View Full Version : Genesis 1
Genesis 1 seems to support an old earth, or at least a process in creating.
11 And God said, Let the earth sprout tender sprouts, the plant seeding seed, the fruit tree producing fruit according to its kind, whichever seed is in it on the earth. And it was so.
16 And God made the two great luminaries: the great luminary to rule the day, and the small luminary and the stars to rule the night.
Plants live via photosynthesis. Verse 11 happened in the third day, verse 16 in the fourth day. (Thanks to Lou for pointing that out a while back :clap2: )
How could this be referring to a literal 24-hour day?
It is possible that God 'decreed' things to happen in each 24-hour day. This would also mean "it was so". It could also mean that "adam" wasn't in the image of God, but would be.
What do y'all think?
Amie
It could also mean that "adam" wasn't in the image of God, but would be.
Amie, I'm assuming you're saying Adam was brought into [made in] the image of God, is that correct? If so, where are you thinking this leads?
Davo,
Yes, that is what I'm thinking just now.
I think that it would line up with Gen 2:4: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that Jehovah God was making earth and heavens."
The generations of the existing heavens and earth (when things are decreed) in the day that God was making the earth and heavens (completed by the 6th day).
That would mean that any literal days 1-6 would only be representative of covenantal days 1-6, which would be followed by God's rest ("the Lord's day"), then the 8th day of jubilation.
It also corroletes with the first adam being a "living soul" in contrast to a "quickening spirit".
It would also make "death reigned from Adam to Moses" mean "death reigned from the creation of adam until the end of Moses".. the end of Moses also being the end of adam.
It would mean that Israel was in covenant with Adam until he died (covenantally) and the new Adam would became "husband".
Sorry for all of the out-loud thinking. It just seems to lead to additional consistency.
What do you think of it?
Amie
hmm yes, I'm not sure to be honest :cool:
Davo,
If this is a literal creation account, then I can't think of any other way it would play out. Unfortunately, it really does nothing to support an "old" or "young" earth.
There is always the possibility (one which I am not so warm to personally) that it is not literal at all in any way.
Amie
Truthseeker
03-13-2006, 09:55 PM
Hi Dear Amie and All,
Each creative "day" was thousands, perhaps millions (or more) years long. No specific time is given for each "day"--just an "evening" to begin the "day" and a "morning" to end it. In the "evening" period, it was dark, and unclear as to what God was creating, but in the "morning" it could be seen by those watching, as the book of Job testifies, "When the morning stars joyfully cried out together; And all the sons of god began shouting in applause".
So yes, I'd say the earth is very old indeed. :) And it already existed (altho without form and void) when verse 2 begins. So the creative "days" were to get it ready for human habitation.
Its interesting too, that in the Genesis account, there is an ending to each "day" for 6 "days"--but no end to the 7th "day." Obviously, God rested from His physical creative works, but then began the Spiritual Work with mankind. (Jesus testified to this when he was accused of breaking the Sabbath by healing on it--he said, "My Father and I have been working and continue to work..." showing that they were in the Spiritual work phase of Creation throughout that whole Sabbath Day period. I'd be interested in any comments regarding that.
As I see it, Amie, mankind could very well have evolved (God creating mankind that way) and when man reached a mental level that He could communicate with, He called a man to Himself, Adam, and his wife Eve. And they are the symbols (representatives) for all of mankind. As for making man in His image, and in His likeness--I believe these qualities are in mankind: namely, Love, Justice, Wisdom and Power--which set mankind above and apart from the animals. What say you?--rhonda
Each creative "day" was thousands, perhaps millions (or more) years long.
I don't see how this is possible (and that by no means, means that it is not, lol). Plants live via photosynthesis (food from sunlight). Verse 11 (plants came forth) happened in the third day, verse 16 (sun in the sky) in the fourth day.
I'm currently thinking that God decreed for each thing to come into being on each of those days. It could have come into being in 24 hours (the plants could have perhaps lived for a day with no sunlight). It could have sprung forth from said day over millions of years (where I lean).
(Jesus testified to this when he was accused of breaking the Sabbath by healing on it--he said, "My Father and I have been working and continue to work..." showing that they were in the Spiritual work phase of Creation throughout that whole Sabbath Day period. I'd be interested in any comments regarding that.
The feasts have an 8th day of jubilee. I feel that we are currently in the 8th and final covenantal day.
Jesus said that he was the Lord of the Sabbath (Luke 6:5), that Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), and that even the hypocrites lead their asses to water on the Sabbath (Luke 13:15).
Jesus/God did work on the Sabbath - Jesus came to save the lost sheep in that day.
If Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath (7th day), then what was the covenantal "Day of our Lord"? John had his vision in "The Lord's Day" (Rev 1:10).
As I see it, Amie, mankind could very well have evolved (God creating mankind that way) and when man reached a mental level that He could communicate with, He called a man to Himself, Adam, and his wife Eve.
I feel that humanity could have evolved, though I see it as happening in Gen 1.
Genesis 1
26 ¶ And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
27 And God created the man in His own image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female.
28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the seas, and over birds of the heavens, and over all beasts creeping on the earth.
It is prejudice and bias that produces a male translation of "adam" in this chapter. Hebrew scholars agree that context can dictate sex, but what context here assigns any sex at all? "Man" in this chapter is in reference to "mankind", or "humanity as a whole". I feel pretty strongly about that.
Most use the context of Gen 2 to afford this adam male-ness.
Gen 2
7 And Jehovah God formed the man out of dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
It can still be consistant to continue "mankind" into Gen 2. Hebrew reads "et ha adam", or "this same mankind". "Husband" and "wife" can be used as per function (like the church = a bride/wife) rather than sex and the words used in Gen 2 which are translated "husband" and "wife" are consistently used symbolically throughout the bible.
This is not to say that "adam" (as a tribe) has no patriarch actually named "Adam". Remember, "Moses" is used in terms of those under the Law as well as an individual.
And they are the symbols (representatives) for all of mankind.
I agree 100%. I feel that death entered into the world through them, just as life did through Christ.
As for making man in His image, and in His likeness--I believe these qualities are in mankind: namely, Love, Justice, Wisdom and Power--which set mankind above and apart from the animals.
I believe that mankind has come into his likeness and image.
I think that the image of God may be rulership, which perhaps is what you meant by "power". Under the OC, rulership was authoritarian and separate from God. In the NC, rulership is servanthood and redeemed.
Along those lines I agree that we have a sense of justice/wisdom and have learned via the covenants the difference between self-righteous justice, and righteous justice. One is exclusive, the other, inclusive. One is human, the other divine. I would guess that lesson to be wisdom.
This is probably a strange notion, but I do not see us as that set apart from the animals in that they also love among other things. Now that humanity has been set right for rulership, I really enjoy exploring the connection between us and animals.
Amie
Infinite Grace
03-14-2006, 06:08 AM
I see Genesis 1 totally as poetry, i.e., storytelling. The linguistic style is there - note the repetitive use of certain phrases, also note the days as they unfold. Hebrews were master storytellers, using imagery to convey the message. This is why narrative is so important in this "postmodern" age. Modernism wants to find some kind of literalism in Genesis 1, whether it is 24 hour days, or vast epochs. Postmodernism understands the narrative quality of all of scripture. E.g., David actually reigned for 44 years when combining his rule in Hebron (over Judea) and his rule in Jerusalem (over all Israel). Yet, biblically, he is seen as ruling for "a generation;" i.e., 40 years. To the Hebrews, the symbology of a generation matters more than the actual number of years. Symbolism drives narrative.
Back to the creation of humanity. As Amie has pointed out before, Gen 1 says that God made "man - male and female." "Man" in this case included both genders - we could not have one without the other.
Re: Adam and Eve. Adam was FORMED which in the hebrew means that he was created/taken from something that already existed. What was it that already existed? "The dust of the ground." If you were to study this phrase in scripture, you would find that many times it is used to signify humanity, and specifically in most cases Israel. Some argue that the symbolism is used BECAUSE Adam was formed out of it, but I would argue that from the time the writer(s) of the Pentateuch put it down on paper, it was understood to mean "humanity."
Eve was TAKEN from Adam's "side," not rib. This could very likely mean, when taken in context with the animals not being suitable, that Eve was from HIS KIND - bone of bone, flesh of flesh. Again, this is symbolism, narrative.
The bible was never meant to be a science textbook. Our endless wranglings about whether it was one day or millions of years could possibly be put in the category of "endless geneologies;" i.e., fruitless discussions. Please don't misunderstand that last statement as any kind of a chastisement, it was not meant that way - I am merely saying that the length of "days" matters little to the man or woman whose purpose is to glorify God by enjoying him forever and by loving his neighbor AND himself. It is sufficient to know that Jesus was the Express Icon of God, and we are Jesus' Icon.
Ed,
It could be either have been completed in a literal day, or decreed in a literal day, but each day could not be millions of years long because of photosynthesis.
The Hebrews used poetry throughout the bible, I agree; and I also agree that narrative is important to the post-modern bible reader. I think as well, that the post-modern scientist is interested in digging beyond narrative toward understanding creation.
The bible was never meant to be a science textbook. Our endless wranglings about whether it was one day or millions of years could possibly be put in the category of "endless geneologies;" i.e., fruitless discussions.
