The meaning of time and the "Beginning" in Genesis One, verse one - Is it the beginning, and is there really a creation week?

We read Genesis One, verse one and we see that the fundamental reality of Scripture is that "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

So is this the "creation theory"?

And are there various valid "theories" about the meaning of time and the beginning?

OK, Lets try this again. It is a good discussion - about the meaning of BEGINNING, but it is not the intended topic - So I will change the name to suit Lou. . . 

Lets go ahead and talk about the Beginning.

(but the track record remains,  and even  THIS conversation  will also end up derailed)

Views: 97

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

...Like the man who said, "I see land!", in the case in which this was true.

But, nah. land is a theory. LOL

I'm not the most ardent potential/former supporter of the Canopy interpretation of Genesis 1:6-8.

But I see your point. Something is true here.

...As for the Hebrew, I figure that it is the most life- and terra-centric conceptual scheme possible for humans. Genesis 1 is not written in an alterate lexicon for modern English conceptual schemes.

So I can't help but wonder exactly how Adam and Eve linguistically conceived of the atmosphere and that particular subject's linguistic relation to 'hassamayim' (vv. 1 and 9, and 14, 15, and 17; but not v. 8) and the luminaries.

Here on land we say 'he's under the ocean', meaning under its surface. This is obviously because we do not live 'under' the ocean: we do not breathe water instead of air.

Of course we breathe the air: that which is that stuff above us, even where are the Weather Class clouds.

But we do not live in 'cloud cities', as opposed to on (really, really, on) the ground.

So the water that is 'above' the expanse need not be likened to a clearly specious or term-obsessed use of 'below' or 'under' the ocean. The issue, here, is that between

(a) life-indifferent grammar, such as an all-purpose gravity-based mechanical engineering, or even celestial robotics,

and

(b) life-centric grammar.

The latter grammar allows for a global version of life-centrism, and this is what I think best fits that of the Hebrew data of Genesis 1:1-18. After all, God does not create only land fauna and land flora. He creates even those of the water as well, and these first:

Presumably He creates all flora first.  Both land- and water-bound; peach trees and bladder rack, mangroves and sea-bottom plants. And presumably He creates flora in the same chronological order as he does the fauna: water-bound kinds first: kelp before mangroves (perhaps assuming that the seemingly water-bound mangrove species of today were not water-bound species to begin with?).

So the Genesis 1 account of Creation Week is looking at the entire globe in terms of life(-support), not merely nor mainly to that of land. Thus, the main point of vs. 9-10 is not for land to be distinguished from the water, but, rather, for the twain to be established in relation to one another for the benefit of the whole.

I think the simple sense of meaning for the work of day two is that God by His power took some of the water and raised it up above the surface of the planet to make what we call the atmosphere - an expanse or space between the waters above and the waters beneath.

simple, direct, and comprehensible by a two-day old Adam, or by a 5-year old Abel and Cain.

Location, location, location.

By way of analogy to the debates over the whole account, I recommend Brinker's interview of Tom Gegax:

youtube, three audio-only videos:

'Tom Gegax on MoneyTalk (Pt 1 of 3) with Bob Brinker':  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLNlU-dMndo 

Part 2:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JE0rWrdM_I

Part 3:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLNlU-dMndo

Heavens and Earth (erets). Certainly Jim we are a or the privileged planet.  Apparently our position in the Universe if it changes by just 500 miles it would mean extinction of the earth and all life.  So there was the Universe created as it states (Heavens) and the earth set in place in order to receive the creation event verses after?

There is also implication of sometime factor before the creation event started via Gods guided and inculcation of life on the planet.  Te earth was void and without and purpose? Tis infers some time factor between creation of the planets and Universe and the beginning of the creation event where God spoke life into existence.  If I Get this, form the time the earth was void and the Spirit hovered over it, there was no life?  Life came with Gods work, there is no sense that some natural causation could ahve delivered life to he planet.  In fact all life requires information wether in Genes, DNA, or other biologic products...but this information existed before the very first biologic substrate existed.  The narrative of Genesis for me covers a total full package of information, that destroys the idea or theory of evolution. It is also clear to me the life came about in the recent past, the planets and heavens and earth proper before the creation event could have been and the word infers that it was.  But the creation event os of recent vintage and not millions or billions of years...

So, you have come out of the Closet with this post. You are not YEC

You are only YLC - Young Living Things creationist. You believe that Creation did not begin recently, but only that life began recently. Thanks for making that clear.

This is the reason this forum has a statement of faith. We believe that ALL THINGS were created recently, not that they originated millions and billions of years in the distant past.

