BIBLE QUESTIONS

[DavidM]

What a let down!    I thought I was going to get a great theological argument,  Couldn't you juxtapose "On the 7th day he rested" with "It is finished." ? I'm sure there's someone out there who can give me a better answer!

[Joe Sperling]

David----

There really is no argument concerning man being created on the seventh day. It is not found in scripture. Man was created on the sixth "day", and that is clearly stated in Genesis. I don't think you'll
find any commentary on Genesis that teaches man was created on the seventh day. Well, maybe the
"Seventh Day Inventist Chruch" might teach it, but no one else.

As for comparing the seventh day as "God's day of rest" with Jesus' cry "IT IS FINISHED!!" from the cross, the Book of Hebrews does make a comparison saying there is a "rest" to be entered into by the people of God. As God rested, so God's people also have a "rest" to enter---provided by God himself.

But having a theological argument concerning whether man was created on the seventh day or not, would be like having an argument over what color the "Easter Bunny" is. You'd be arguing about something that doesn't really exist.

By the way, the Easter Bunny is a tan-like color with a white belly, and he carries a big pink basket with a Big Red Heart adorning the side. 

[DavidM]

5 points for Joe

[Oscar]

After doing a bit more investigating I found another plausible explanation, but one must accept the theory that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 something destructive happened. "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth (1:1), "And the earth was without form and void" (1:2).

There is an interesting passage which seems to show that the earth had been fruitful, but it was laid waste and made "without form and void" :

Jeremiah 4:23-29:

I looked on the earth, and

beheld it formless (laid waste) and void;

and to the heavens, and they had no light.

I looked on the mountains,

and, behold, they quaked.

And all the hills were shaken.

I beheld and lo, there was no man;

and all the cover of the skies had fled.

I looked, and, behold, the fruitful place

was a wilderness; and all its cities

were broken down before the face of Jehovah,

before his glowing anger. For so Jehovah has said.

The whole land shall be a desolation;

yet I will not make a full end.


Of course, this is conjecture, but if true, could explain how grass was "created" before the sun was. The Spirit of God hovers over the waters on an earth that is already in existence. He then says "Let there be light". If, somehow, the earth had been devastated and plunged into a deep darkness, it's possible that the sun was shining already, but could not reach the earth. When God said "Let there be light" the beams of the sun were then able to break through to the earth, separating the darkness from the light. The Bible says that God "created to make" when referring to creation. If the seeds were already in the ground from before the disaster, the light reaching the earth would cause them to sprout. It may have still been a deep cloud cover, but enough light to generate plant life. Then on the fourth day the sun and the moon were again fully exposed as God "recreated" the original creation.  According to Genesis 1:1 the sun had already been created, but something caused the planet to be laid waste and plunged into total darkness in Genesis 1:2.

When the Spirit of God came upon the face of the waters upon an earth that was already there, the sun itself was already there too. God wasn't creating the sun on the fourth day--he was re-creating what the world had been before the disaster. He was lifting away the darkness and the covering upon the earth which had caused it to be "without form and void". He was taking existing matter and "re-creating" it into a paradise. This again, pure conjecture, could be a reason how grass could grow before a sun was "created". The reason being that the sun was not "created" on the fourth day--it was "unveiled" once again. If you were on earth the sun would appear to have been "created" if you had never seen it before, but in reality had already existed and was being "unveiled" after thousands of years.

I do not know Hebrew, but have read that the verb for "create" when referring to much of the six days is "to take from existing substances--to make".  It is interesting that God does not command the animals or Adam to "fill the earth", but to "replenish" the earth. From the Cambridge Dictionary:

Definition
replenish   Show phonetics
verb [T] FORMAL
to fill something up again:
Food stocks were replenished by/with imports from the USA.
Does your glass need replenishing?

If the earth was brand new there would be no need to "replenish" it.  Something had happened to it, and God was restoring creation to what it was before, or re-making it into something new.