Einstein's work was driven by his desire to know the thoughts of God as one example of what I would consider fruitful scientific glances at creation.
I recognize however, that you are more than likely referring to the strife and divisions that can be caused by differences of opinion. As per that, I agree whole-heartedly! I think that there is a way to discuss things that we don't agree on, without the strife and division. I work on it daily in myself, lol.
IF each day was decreed, it changes the narrative a bit because mankind will not have already been in his image, lost it, and then returned. Mankind would have been decreed to as Davo said "to be brought into" the image of God. This seems to me, to be supportive of the fulfilled view and to enhance the consistency of the story.
It at least appeals to present day egos in that if all is not fulfilled, then mankind is not yet in his image, know what I mean?
There were two trees available in the garden and Adam and Eve chose the ToK. The ToL is what would actually bring them into his image - they opted for their own image.
Amie
ozark
03-14-2006, 02:14 PM
Ed,
This might apply to your last post.
The modern paradigm is very rational. It is no wonder that the fight to prove the Bible as fact took center stage. (Of course, fact was determined by the literal view of the scriptures.) Maybe times are changing. Here is a quote by Robert Webber, a professor at Northern Seminary.
“It was during the enlightenment that the foundation of the Christian faith shifted from the centrality of the person and work of Jesus Christ to the centrality of the Bible. Theology shifted from the God who acts to the God who spoke. In the worst scenario faith shifted from trust in Christ to trust in the Book. Therefore, the first question we must address as evangelicals in a postmodern world is this: Do we believe in a book or a person?
…Both conservatives and liberals have approached the Bible through empirical methodology in search of truth. Liberals used reason to demythologize the Bible and reduced the essence of the faith to love. On the other hand, conservatives argued for the exact correctness of everything in the Bible based upon the doctrine of inerrancy. In this vicious circle the liberals tore the Bible to shreds with biblical criticism while the conservatives continually followed the liberals in trying to put the pieces back together with rational arguments. In the meantime for many the message was lost.
…The issue in a postmodern world is not to prove the Bible, but to restore the message of the Bible, a message which, when proclaimed by the power of the Spirit, takes up residence within those who know how to hear.”
Truthseeker
03-14-2006, 10:08 PM
Hi Ozark,
Good points.
I'm very much a Bible-based believer, but I've learned that its a book of symbols--and so rather than see it as literal, I see it as symbolic. The symbols, of course, represent Higher Truths that are unseen; I agree its a spiritual book--in fact, Jesus always spoke to the "spiritual ear" and not to the physical ear.
So Adam becomes representative of physical mankind. Since he was created first in the Genesis account, and Eve was created out of him, (male being a symbol in itself as Sire--therefore, God is revealed as a Father--not because He is a Sex [male or female], but because He is the Sire of all Life,) so Adam represents all mankind, because in the story he is the father of all. Therefore Christ, who was the corresponding ransom, was the Last Adam, becoming our father, thereby gaining all that was lost (which of course was the eating from the TOL.)
Getting back to the creative "days"--there are 6 which of course are also symbolic. These are represented in the 6 workdays of the week--the 7th day Sabbath being representative of God's Rest (from his physical creating work). In the Genesis account it didn't come to an end as the prior days, and so the Sabbath Day period must have been at least thousands of years long (depending on how long it was from Adam to 70AD.)
A question I have for all of you which Amie touched on: In the relating by Moses to Israel on the Holy Days, there is mention of "the Last Great Day." Any thoughts about this? If this is the Last Great Day--the 8th Day--does it too have a set time?
BTW dear brothers and sisters, I want to let you know that I assume that what I say is very well known to you all--I'm not in teaching mode at all, but in learning mode--so I hope you understand that I'm not trying to come across that way, but I'm here to tap your brains and spiritual understanding. I fully expect that when I say something you don't see the same way, you'll let me know, and I hope you feel free to do so. As I said before, I've been piecing together preterism with universalism--and so what I say comes from my own personal studies--and I welcome all of your thoughts so much. When I write, I think out loud, so to speak, just putting the pieces together, and appreciate your input more than I can say. Blessings to all--rhonda
Infinite Grace
03-14-2006, 10:28 PM
Rhonda,
I think that the Eighth Day, a day of resurrection was also The Year of Jubilee. That is what we are in today spiritually.