BUT CLEARLY ALSO, here you go again, derailing a post. This is about the CANOPY "THEORY" . . . Do you have ANYTHING to say that relates to this topic?

Lou Hamby said:

Universe created as it states (Heavens) and the earth set in place in order to receive the creation event verses after?

There is also implication of sometime factor before the creation event started . . .  infers some time factor between creation of the planets and Universe and the beginning of the creation event where God spoke life into existence.  . . .

clear to me the life came about in the recent past, the planets and heavens and earth proper before the creation event could have been and the word infers that it was.  But the creation event os of recent vintage and not millions or billions of years...

Using this same standard of 'inference' that because scripture begins "in the beginning, God created the heavens and earth" and there was a considerable lapse of time between this event and the creation event, is only ever applied to scripture and no other form of literature...

Example
In the book 'Up From Slavery: An Autobiography' of Booker T. Washington the opening of chapter 1 reads: "I was born a slave on a plantation in Franklin County, Virginia." The very next sentence is: "I am not quite sure of the exact place or exact date of my birth, but at any rate I suspect I must have been born somewhere and at some time."

Applying the same form of 'inference' or interpretation from scriptures of Genesis 1:1-1:2 to the opening sentences of this book would imply that He was born, but at the time of his birth the place or the time didn't exist, or had not come into existence yet.

Now that sounds absolutely absurd when applied to the story of Booker T. Washington, simply because when he opens the autobiography with "I was born a slave on a plantation in Franklin County, Virginia" then later describes in more detail the event, he is opening with with a statement, but the following statement is nothing more than an elaboration of what that statement he made at the beginning... The follow up explanation of what was stated at the beginning is simply that, it doesn't 'infer' anything different than an elaboration of what has already been stated...

The same should be said about Genesis 1:1-2.. In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth (overall understanding of what has happened and the elaboration of this event that is about to follow and the reader is about to ingest).

Any other explanation that is triggered or injected that would change the simplicity of what really IS inferred here is done so because man is bringing an outside influence (whether it be a man-made/conceived supposition or assumption) to scripture rather than allowing the scripture to stand alone in its explanation.

That said... Jim is right, as is often the case this string is being hijacked away from its original content and context which is the discussion of the Canopy Theory... Any further discussions listed or posted in this thread that do not follow the subject matter will be deleted.

If there is a subject that has developed out of this content that does not follow, it should then be moved and a new discussion thread should be created so that it can be hashed out and discussed by those having an interest in that discussion.

That said, IMO the canopy theory is worthy to hold water among scholars and novice alike, it certainly can't be discounted for a variety of reasons... While there isn't an exact reference to the theory within scripture there are certain explanations that come from scripture, specifically from the flood event I'm sure you're aware of in Genesis 7:11 example... "And the windows of heaven were opened" a good study of the word Windows provides a definition of a lattice, or a sluice.. Sluice described in 1828 dictionary 'to emit by flood-gates'... the second word there 'lattice' describes consisting of cross pieces, as a lattice window... now what was the 'cross pieces'... one can only wonder and without the benefit of observation it stands to reason why the canopy theory isn't one to be dogmatic about.

That said, another compelling reason to accept or at least give way to the possibility of the canopy theory is how the explanation of life and creation, once finished, was so well preserved in those early years. Scientifically speaking the reason for a greenhouse is to better preserve and moderate the sanctity and the healthy nature of plant life. A canopy would serve a similar purpose and provide a more stable environment and atmosphere for life. This would help in explaining the longevity of mankind for nearly a millennia rather than just decades.

Of course, there is no observable evidence and a lot of what is known is assumption, but certainly there is enough 'inference' in scripture to consider, evaluate and marginalize the canopy theory rather than disregard its possibility... Any further thoughts or passages in scripture that may further warrant the theory?

Lou Hamby said:

There is also implication of sometime factor before the creation event started via Gods guided and inculcation of life on the planet.  Te earth was void and without and purpose? Tis infers some time factor between creation of the planets and Universe and the beginning of the creation event where God spoke life into existence.  