To me, this seems like a very good explanation for why the sun would "appear" to have been "created"  on the fourth day, after grass and plants were already created on the third day (and somehow could miraculously grow without any light).

I believe it may have been Hugh Ross who said that the "Creation" story is from a view from the surface of the earth  looking towards heaven, or how man might have seen the creation happen had he been there. If not,  I did read this before from another scientist who believes in creation. From that view an "unveiling" could appear as a brand new creation, even though the sun and moon had been there for a long time---you would see the sun and the moon first, most likely, if a great cloudy cover was being removed, and then finally the stars.  "He created the stars also"--the writer says this after the sun and moon are "created"--as though the writer is seeing them last (though we know the stars were created millions of years before the sun and the moon scientifically).

Again, all conjecture---but fascinating.

Joe,

The word for "earth" in Jeremiah 4:23 and 4:28 is 'eretz.  It can mean the earth, a country, a field, ground, land, a wilderness and more.  It is translated as "land" in vs 5, 7, 20, and 27.

The subject of the passage in its greater context is God's judgement on unfaithful Judah. (notice vs3, 4, 5, 11, 14, and 16.) 

So, the passage is actually a lament over what is about to happen to the promised land, not a history of the earth.

For an interesting article that talks about the Hebrew words for earth, land, etc., here is a link.

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Hill.pdf

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

Tom---

I appreciate the input, and you may very well be right. However, God does often use a prophecy to
speak to the time he is "judging" but may also be speaking of a completely different event at the same
time. As when he speaks to the prince of Tyre and the King of Tyre--referring to the present Prince, and also of Satan himself in the far distant past.

So, it is very possible that God is speaking of "judgment" on Judah, but also hastening back to the distant past. Using the term "without form and void" and "there was no man" seems to infer he speaking
of another time---but again, you could be absolutely correct in your assertion.
--Joe

[Oscar]

Ex 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The six days of creation from this scripture refer to the same six days that that man lives in. We work six days and take the seventh day off the same as God worked six days in creation and rested the seventh.

Marty,

You state that "The six days of creation from this scripture refer to the same six days that that man lives in."

This is true.  The six days of creation do "refer" to the days of the 7 day work/sabbath cycle.  However, they could just as well be referring to an analogous relationship.  This is certainly the case where the 7 year planting years/fallow years cycle for land use is mentioned.  The ratio of 6 years of work to one of rest is directly analogous to the 6/1 work/rest cycle of man.

The Hebrew scholar Gleason L. Archer commented on the passage you mention.  He said, "By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days' any more than the eight-day, celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days."

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Tom---

I appreciate the input, and you may very well be right. However, God does often use a prophecy to
speak to the time he is "judging" but may also be speaking of a completely different event at the same
time. As when he speaks to the prince of Tyre and the King of Tyre--referring to the present Prince, and also of Satan himself in the far distant past.

So, it is very possible that God is speaking of "judgment" on Judah, but also hastening back to the distant past. Using the term "without form and void" and "there was no man" seems to infer he speaking
of another time---but again, you could be absolutely correct in your assertion.
--Joe

Joe,

What you are speculating about is actually a version of the "gap" theory.  Here is a section of a review of John Sailhammer's "Genesis Unbound" that addresses the theory.

..........................

"The meaning of "formless and void"

The second reason to believe that 1:2ff is the account of God preparing the land is from the meaning of the Hebrew phrase tohu wabohu in verse two, which is translated in most versions as "formless and void." Sailhamer points out that the early English translators of the Bible were influenced to a great extent by the prevailing Greek view of creation in their day and therefore thought this phrase meant that "God did not originally create the world in the condition in which we now see it. Instead, He created the universe as a shapeless mass of material, only later forming the world we now know....In this way, the biblical account of creation could be shown to be 'true' because it conformed to the generally accepted Greek cosmologies" (62). Therefore, they translated tohu wabu as "formless and void."