I really don't know if the 8th day or Year of Jubilee end. I don't care. Partial preterism is not a threat to me, just an alternate understanding of preterism. I will say that my preterism must teach that in AD70, "the last enemy was destroyed" and that was "death." All received LIFE. Beyond that, if Jesus wants to come again at "the end of history" I don't care. I don't believe that it would be "to judge the living and the dead," nor do I teach that it would bring in the resurrection (both of these things already occurred in my theology). The only thing that an end of time coming of Christ would accomplish, in my theology, is to wrap it all up before the sun burns out and everyone dies anyway - physically dies that is.
Truthseeker
03-14-2006, 11:29 PM
Thank you, Ed, dear brother.
I haven't really thought about Jesus ever coming again (why would he need to?) I agree with what you've said about Death being destroyed--how everything was accomplished at the Parousia.
What you said about summing it all up before the sun burns out--which must happen, I suppose, eventually--regarding all things physical--is a thought I've had more than once, and I appreciate so much getting your input. I've never looked into Partial Preterism--is that what they believe? That a physical KOG fills the earth at some point?
I appreciate your thoughts so much. Blessings --rhonda
Rhonda,
You have already encouraged much thought in me and have brought a fresh new perspective which I appreciate a great deal. You may not be in teaching mode, but I'm sure that I've already learned from you.
I would think that even if this world came to a physical end, that the 8th day continues infinitely. Who knows though, maybe God will lead a toast to a new day :). Ed makes a good point that either way, death is destroyed. I figure that we must be celebrating on some level forever, lol.
I think that partial preterists believe that Matthew 24 is past and that there are parts of Revelation that are yet future.. Something like the destruction of Jerusalem was a type for a worldwide event.
I remember my Dad talking to me about that when I was young. He told me once he believed that, but later affirmed over and over that the Kingdom had come, all is complete, yadda yadda. I guess his belief evolved, dunno, lol.
Amie
The feasts have an 8th day of jubilee. I feel that we are currently in the 8th and final covenantal day.
Amie
Amie have you considered that the seven days of creation in Genesis 1 may be representative of the seven ages God related to man?
1) Adam
2) Noah
3) Abraham
4) Moses (rulers chosen by God)
5) David (Kingdom years)
6) Priesthood
7) Christ
These ages are also represented by seven feasts.
.
After the first seven comes the eighth.
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Notice there is no work. Instead of rain (God’s Spirit) coming from heaven (leaders) only at times, God’s spirit comes from within ourselves continuously.
God spoke to man in language of horticulture, agriculture and the world around him so man could understand.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
[I]1) The first day the heaven and earth was created, everything was there but there was chaos. There were great highs (Enoch) and great lows (Cain).
Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
2) With Noah order began, the water and dry land was separated.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb [that] yields seed, [and] the fruit tree [that] yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb [that] yields seed according to its kind, and the tree [that] yields fruit, whose seed [is] in itself according to its kind. And God saw that [it was] good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
[I]3) Abraham gave the seed that became Israel.
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 "and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. [He made] the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
[I]4) Moses brought order with the law.
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day
[I]5) During the kingdom years Israel was great and flourished.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, [each] according to its kind"; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that good. 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His [own] image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
[I]6) Freedom is subdued, and Israel becomes like the beasts of burden. The “Ark of the Covenant” is no more, God is no longer ruling them with kings and prophets. The priesthood had become like God to Israel.
7) Matthew 12:8 "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
During the seventh day (New Covenant) Jesus ruled till all was fulfilled.
The first six dispensations of God’s plan/purpose was laid out in Genesis one. I realize that this is subjective but what isn’t.
Paige
03-23-2006, 06:58 PM
I like what you've posted so far, Lou. It matches up with the creation days and feast day correspondence. Have any other theologians ever seen the connections before? Tim Martin keeps referring to Milton Terry and what a visionary he was. I wonder if he saw some of these things???
I guess I'm going to have to break down and read him for myself, lol.
Paige
Lou,
Have you read Tim King's "A House that Stands"? Though I suspect (isn't confirmed) that he has expanded his outlook in including day 8, the book goes exactly into what you are examining so well.
Each step in creation can be compared to a tent. First it is spread out, divided, then filled. Later, a new house was built upon a firm foundation. Tim doesn't use the tent analogy, but definately gets into the house analogy. If you haven't read it, I would be happy to mail one your way..
Amie
Paige the importance of the feasts in God’s plan have been ignored by the church and may be one reason the church has gotten so far off on it’s beliefs.
Amie until this week I had never heard or thought of Genesis 1 in that way. My thinking on that is still in the “rough.”
backtothefuture
03-24-2006, 03:09 PM
Hi,
very interesting,
can someone send me to a link about the feasts? I would love to read about that.
Thanks
Nancy
Paige
03-24-2006, 03:21 PM
Nancy,
David Curtis has done some preliminary (IMO) work, but I don't think he has carried his research as far as it needs to go. Here are some links to his stuff to get you started:
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/topical/series/feasts_of_lord01.htm
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/topical/series/feasts_of_lord02.htm
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/topical/series/feasts_of_lord03.htm
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/topical/series/feasts_of_lord04.htm
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/topical/series/feasts_of_lord05.htm
Happy reading!
backtothefuture
03-24-2006, 03:44 PM
Oh thanks so much Paige. I just love reading new stuff for me:clap2:
I have just lurked here with my mouth hanging open! Good thing you are not hooked up to a video camera when I get those light bulb moments:)
Nancy
christyG
03-24-2006, 07:06 PM
More great discussions:)
Also been "lurking" and just wanted to add....
My pastor would lable himself a preterist, but he has some of these thoughts:
-He says that where he is at right now, he feels that there is annihilation ahead for those who do not believe in Christ in this life.
-He also says that while he believes the kingdom has come, and Jesus has come in judgment, he leaves the door open that maybe there could be some sort of future coming ( similar to what Ed was relating).
-He says that Jer. 31 for example is not totally fulfilled, but in the process of being fulfilled. He says that it is the job of the "church" to put "the law" in people's hearts (Jer. 31:33)
I'm not sure that I would lable him a PP (partial preterist) but he doesn't seem to see total fulfillment IMO.
Christy
Paige
03-24-2006, 10:29 PM
Christy,
I think complete fulfillment is harder to take for people whose livelihoods are tied up in ministry (Pastoral esp.). This is just my opinion, but I think it makes them feel as if their purpose is gone somehow. There just has to be something more to do. I could be wrong, but this is my gut feeling.
Paige
Infinite Grace
03-24-2006, 10:48 PM
Paige,
while it is true that there may be some that feel that way, I believe that many, especially preterist pastors feel, as I do, that believers have a job of sharing the love of God to all humanity. I do not, will not, cannot, accept the idea that "all roads lead to heaven." Therefore, if Jesus still has significance, I believe that it is the responsibility of those who believe to share the truth of God's love through Jesus.
I don't believe that "all roads lead to Heaven" either. I don't think as well, that there is a need for a road to Heaven - it is here. It has been given through the work of Christ, to ALL - inclusively. I hope to continue to share that "good news".
Amie
I realize that I cling to the possibility that the creation of order (which imo is the metaphorical view of Genesis) is represented by a literal reality. That is why I suggested that God will have "decreed" mankind being created in his image, etc. Mankind will have been "brought into" the image of God at the end of creation whereas Gen 1 is just the beginning.
If any of you have read any of what I've shared over at Presence or in the old WB forum, then you will have known before my beginning this thread that I believe firmly in the truth of the metaphorical view of Genesis (though again, I cling to it being a type/antitype sort of relationship to creation). Genesis 1 in particular I explored as the creation of order (I talked about it in Presence forums), where the illuminaries would represent differing 'authorities'.
It is that metaphorical view that opened my eyes to the meaning of "male", "female", "wife", and "husband" as they are related to function rather than biology/sexuality. The reason that I cling to the type/antitype sort of relationship is that though the metaphorical understanding exists and is true in Genesis (and throughout the bible actually), so do/are literal men and women :).
After viewing http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03/Sci_Sym.swf, I felt so validated!! I'm considering writing the Professor speaking about my thoughts on Genesis 2. I find it interesting that he made similar assurances at the end of his speech as I did at the end of mine - that he was not dismissing that God created the world literally by illuminating the Hebraic understanding of Genesis 1 (although I was making efforts at illuminating Gen 2).
Gen 1
27 And God created the man in His own image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female.
The above would mean that God created humanity, and created them functionally male and female - whereas (my theory) biological male and female are a literal example of that reality. The metaphor would be the reality as opposed to the other way around.
I feel rejuvenated..
Amie
Paige
04-05-2006, 10:35 AM
Amie,
I listened to the audio last night and was also impressed. I think it would be worthwhile for you to write the professor.
I'm glad you feel rejuvenated! :)
Paige
backtothefuture
04-05-2006, 10:55 AM
Hi,
Amie, I couldn't get the link opened. Could you send it to me. On another note, I grew up in Wheaton. My parents and sister still live there. I am just one town over. I will have to watch the paper more, for things going on over there. Just 5 minutes from where I am now.
Blessings,
Nancy
Barry
04-05-2006, 11:53 AM
Amie you are a fantastic researcher.
I'm enjoying the links thanks.
Barry
Nancy,
Maybe try and copy/paste the web address? Or try to click here (http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03/Sci_Sym.swf). I'll email you also :)
Amie
Btw,
I was talking specifically about John Walton's speech. Sorry for that. I can't take credit for finding it either unfortunately -
It's a great listen though I don't think this guy has the fulfilled view..