After a well written response by both, I can only say to infer that what is actually factually known about the Universe and travel in time, via rocket ship, space ships, and other inventions of mankind, depend on accurate mathematics that absolutely know distances and other pertinent information via physics, and Mathematics.  Therefore the burden of proof would be on you to prove?  I did not come out of a the closet I have always argued for the narrative and its language...  It is clear that the earth "is not" some Godly afterthought!  Nor am I implying this as it looks like you imply above?  God in His magnificent design and creative acts set forth the earth in its present position, and it was an absolute must...! in order for the creation event to sustain itself and for life to continue.  So in every way in every discussion I have been privy too, in every site that has to do with the Universe and its existence, every YEC discussion with experts on the Universe, there is no doubt the evidences surely speak of a time factor, if your trying to say the earth is flat and that the distances between planets is fake?  Well then again the language of genesis certainly allows for the universe and the earths design and implementation, "before the recent creation event of life on earth.   So no there is no hiding in the closet.  What you beed to do is give evidences that what your inferring here is actually true?  Becasue the scientific and known mathematical evidences of the universe are not some "pie in the sky" theoretical, its fact and is observable and known.  So if you want to be critical of me, then please also have some real explanation for the Universe that fits with you theoretical ideas that have no basis in real observable evidences.  I believe like you do in a recent creation event and always have.  But the earth itself before the creative act of life is part of the Universe and what ever mathematical impetus applies for the Universe it surely does from the earth?

The "creation of life" event took 6 days and on the seventh He rested. That is all I am saying that is what sciurpture says.  THe earth before this stood without purpose ad void, and the HolY Spirit hovered over it.  When to says "in the beginning" what's the language talking about?  How about a novel idea like the formation of the Universe before the creation event? If you have any scientific information about this would love to hear it.  I know Danny Faulkner was chewed up by Christian astronomers and even one from this site.
We have videos with Ken Ham and others that were challenged on this point?  THe evidences of fact and known mathematics challenges you at every turn.  Once we speak of the creation event (Life-6 days) we should all be on the same page....  

Lou Hamby said:

    The "creation of life" event took 6 days and on the seventh He rested. That is all I am saying that is what sciurpture says.  

Scripture says a lot, and it also undeniably implies a lot in relation to itself. If we are going to follow Scripture, do we not need to follow its example? It exemplifies itself for us. If we deny this, then we are saying that Scripture consists in nothing except its verbatim.

In that case, we would be implying that we ought to be in relation to Scripture as a robot is in relation to its computer program.

But you, Lou Hamby, already relate to Scripture as something far more valuable than a computer program. You do this by claiming something for Scripture that Scripture does not explicitly claim for itself.

So, if we ought to relate to Scripture as something far more valuable than a computer program, then we (including you) are allowed to differ on exactly what all Scripture implies.

But here is the problem, as I see it: You, Lou Hamby, do not first consult Scripture in your attempts to determine what it may seem to imply as to whether there is a huge time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. If you knew Genesis 1 as fully as all its details imply, then, I wager, you would not be so loose with it as to claim that a Naturalism version of 'science' is the better guide to the account than is all of Scripture. I am sure you are aware that there was a time in that 'science' when you could not have made your present claims. So you are bound, in principle, to admit that the 'best conclusions' of that 'science' is free to change.

Yet you are placing your absolute faith on what (you think) that that 'science' says presently.

Lou Hamby said:

How about a novel idea like the formation of the Universe before the creation event? If you have any scientific information about this would love to hear it.  I know Danny Faulkner was chewed up by Christian astronomers and even one from this site.That 'one from this site' would describe me (but I'm not the only YEC on this site that disagrees with Faulkner).

That 'one from this site' would describe me (but I'm not the only YEC on this site that disagrees with Faulkner).



But if you are needing some 'novelty', try this:

Adam was made only hours before Eve. And Eve was taken from Adam. If this does not suggest anything to your own way of thinking regarding what the Scripture may be implying of the relation between the universe and the Earth, then you aren't seeing how the details of Genesis 1 hold together in terms of pattern-and-concept.

From what little of that coherence that I have seen, to date, it looks to me to be entirely that for which any pre- 18th Century human would see the account in its own terms.

Either God created the entire cosmos to be conceptually accessible to humans, or it all is just the jumble of physics and biology that Darwin loved: Human brains are like collections of garbage that have no real dependable relation to its cosmos-and-Earth context.

Today we explicitly know the wonder of the stars partly through the apparent life-critical fine-tuning of the cosmological constants. Some theorize that this is only apparent, since they think there can be multiple universes all of which have differently 'tuned' constants. But the Multiverse theory has to deal with the possibility of a set of Multiverse Constants. 'If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.' The pair are not like garbage that has no dependable relation to their context.

So, in your claiming that the universe is as separate from Earth as that by billions of years, you are deifying the universe, and trivializing Earth.

.

Science is free ot change but matmatical science and factual observation is not open to change and you view of the genesisi narrativ eis your of coarse, I ahppen to disagree becasue after all the sloching verbosity, youhave to go tot he evidences in nature that exists that GOd left for us to understnad and know.  So instead of pointing out my short comes, perhaps you should tell me how science has failed and your view is correct on what evidences?  BY the way. MY opening view is that scripture says this.  So don't emote that I somehow do not read scripture or trust scirptures.  I trust scripture and facts as they are.  Not what you assume they are.  YOUr theoretical position on Geneisis is just that.  THe scripture surely is clear and the evidences even clearer.  But if you can come up with some new mathematical equation that makes all the previous work of Nasa and other space agencies wrong, I am glad to listen.  Wen scripture and facts come together, Its pretty clear.  Again we would or should agree on the recent creation event...  but something existed prior to the creation event of 6 days?  That's all I am saying.

Thanks for your response... 


So we are to understand Genesis in light of the absolute authority of NASA? Incredible
Lou Hamby said:

Science is free to change but mathematical science and factual observation is not open to change and you view of the genesis narrative is yours of course,

You have to go to the evidences in nature that exists, that God left for us to understand and know.

So instead of pointing out my short-comings, perhaps you should tell me how science has failed and your view is correct on what evidences?  BY the way. MY opening view is that scripture says this.  

It is clear that your view of Scripture is that it must be SUBJECT TO SCIENCE. The Word of God in the Scripture must BOW THE KNEE to Lou Hamby's fallible knowledge of Science.

So don't emote that I somehow do not read scripture or trust scriptures.

Oh, you do trust the Scriptures, but only in so far as you can make them conform to your notions of "science."

 I trust scripture and facts as they are.  Not what you assume they are.  YOUr theoretical position on Geneisis is just that.  THe scripture surely is clear and the evidences even clearer.  But if you can come up with some new mathematical equation that makes all the previous work of NASA and other space agencies wrong, I am glad to listen.

Here again you make it clear that the science of NASA is superior in your thinking to simple narrative sense of Scripture.

When scripture and facts come together, Its pretty clear.  Again we would or should agree on the recent creation event...

Why would you believe in a recent creation event?  Are you saying that all of the confirmed scientific facts of the National Institutes of Science, and the highly esteemed and well-funded university studies are wrong? You are telling us that you have decided to reject the conclusions of "science" in order to affirm a recent creation of life. BUT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN  A RECENT CREATION EVENT. you believe  that the vast universe was created millions or billions  of years ago.  You are not YEC.

 but something existed prior to the creation event of 6 days?  That's all I am saying. 

And what we are saying here is that is simply not biblical. NOTHING EXISTED, that is NO THING  existed before the  work of the six days. The six days began in  verse one. You are making it very clear that you do not believe that ALL THINGS were created within the Six Days.


Thanks for your response... 

Thanks for being so crystal  clear, in spite of your insistence that you believe in a creation  that took place before the  six days. THAT MEANS YOU ARE NOT YEC. You are only YOUNG BIOLOGY CREATIONIST. That's good, but there is more. 

We invite you to become a biblical creationist - believe that ALL THINGS were created in the six day (Gen.  2:1-3; Exo. 20:11). Join  us here at creationconversations.  We believe in  SIX DAYS OF CREATION  FOR ALL THINGS.

You said that the planets were already in existence before the creation week. That is the  view of the Old Earth Evolutionists who like to call themselves creationists. So, indeed, dear brother you have now clearly acknowledged your alignment with them - they are opponents of Creationism.

Lou Hamby said:

After a well written response by both, I can only say to infer that what is actually factually known about the Universe and travel in time, via rocket ship, space ships, and other inventions of mankind, depend on accurate mathematics that absolutely know distances and other pertinent information via physics, and Mathematics.  Therefore the burden of proof would be on you to prove?

No, there is no burden of proof on us to prove the validity of the simplicity of the biblical account. It is a clear narrative of the creation of all things - in heaven  and earth  and in the  seas - the heavens and all their hosts - all within a mere six days that began "in  the beginning." That is what the  Bible reveals.

 I did not come out of a the closet I have always argued for the narrative and its language...  

Yes, you have come out of the closet. You have openly  affirmed that you do not believe that the beginning of verse one is actually the beginning of the Creation Week. You have removed yourself from the pale of what is actually YEC belief.

It is clear that the earth "is not" some Godly afterthought!  Nor am I implying this as it looks like you imply above?  

No you are right, you are not implying it at all. Rather, you are stating it specifically and clearly. You do not agree that the  beginning of Genesis 1:1 is within the creation week during which Adam was created (Mark 10:6).

God in His magnificent design and creative acts set forth the earth in its present position, and it was an absolute must...! in order for the creation event to sustain itself and for life to continue.  So in every way in every discussion I have been privy too, in every site that has to do with the Universe and its existence, every YEC discussion with experts on the Universe, there is no doubt the evidences surely speak of a time factor,

Clearly you  are quite  uninformed then. All through the creationist literature there is a constant affirmation that there is NO TIME FACTOR between verse one and the rest of the creation week. Verse One is telling us about the beginning of Day One. Every conservative creationist site has this as an essential foundational truth in the doctrinal statements of faith in the "about us section," just like us.

Here is our doctrinal statement, shared by all who are members of this forum:

  1. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, from creation to Christ being approximately 4,000 years. [the point is not the 4000 years, but the fact that ALL of Creation was completed WITHIN the week, and not before. - nonetheless, we do affirm that "about 6000 years" is the  correct biblical understanding.]
  2. The days in the creation narrative (Genesis One) do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six consecutive, 24-hour rotational days of Creation.

if you're trying to say the earth is flat and that the distances between planets is fake?

How in the world did you come up with  that strawman? No one said anything  that would mandate a belief in a flat earth. Now you will try  to  derail this thread again, into a discussion  about a flat  earth?  If you want to discuss that, then start your own  thread.

 Well then again the language of genesis certainly allows for the universe and the earths design and implementation, "before the recent creation event of life on earth.   So no there is no hiding in the closet.

Sure you've been  hiding in the closet. You have pretended that you are  YEC, but really you only believe in Young Life Creation, Young biological life creation,  yet you allow that the earth and the cosmos, and all planets existed long before life on earth  was created. So, indeed, you have come out as a Closet OEC (Old Earth Creation, but Young Biology Creation). You are not YEC.

 What you beed [need?] to do is give evidences that what your inferring here is actually true?

No,  dear brother, we NEVER EVER NEED TO GIVE EVIDENCE that the Bible is true. What YOU NEED TO DO is provide biblical evidence to support your concordist position. You are still misguided and you  are seeking to make the Bible agree with what you think is Science.  But true science is NEVER EVER CONTRARY to the  revealed truth of Scripture.

 Becasue the scientific and known mathematical evidences of the universe are not some "pie in the sky" theoretical, its fact and is observable and known.

The universe began to  exist recently, not just life. that is what the Bible states.

 So if you want to be critical of me,

Lou, Lou, Lou. We are not being critical of YOU. We are discussing your view. We are asking you to talk about your view. Stay focused. Pay  attention. We are not  talking about you. I know that you think it is always all about YOU. But really it is not. You are I are not what is important here. What is important is whether you ideas are what is being described  in  the  biblical origins narrative.

then please also have some real explanation for the Universe that fits with you theoretical ideas that have no basis in real observable evidences.

You are seriously asking me be to provide evidence from Science that what the Bible says is true. DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF? Seriously?

 I believe like you do in a recent creation event and always have.  But the earth itself before the creative act of life is part of the Universe and what ever mathematical impetus applies for the Universe it surely does from the earth?

The "creation of life" event took 6 days and on the seventh He rested. That is all I am saying that is what sciurpture says.

So you believe in SIX DAYS, but only in  the  sense that nothing was created AFTER the six days? WHY? Why do you believe this with  such  confidence? Why do you insist on this?

Yet you do not affirm  that nothing  was created BEFORE the six days? Why do you  reject  this? Why do you compromise  on this?

 THe earth before this stood without purpose ad void, and the HolY Spirit hovered over it.  When to says "in the beginning" what's the language talking about?  How about a novel idea like the formation of the Universe before the creation event?

So you mean that Genesis One verse one does not mean that "in  the beginning  God created the heavens and the  earth"? 

If you have any scientific information about this would love to hear it.  I know Danny Faulkner was chewed up by Christian astronomers and even one from this site.

It is not about Ken Ham, or Danny Faulkner. Why must you always make it about personalities and people. I am asking you to discuss the Bible. Why can't  you do that? Join the discussion. How are you able to imagine an  alternate beginning before the  beginning? If there is a beginning  before the beginning then the beginning  is not the beginning after all, is it?

We have videos with Ken Ham and others that were challenged on this point?  THe evidences of fact and known mathematics challenges you at every turn.  Once we speak of the creation event (Life-6 days) we should all be on the same page.... 

So  again, you are marginalizing yourself. NOT US. You have declared that you only believe that Life was created within the  six days. You are not putting Genesis One, verse one on the  same page with the  rest of the  chapter.

Jesus says that Adam  and  Eve and marriage were from the beginning  of the  creation of God (Mark 10:6). You do not believe this.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2017

What's new @ CC for 2017? Stay tuned and keep checking back. More ask the experts, more creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2017   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service