Many Jewish-Greek translations of the middle ages disagreed with this translation. Likewise, Jewish interpreters around the era 300-200 B.C. rendered tohu wabohu not as "formless and void" but as "desolate without human beings or beasts and void of all cultivation of plants and trees" (64). This early view, Sailhamer argues, is essentially correct. Tohu wabohu conveys the idea of "uninhabitable wilderness" and not "formless and void chaos." Thus, Genesis 1:2, in saying that the land was "tohu wabohu," is simply stating that it was a deserted wilderness-and thus not yet fit for mankind's inhabitation. This, of course, presupposes its existence and focuses the readers attention on what God will do to make the land fit for man.

"Uninhabitable wilderness" is the meaning of tohu wabohu throughout the Scriptures. For example, it is this phrase which describes the wilderness in which Israel wandered for forty years before entering the promised land (Deuteronomy 32:10). Ironically, later on Jeremiah 4:23-26 uses tohu wabohu to describe the promised land after Israel has been exiled from it because of disobedience. Verse 23 says, "I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void (tohu wabohu); and to the heavens, and they had no light (cf. Gen 1:2!)." The following verses in Jeremiah describe the land as a wilderness (v. 26-"the fruitful land was a wilderness") that is void of humans and birds (v. 25-"there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled"). Thus, the land that is said to be "formless and void" is described as an uninhabited wilderness. Which means that the land is called "formless and void" because it is an uninhabited wilderness.

Consequently, "formless and void" in Jeremiah 4:23 means "uninhabited wilderness" and not "unformed mass." Just as the land in Genesis one was a wilderness before it was made fit for man, so also Israel wandered through a wilderness to get to the land God had promised them-a land which later became a wilderness as a consequence of Israel's disobedience. As we will see, this parallel points to the fact that the "land" in Genesis 1 is specifically the promised land. For it is hard to escape the conclusion that, in calling the promised land "formless and void" after the exile of Israel, Jeremiah is alluding to Genesis 1:2 to show that this judgment upon Israel returned the land to the state it was in before mankind had existed.

In summary, the correct translation of tohu wabohu is not "formless and void," as if the earth was an unformed mass that God's work of creation brought to its present form, but "deserted wilderness"-a phrase which presupposes the land's existence and sets the stage for what God will do to make the land inhabitable. Therefore, the six days of Genesis one are the account of how God transformed the land into a fruitful habitation for man, not the account of how he shaped the world from an unformed mass."

..............................

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

Tom---

Thanks for the explanation. I must admit though that I have read several "theories" (and I know they are just that--"theories") that point to a "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 that were pretty convincing also.

The reason I think that something may have happened is that if you read the Genesis account it would appear that the earth was created before the sun, the moon and the stars were created. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the record also states that grass and plant-life were "created" before the sun even came into existence (plant-life on the 3rd day, and the sun on the 4th day).

Even using the term "uninhabitable wilderness" does not remove the fact that something else may have existed before this was created, or became "uninhabitable wilderness". The fact that God uses the same phraseology to describe the world in Genesis 1:2 and judgment in Jeremiah 4:23 (whether it be "formless and void" or "unihabitable wilderness" and "with no man") I find to be extremely interesting.

I had to leave in a hurry yesterday and left a short post about God often referring to two different events in one prophecy. Often a prophecy God is pronouncing is referring to the present event He is talking about, but also is referring to another event in the far distant future. Many of the proclamations against "Babylon" are against the present kingdom he is addressing, but can also apply to "Babylon the Great" of the last days. So it is possible that as God refers to a present event, He could also be speaking of an event that happened long ago also.

When David for example, in the Psalms, refers to his "familiar friend" he is speaking about a present event in his life, yet, as we all know, this is a prophecy ALSO concerning Judas Iscariot far in the future.

Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up [his] heel against me. (Psalm 41)

We know this because the Gospel writers point to it as a fulfillment of prophecy concerning Judas. So (though it is conjecture and not written in stone), when the Lord uses the same phraseology (again, whether looking upon the world as "formless and void" or an "uninhabitable wilderness") to describe a present judgment He is referring to, it is possible he is also referring to an event that took place ages ago at the same time(as he does when speaking against the Prince of Tyre, then rocketing back to aeons past when referring to the "King of Tyre" in a reference to the fall of Satan in Ezekiel 28), or to a far future event, such as the fall of Babylon.

