxies is interpreted to mean) to be halted or reversed. The standard cosmological paradigm is of a universe in which ordinary matter comprises only about 10%, and the other 90% is in non-baryonic forms. The latter may include the elusive axion, WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) or other unknown particles, which allegedly don’t interact with light.

Missing dark matter and smooth CMB

The ‘standard’ CDM17 model started simple but soon evolved into a more convoluted model, LCDM,18 with many complexities. McGaugh states in his paper:

‘The presumed existence of CDM is a well-motivated inference based principally on two astrophysical observations. One is that the total mass density inferred dynamically greatly exceeds that allowed for normal baryonic matter by big bang nucleosynthesis. The other is that the cosmic microwave background is very smooth. Structure cannot grow gravitationally to the rich extent seen today unless there is a non-baryonic component that can already be significantly clumped at the time of recombination without leaving indiscriminately large fingerprints on the microwave background.’10

However, the large fingerprints are just not observed.

These two issues are fundamentally important to the evolutionary cosmologist. The missing dark matter in galaxies, galaxy clusters, and the whole universe, and the smoothness of the CMB radiation create unassailable problems in the formation of stars and galaxies in the ‘early universe’. Prof. Stephen Hawking in his book said, ‘This [big bang] picture of the universe … is in agreement with all the observational evidence that we have today’, but admitted, ‘Nevertheless, it leaves a number of important questions unanswered ….’19 The important questions left unanswered, of course, concern how stars and galaxies could have originated.

Spiral galaxy arms

Creationist cosmologies may also require some dark matter (which may be ordinary but unobserved baryonic matter), but only to account for the orbital motion of stars in spiral galaxies. Even without this form of dark matter the observed orbital motions are not necessarily a problem for the creationist. Possibly the galaxies were not in equilibrium when they were created, and have not had time to disintegrate since. This of course assumes that only 6,000 years or so have passed on the galaxy in question. Some creationists have suggested that this may not have been the case.8 On the other hand, evolutionary (big bang nucleosynthesis) assumptions require large quantities of non-baryonic dark matter. The Creation model has no such constraint.

Figure 2.The evolution of photon beam astronomy due to mixing effect in hypothetical universes with different curvatures, k (after Gurzadyan and Kocharyn).14

Some 30 years ago a ‘density wave’ theory was postulated to solve the ‘wrap-up’ problem in the arms of spiral galaxies.20 That is, the arms of spiral galaxies should be very tightly wound if they are indeed billions of years old. Apparently, it requires much fine tuning to get the theory to work,21 and recently has been called into question by the very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the Whirlpool galaxy, M51, discovered by the Hubble Space Telescope. The new observations show that the inner spiral structure extends inward further than was previously thought. The spiral arms are wrapped about the centre for about three full turns,22 which the density wave model does not explain well. Kennedy eloquently sums up the problem: ‘…the precise physical recipe that predicts their [density waves’] behaviour continues to elude us’.23 Even though no such problem exists for the creationist, I suspect that an understanding of the structure in tightly-wound spiral galaxies will need to include some dark matter. But this will only be of the ordinary baryonic form, not the hypothetical, non-baryonic CDM.

An a priori prediction

Models for the angular power spectrum of fluctuation in the CMB have many free parameters, making it possible to fit a wide variety of models to a given data set. However, the baryon content is the principal component that affects the amplitude of the odd and even peaks, and may therefore be used to predict what should be observed. Based on standard cosmological theory for the baryon content prescribed by big bang nucleosynthesis and the abundances of light elements, both peaks should be present. But, when CDM dominates, the even numbered peaks should be foremost. If CDM is negligible, the second peak should have a much smaller amplitude. The latter is consistent with the Boomerang data.4 Considering the LCDM model,18 all reasonable variations of parameters considerably over-predict the height of the second peak compared with the data.

As McGaugh shows, the a priori prediction for a purely baryonic universe is totally consistent with the data. The amplitude of the second peak is much smaller than that predicted by LCDM models. If we believe in the experimental method and the principle of falsification, there is one glaring result of this analysis; either non-baryonic cold dark matter doesn’t exist, or big bang cosmology, on which the prediction is based, is wrong! This, of course, presumes that the anisotropy in the amplitudes of the CMB radiation is correctly interpreted. Assuming the latter for the moment, if CDM doesn’t exist, the big bang cosmologists have problems explaining the existence of galactic clusters. Another consequence is that the observed mass density, without CDM, is too low for closure, and, as a result, would indicate the universe is open or has negatively curved space.

Cosmologists grasp at straws

Naturally, the lack of CDM is of considerable concern for evolutionary cosmologists. Some enterprising Princeton astrophysicists have attempted to solve this problem by proposing particles as big as galaxies to explain lack of dwarf galaxy formation.24 The hypothetical particles have a density of the order 10–24 of that of an electron and wave-functions of the order of 3,000 light-years! They interact only with gravity and are almost impossible to detect. The only reason these particles are needed, it seems, is to explain why dwarf galaxies are far rarer than big bang theory predicts. As theory goes, CDM was introduced to get matter to form galaxies early in the universe’ history, but that created another problem—computer simulations predicted that a huge number of dwarf galaxies would have formed but these are undetected. Hence the need for the huge hypothetical particles that ‘would form giant globs of "fuzzy" cold dark matter’.24

One physicist, Gruzinov, even challenges his colleagues to prove him wrong, saying this model is consistent with all known observations. Where have I heard that before? Where does ‘faith’ stop and the facts begin? It would seem, in this area of astrophysics (stellar formation and galaxy evolution), ‘blind faith’ is all they have. The facts are so sparse and the parameters so many, that almost any proposal can be published, provided it is consistent with the evolutionary paradigm. ‘If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect.’25

Big bang misses the mark

The latest evidence from the Boomerang data strongly suggests, based on standard big bang cosmology, either that there is no CDM, or that big bang cosmology is wrong, or both! It cannot be ruled out that contradictions in the models exist simply because the big bang cosmology is wrong. In this case, it may be impossible to get any predictions to fit the observed data in the fine detail, because incorrect assumptions were made in the first place. In any case, the Boomerang data indicate that the big bang cannot explain the formation of galaxies and clusters.

Conversely, these latest findings about the anisotropy of the CMB are consistent with creationist cosmologies, which do not require these ‘ripples’ to explain galaxy formation in the early universe.







https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum