Learning Genesis

Status
Not open for further replies.
It means that it's my thread to ask about Genesis. Not one for you to be asking me questions when you misunderstand.

You already got my other thread closed so I would rather you not stick your nose in on this one because I find it interesting. If you have a good answer to my question then fine, answer away but if you start posting comments like a spoilt child then I'll ignore you (again).

Do you really think that is the right kind of attitude take with people on a Christian web site????

You came here for what ever reason, I hope to learn so as to ultimately come to Christ but you most know that we all have to communicate with each other so as to be able to get along in life and yes, on Christian web sites.

Shall we try again with a better attitude as I for one enjoy the discussion about Creation BUT I do not enjoy bickering.
 
Perhaps I am just interested in learning a bit about the bible seeing as I've never read any of it before?

One should first just read it....

If you were to read any other book (even say a biology text) would you open it and then after the first chapter go back and try and dissect each word and phrase? No! Because as most books (and the Bible is a biblios...a library) the rest usually explains the premises laid down in the beginning and many questions one might have are already answered there...but IF you did take this same approach to any other collection of works by different authors on the same subject (say...the principles of Freudian Psychology) I am afraid you would still be in book one...

I know you will not, but you really should read the whole thing (even if just as a story...takes about a year) and THEN go back and take it apart and analyze it...

by the way the wording is "day one" and differs from all other "days" mentioned...just say'n...

brother Paul
 
Last edited:
I have to treat it literally as a starting point as I have no other way to access it. Ok, I take the point that this scripture talks of 'night and day' as not in the literal meaning that I know it.

I'll move on to the next parts as I think I have an angle on this first scripture now thanks.

Okay then treat it "literally" in the Hebrew (do a little homework)...
 
Tubby, let me give you an insight into the "form" of this most ancient Hebrew writing (the Torah)...God gives a Statement like a Thesis and then follows with an explanation/expansion...then from within that He branches out on one relevant point He wishes to bring us to (in Genesis 1 it is the creation of man...male and female created simultaneously)...then gives another thesis like statement and explains/expands till He comes to the next branching off...after mans "formation" yatzar...male first female second...He goes with that until the fall scenario...then man is out...we hear of the offspring till Cain and then there is an expansion of Cain until Seth...we move along his line till Methuselah/Noah...then the Noah scenario and his sons...then Shem (the new branching off) leads us to Abraham (lot, Ishamael, etc) until Isaac...and on and on all through the Torah...

SO..."In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth..." is what we today would call a Thesis Statement....from verses 3 through Genesis 2:3 is the very general (includes a smaller cycle called "evening to morning" which is darkness to light or movements to ever increasing orderliness within a greater cycle of sevens given perhaps in this way for the comprehension of limited ancient hearer/readers)...then 2:4 is a new Thesis like statement and so on...

I know it is not part of the conversational flow but I offer you this for your edification

in His love

brother Paul
 
6 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.

I understand this to mean he created the dome of the sky with rain water above and seas below? That seems literal enough for me to understand.

Presumably it is not believed to be a dome still, just the best description at the time?
 
Just one thing that puzzles me that I noticed on number 5 before moving on. Here, god has defined night and day but has not yet created the sun and moon. Is that scripture in the wrong order as it would seem more logical to create the sun/moon before a 24 hour cycle?

You must remember that we as Christians will come to you as believing what Scriptures say first. The light in verse 5 is not the Sun which is created on the 4th day. It therefore had to be some fixed source of light outside of the earth.

It seems to me then that the earth , rotating, passed through a day-night cycle. Whatever that light was, God saw that it was good therefore He divided light from dark, one being day and the other night.

Now here is what I was talking about . This is one of those things that Christians would have no problem believing or understanding. The God who we believe created all things would certainly have no problem producing a light source.
 
6 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.

I understand this to mean he created the dome of the sky with rain water above and seas below? That seems literal enough for me to understand.

Presumably it is not believed to be a dome still, just the best description at the time?

The word "firmament" comes from a verb meaning "to beat, stamp, beat out, or spread out".

Drs. Whitcomb & Morris believe that God suspended a vast body of water in vapor form over the earth protecting it from the sun.
This would then do two things:
1. It would provide a means for the longevity attested to in chapter 5.
2. It would also provide for the water source for the flood in chapter 6.

This would also explain the tropical conditions of the early earth. Then the word "firmament" in verse 8 must include the area above the canopy or suspended vapor body as well as below it. It seems that must be the case because in verse 17 God set the sun and moon IN THE FIRMAMENT OF THE HEAVEN TO GIVE LIGHT UPON THE EARTH, seemingly the same as in verse #8 when it says......
AND GOD CALLED THE FIRMAMENT HEAVEN.

With a second evening and morning, another day of creative activity ended.
 
I would if I didn't understand it.

I'm not clear what you mean? Do you mean you have read it and understood it in your own way and now wish to know how others understand it? When I was a child, I understood Genesis, and just accepted it as a child can. When I got older, I tended to brush it aside, thinking it more myth than reality but I would add, I still knew God created all. Now, much older, I find it, like Abdicate, one of the most interesting and believable parts of the bible. When you read the bible, and look for contradicions, you find them in abundance. When you begin to read the bible and try to make those "contradictions" work, you come away with wonder and awe. Because, it all does work. The common questions to the bible have been asked, since the Bible was first printed (and before - the OT has the Midrash which attempts to sort out age old questions). You are fortunate to be on a forum where so many posters know so much - archaic Hebrew, Greek, history, archeology results, scientific theories, doctrines - where they come from and where they lead - and some like me, whose heart is in the right place. We have nothing to hide from the unbeliever and only hopes to open eyes to the truth. Why should we care? Our God tells us to love all and share the truth as best we can. He tells us it is important to Him, so it must be important to us.
I delight that, at least, you want to know, scripture by scripture. As others have noted, as you go along, more becomes clear, with context, how it all reaffirms itself. But you started in the right place. Genesis.
 
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 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 is 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.

So 3rd day we have earth and seas defined. Also grass, plants and trees are created. Do they grow from seed over time or is this interpreted as just appearing instantly?
 
No, my answer was referring to a question about reading a book on biology.

I've never read the bible.

OK - I was just curious. Just one little more off OP, if I may? This forum tries and often succeeds in keeping a good atmosphere for discussion and civil debate. I don't always agree (like my last thread closed for no good reason - saying this with a smile - tight - but still smile). And it's free. I pay $5 per month because I value what I have learned here and keep learning - and that's all that yellow supporter stripe under my avatar means. I figure it's cheaper than a University and some of the discussions reach that level, as does the knowledge shared by posters. Take it from me ( a hunt and peck typer with my "m" and "t" key missing) there is nothing like working an hour on a long involved post, only to have it disappear as you go to post it. People take time to post and they can get defensive as it is human to feel disrespected. Back to OP?
 
OK - I was just curious. Just one little more off OP, if I may? This forum tries and often succeeds in keeping a good atmosphere for discussion and civil debate. I don't always agree (like my last thread closed for no good reason - saying this with a smile - tight - but still smile). And it's free. I pay $5 per month because I value what I have learned here and keep learning - and that's all that yellow supporter stripe under my avatar means. I figure it's cheaper than a University and some of the discussions reach that level, as does the knowledge shared by posters. Take it from me ( a hunt and peck typer with my "m" and "t" key missing) there is nothing like working an hour on a long involved post, only to have it disappear as you go to post it. People take time to post and they can get defensive as it is human to feel disrespected. Back to OP?

I didn't take offence at all, just pointing out what my answer was referring to. The discussion is good natured.
 
Tubby...

Some people who interpret the "days" of Genesis 1 as undefined periods of time (some old world creationists) where the cycles within cycles are taken more figuratively, note two phases and types of all "living creations". God creates all sorts of sea life and then says "let the sea bring forth living creatures after its kind." The same is said for plantlife and animal life...initial created forms...and then it says "let the earth bring forth living things after its kind".

Therefore those forms the sea brought forth or the earth brought forth are forms of sea life, plants and animals that are not special creations...in this view one could see the created 1sts as special and initial and the earth bringing forth forms as a separate evolved class (likewise with the sea)...Apes becomes the earth's best primates and mankind is a special creation...also after God created the initial animal life (birds, beasts of the field, etc.) after He forms man (from the same elements of the earth) He specially creates a second class of animals that can be friends with man (pets and other animals that can be domesticated)...
 
6 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.

I understand this to mean he created the dome of the sky with rain water above and seas below? That seems literal enough for me to understand.

Presumably it is not believed to be a dome still, just the best description at the time?

That seems right to me.
 
No, my answer was referring to a question about reading a book on biology.

I've never read the bible.

Now that presents a problem dosen't it???

Since you have read biology and philosophy and science books, so as to grow and improve your life, why in the would you not read the Bible?

Are you afraid that reading the Bible will cause you to accept the God of Creation who gave His Son to die for YOU that you might be saved from the judgment that is just over the hill top????

Are you comfortable with what you know and do not what to learn or grow any more in YOUR life???

Are you afraide you will be proven wrong and wind up a Christian nut case standing on the corner with a sign that says....
"THE END IS NEAR"?
 
Dang, Major - you stand on a corner, once with a sign...and you are labelled for life. :) Give Tubby a break - he's only on the first chapter of Genesis.
Now my understanding from the forum there was only mist, not rain, before the flood. I never really knew that before.
 
Tubster...I have a query but first consider this...

To know there is no God, one would have to know all things, because God could be within what they do not know. Even if one were to have all the knowledge and experience of 50% of the Brittanica, that would mean that there is 50% they cannot know nor have experienced. So to know God is not, one has to know all.

To know there is no God, one would have to be in all places simultaneously because God could only be revealing Himself in a place you are not.

You would have to have known all and been everywhere during all of the past, the present, and the future in case God was revealing Himself when you were not.

Finally, you would have to be aware of all that which is and/or has been known or experienced by all individuals of all times, in case He had revealed Himself to only certain peoples at certain times.

So in effect, to know there is no God, you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and present for any who may be able to receive illumination or revelation that God is. So to believe with conviction that there is no God, one then has to be exactly what is called God.

Now consider what is empirical evidence

Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic; originating in or based on observation or experience; relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory ; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

So to believe there is no God one must be in denial of the empirical evidence of millions of people from every walk of life from every culture (both genders) and all different ages thoughout time. Do you deny all this empirical evidence? Many have seen Him (though you have not). Many have heard His voice (though you have not). Many have been transformed and forever changed (though not you). Prophecy rebukes the accusation from statistical probabilities (but you cannot see that many things have been prophesied that came to pass). Too many people have been healed to be blown off by the “mere coincidence “ argument. You can test Him and do what He says and see for yourself if you do not get the promised result (but you are afraid and like being your own lord). I could go on but you can see how absurd a position it is to believe with any conviction that God is not.

So if you are an honest agnostic, though I do not agree I can respect this, but if you are an Atheist then I must conclude you are assumptive at best or else delusional, but in no wise are you a rational being regardless of how many books you have read or what degree you may have.

So let me ask you straight forward so I know what kind of person we are dealing with…are you an agnostic, that admits there could be a God but you personally have no reason to believe, or are you an Atheist, who bases their beliefs on an unprovable universal negative?

Thanks…

brother Paul
 
Now that presents a problem dosen't it???

Since you have read biology and philosophy and science books, so as to grow and improve your life, why in the would you not read the Bible?

Are you afraid that reading the Bible will cause you to accept the God of Creation who gave His Son to die for YOU that you might be saved from the judgment that is just over the hill top????

Are you comfortable with what you know and do not what to learn or grow any more in YOUR life???

Are you afraide you will be proven wrong and wind up a Christian nut case standing on the corner with a sign that says....
"THE END IS NEAR"?
Before I was christian, I didn't read the bible simply because it did not interest me and I thought it was baloney. ;-) I wasn't afraid. I don't think Tubby is either, are you Tubster?
 
Thanks Allie, so that no one else might misunderstand I am not saying Tubby is afraid to read the Bible, I said he likes being his own lord so much he is afraid to actually put God to the test (although that is very dangerous, if sincere He will make Himself known to the person...if only so the person, like Cain, can know God's will, know it is God, and still reject Him)...

So Tubby-Tubby, are you an agnostic or an Atheist...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top