Amie
Steve Zodiac
04-12-2006, 07:45 PM
The biggest problem arises when one believes that Moses would put an account of the creation of the universe into the first Book of the LAW.
The Torah is about the Law and its affect on those who were to come under its sway. The Torah is about the Land and its People.
Moses knew nothing about the Earth. To Moses, the world ended at the horizon. He didn't know that those are stars up there. He didn't know what the sun was, or the moon. Neither did the Egyptians, his first family. None of the people around Moses had any scientific knowledge at all -- all of their knowledge was derived from religion.
So, what makes more sense? A story of how the Land came into being and how its first inhabitant would have experienced the Law, which, indeed the New Jews were about to experience, or a creation of the universe and a story of groups who had no relationship to the People at all.
If Genesis 1:1 does not refer to the creation of the planet and various astronomical bodies, but, instead, refers to the inauguration of the Promised Land after a catastrophic event, then that would provide a precedent for the local nature of the Land's destruction in Noah's day.
"Created" is an unfortunate translation of the qal form of the Hebrew, BARA. In reality, BARA means to fashion something, like a potter fashions a clay vessel. It does not mean to make something out of nothing.
In the beginning, God fashioned heaven and earth (the Land).
But the Land became chaotic and wild and the surface of the sea was obscured; God's spirit brooded (as a hen broods her chicks) over the face of the waters.
And God commanded, "Come, dawn!" And there was the dawn.
And God observed the dawn, that it was beautiful, so God made a distinction between dawn and dusk.
Then God made a proclamation, declaring the dawn to begin the day and dusk to begin the night, so there was sunset and sunrise, a single day.
Then God commanded that an open expanse appear between the clouds above and the pools below, so it came about.
God ordained that the expanse be called, "sky". So there was sunset and sunrise, another day.
Then God commanded, "Let the water under the sky recede and gather into one place, so that dry ground appears." And so it came to pass.
God called the dry ground, "the Land" and the waters he called "the sea". And God thought it was beautiful.
I could go on, but you get the idea. BTW, check any Hebrew lexicon, my translation is perfectly accurate.
Oh, one other important thing...when Noah left the ark, he and his family went back to their homeland! They were from the area where the ark landed -- the Promised Land.
Barry
04-12-2006, 08:47 PM
Hi Steve,
That is an interesting rendition. I think that you have a point in inferring that Moses does have something else in mind when speaking of these things.
In Jer. 31:35-37 the sun (light by day) and the moon (light by night) and the stars and their "order" (my term) are called upon to reference other things.
Also in Malachi 4:2 references the Sun when someone in particular is meant.
IMHO there is no reason to change the original references (of Genesis 1). However IMO something else is being referred too.
Barry
Infinite Grace
04-12-2006, 08:55 PM
I'm in total agreement with you on this Steve. Thanks.
Yes Steve, I like it :9_cool: . Again, this is "redemptive history" as opposed to "natural history".
Steve,
It was my understanding that "bara" means "to fill", or "to fatten up" - which is still not typically 'something from nothing', though that could be dependant upon what is being fattened.
I like the beauty of the imagry of your translation, very nice. I tend to think that Genesis 1 is about God bringing order to chaos, and setting up His house.
Part of the reason I don't dismiss reality being an example in helping humanity understand narrative is that it seems to be true in some cases (IE http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Snake_legs_and_pelvis, or the sun and stars). Please don't take this as an arguement, as some can attest here, I'm one of the largest advocates for metaphor in the creation stories. I'm not saying that the story points to literal creation as so many others say, but that literal creation points to the story..
Amie
Steve Zodiac
04-13-2006, 08:10 AM
Barry,
Yes, exactly. When God calls upon the sun and moon to witness the covenant made in verse 31, it means the same thing as the covenantal witness to Noah -- that the new order would last as long as seed time and harvest would last.
Steve Zodiac
04-13-2006, 08:28 AM
Davo,
Old cathedrals have the story of sacrifice and redemption illustrated in their stained glass windows. The crucifixion, leaving the tomb, ascending -- and maybe even the work of some saints -- are painted in light for the illiterate people to see.
Many Christians can't accept the utter ignorance of the people who left Egypt, because they read modern concepts into a story from 3000 years ago. But the ones who accompanied Moses into the wilderness were slaves with no understanding of their own history or their need for resurrection.
Just like the people who went into the wilderness after the Messiah came, they didn't know what was going on they just accepted the message of redemption. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, Jesus -- all were kinsman-redeemers.
So, just as the stained-glass windows tell a story, the biblical narratives tell a story. Most commentators suggest that the tree of life in Genesis is the figurative representation of the Messiah, but will refuse to accept that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a figure of the Law.
Paul the apostle speaks of the Law in Romans in the same way that the TKGE is described in Genesis. The tree was good for food, but it brought the sentence of death. The Law was holy and righteous and good, but it brought the sentence of death. The tree would make one wise, but it brought the knowledge of disobedience and condemnation. The Law brought the knowledge of sin. There are many more examples, but I know you get the idea.
Why are all the names in Genesis Hebrew names? Was there a Hebrew language in Eden? Why do all the names mean symbolic things? Did all the Genesis characters receive symbolic names down through history so that they would fit into the story? Does it make more sense that Moses and the priests -- and later Ezra and his Pharisees -- used names that meant things?
Even a cursory reading of the bible reveals that the serpent refers to shaitan, the adversary of the People. And what is shaitan's role throughout the Nation's history? Hint -- Paul the apostle explains it.
Steve Zodiac
04-13-2006, 08:38 AM
Amie,
Literal creation is problematic, since no one knows what that means. Even those who believe in an instantaneous formation of everything out of nothing -- and Christianity isn't the only religion that thinks that -- can't agree on how that was done, or even what "creation" itself is.
No one knows what gravity is, or why light is both a wave and a particle or how matter organizes itself from mere notions vibrating with billions of electron volts. Science is a modern religion and just like religions desparately try to hold on to their traditional thinking, science does the same.
Naming something doesn't explain it, so the story of creation was written to explain the creation of the new Nation of Israel and Adam was the representation of the People. Sacrifice and burnt offerings are offered by Adam, Abel, Noah and Abraham...so Moses is reading back into "history" that which his people were beginning to experience.
Steve Zodiac
04-13-2006, 08:45 AM
Amie,
The hiphil form of BARA is translated once in the KJV as "to make yourselves fat" but that is not how the NASB translates it. It's a pottery term, just like HAMARTIA in Greek is an archery term.
I could be mistaken, but I thought in Hebrew form "bar" means "grain" (relevant to "offspring") and "bara'" means "to fatten", while "barah" means "meat cut from an animal fattened on grain".
I am curious to know how it would be connected to pottery. Assuming that there is a way - I'm willing to bet that this could be a "both right" situation, like "waters", "pool", and "urine" are all accurate translations from "mayim".
Amie
Amie,
Literal creation is problematic, since no one knows what that means. Even those who believe in an instantaneous formation of everything out of nothing -- and Christianity isn't the only religion that thinks that -- can't agree on how that was done, or even what "creation" itself is.
No one knows what gravity is, or why light is both a wave and a particle or how matter organizes itself from mere notions vibrating with billions of electron volts. Science is a modern religion and just like religions desparately try to hold on to their traditional thinking, science does the same.
Naming something doesn't explain it, so the story of creation was written to explain the creation of the new Nation of Israel and Adam was the representation of the People. Sacrifice and burnt offerings are offered by Adam, Abel, Noah and Abraham...so Moses is reading back into "history" that which his people were beginning to experience.
Again, I am agreeing with you. I do not think the story points to creation as in it is not an outline of literal creation. I think that it speaks through creation though, which is why the metaphors were used. Creation therefore, points to the story - which evidences that God brought it all into being (however he did it).
Those scientists that hold fast to tradition, quickly become a part of the past to which they cling. Not all scientists are dogmatic or religious in their studies imo - but perhaps we are left to a matter of semantics again.
I'm enjoying our conversations, I'm glad you decided to join us.
Amie
After thinking about it,
I do see the story as pointing to creation as well in that literal creation and the creation of order were both foreordained in Gen 1.
I do not see the story as pointing to "literal creation" (like a fundamentalist creationist might) in that the plants didn't come into being before the sun and so on.
So to better word "..it is not an outline of literal creation" -- "It is not a literal outline of creation".
So maybe we are disagreeing? Not sure, lol.
..since no one knows what that means
Why does anyone need to know it, for it to be true?
Amie
Many Christians can't accept the utter ignorance of the people who left Egypt, because they read modern concepts into a story from 3000 years ago. But the ones who accompanied Moses into the wilderness were slaves with no understanding of their own history or their need for resurrection.
Yes in deed, and in kind – many are ignorant of the fact that in bringing that resurrection [redemption] would likewise bring about the reconciliation of all – regardless of their ignorance. Thus Israel's redemption wrought wider reconciliation, and all that quite apart from religious performance.
Steve Zodiac
04-13-2006, 11:17 PM
Amie,
Strong's 01254 lists BARA as follows:
1. to create, shape, form
a. (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1. of heaven and earth
2. of individual man
3. of new conditions and circumstances
4. of transformations
b. (Niphal) to be created
1. of heaven and earth
2. of birth
3. of something new
4. of miracles
c. (Piel)
1. to cut down
2. to cut out
3. to be fat
d. (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat
Steve,
I realize what Strong's says and where the KJV translates it "fat". I am talking about the lexicon itself, in the Hebrew language.
042 rb house of heads - Grain: The plant family of grains such as wheat and barley have a cluster of seeds at the top of the stalk called "heads". These grains were used for food for both man and livestock.
042-01 rb Grain: The stalks of the grains were burned to make potash for making soap. What is cleaned with soap becomes white or bright.
a) rb — grain, soap (made from the ashes of the grain stalks), clean (as when using soap), pure (as moral cleanliness) \Aramaic - son (as a crop of the father), field (for growing grain)\ {#1247, #1248, #1249, #1250, #1251, #1252, #1253}
j) irb — fat (grain fed) {#1274}
o) tfrb — food {#1267}
p) tirb — soap, sacrifice (as the best or fattest is chosen), covenant (involves the cutting of a fat animal prepared for slaughter to institute the covenant) {#1285, #1287}
t) rbrb — fowl (as fattened on the grains in the field) {#1257}
042-02 rrb Grain: The stalks of the grains were burned to make potash for making soap. What is cleaned with soap becomes white or bright.
a) rrb — clean, bright (as polished), pure (as moral cleanliness), choice (a selection from what is clean or pure) {#1305}
042-03 rba Wing: The fowl, fed on grain, becomes strong for the long flight.
a) rba — wing of flight {#82, #83}
a*) erba — strong wing {#84}
i) riba — strong wing, mighty, powerful, valient {#46, #47}
042-04 raba) rab — <240-04a>
042-05 arb Fat: Grain is fed to the livestock making them fat. Making something fat or full.
a) arb — fat, full, select (the fattest of the flock or herd is chosen for the feast) {#1254}
i) airb — fat {#1277}
i*) eairb — fat {#1278}
The "hiphal" or "causative verb" (bara), you're right, is "to make fat", or "to fatten". The word "barah" does come from the parent word "bar" meaning "grain". "Barah" can be translated "fatted", or "full". Something that has been "fatted" mind you, has been "filled" and therefore "formed". Had you not challenged me, I wouldn't have dug so much deeper and seen the connection that Strong's makes, thanks :).
Amie
Steve Zodiac
04-15-2006, 05:38 PM
Amie,
What you've given are the parent roots to the Hebrew word BARA'. If I were to define english words with parent roots, the words wouldn't be the same as my meaning.
"Cowboy" for example, means a person (man) who wrangles steer. If I were to define the word based on its roots, I may come up with something other than a wrangler.
By that same reasoning, BARA' in Genesis 1:1 means "to form or fashion" as a potter fashions clay. Usage definitions and what the biblical passage is trying to convey idiomatically is how I look at it.
Steve Zodiac
04-15-2006, 05:41 PM
Amie,
Why does anyone need to know it, for it to be true?
That's an interesting philosophical question. Does "truth" exist as a field of influence apart from an understanding of it? If a true fact were uttered and no one was there to hear it, would it make a sound?
Steve,
As I said before, I think both views are right. I don't think that "parent roots" in English are anything like what is found in Hebrew, and in their written symbols. I'm not sure that "parent root" equates "broken contraction" either.
IE:
"Jealous" is the Hebrew "QaNA". Some very ancient writing sheds some insight in how they understood that word. It was written in picture form, like Egyptian heiroglyph. Each symbol, which in our modern alphabet are letters, had meaning.
"Q", the symbol for a rising and setting sun.. To the Hebrew people, the sun gathered the light to it at sunset, and the dark to it at dawn. The rising and setting sun was understood as circling the earth. The meaning of the symbol is "the circling sun which causes the gathering of light and darkness".
Seeds were understood to be the beginning of life from a parent plant, in a continuous, generational cycle. The meaning of the symbol for seed is "a continuation of life from a seed", pronounced "N".
Together, the seed placed before the rising sun, their meaning is "The gathering of materials for the building of a nest for the seeds (eggs)", pronounced "QeN".
"QaNA"/"Jealous" is written with a bull's head (symbol for strength), and then the seed and sun symbols.
When the symbols are combined, we can better understand the communication offered by the author in Exodus 34:14. It is the visual of a bird watching over the eggs and young with "jealousy" (the action, not an emotion), defending them from the enemy, preventing any other bird from entering the nest.
Just as a bird watches over and protects its' nest from predetors, so does God watch over and protect his children from predetors.
Amie
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.