The "gap theory" is just that--a theory. But when we think of the dinosaurs being "wiped out" in one momentous event (scientists say a comet hit the earth--and maybe it did) one wonders if some cataclysmic judgment did fall on the earth, plunging it into darkness for a long period of time---The Lord then returning to an earth already established (Genesis says the Holy Spirit came upon "the face of the waters, and darkness was upon the face of the deep"). If this earth was already there, does this mean God created it before he created the sun, the moon and the stars? Possibly, but very doubtful, if one believes in the laws of gravity and physics (the sun being responsible for the earth's orbit around itself, producing the gravity(attraction) to keep it in orbit). The earth would not be sitting solitarily in space--there would be a sun for it to be orbiting.

Does one truly believe (if we look at Genesis as a true "chronology" of Creation events) that plant life was "created" (3rd day) before the sun , moon and stars? (4th day)? If we believe and accept the laws of science we cannot. (For we know that God has put physical and mathematical laws into place in the Universe and upon the earth).

True---God has not let us in on "how" he created the Universe, but he did give us a chronology of events for a reason. Did God really create plant life on the 3rd day (as He clearly states), and then create the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day (again, as He clearly states)? Or did He, or Moses (when transcribing these events) err when giving the chronology, forgetting that plant life cannot grow without sunlight?  I don't think so.  The choronolgy of events was given for a purpose--and if one of the "days" seems to be out of order there must be a reason for it.

God placed our planet where it is in our galaxy so that we could gaze up in wonderment, ask questions, and possibly "discover" the answers. It is apparent--if we were in other areas of the galaxy our view would be blocked by gases and debris. We are in the perfect place to "observe" the greatness of God's creation and to ask questions.  I believe God may have designed the Bible that way in some ways also. The Bible clearly teaches a "trinity"--but it never once uses that term or says God is in three persons. We "discover" this fact by observing the whole picture and seeing the trinity at Jesus' baptism, or when the seraphim say "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty".

Is it wrong to question scripture? Do I simply believe God created grass before there was a sun, or do I ask why the days are out of order? I believe God wants us to question some of these things, so that by asking the questions we see things that might not be apparent on the surface. Do we spout out "dogma" like idiots and say the world is only 6000 years old when science has proven otherwise, or do we investigate and see that the Bible indeed allows for millions, if not billions of years for creation to have taken place?  Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to try at least to explain where I am coming from  .  Again--conjecture--not "proven"--but I enjoy discussing it!!

[Joe Sperling]

Tom---

By the way (ran out of space below) I admit the whole "gap theory" could be hogwash , but
cannot escape asking questions about the beginning of things when reading the chronology of
the days of creation.

There are those who would say "if the Bible says God created grass before he created the sun, believe it, don't question it!!" I just happen to believe there is a reason that the days are out of order---and I believe God put them out of order for a purpose. There has to be a reason for it.

There is a new museum opening up in Kentucky--a "creation museum"--and there are dioramas depicting men with dinosaurs, as the creators of the museum believe the world is only 10,000 years old! They spent millions of dollars to construct it!!  I'm a Christian and I think that is incredible, because science has proven the Universe and our own earth are billions of years old.  Either there was a "gap" in Genesis or the "days" of creation consisted of huge periods of time for sure! God does want us to use our faith, but he gave us brains and reason to use also!! And the thought that the world is only 10,000 years old is simply ridiculous. And this is based on taking a "literal and unswerving" interpretation of Genesis based on calculations involving earth years and the patriarchs, and making the "days" of creation literal days.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the dioramas is titled "The third day of creation" and is a completely darkened area with plants and trees growing in it!!

Anyway Tom---I will check out the link you put in your post. I happen to find the discussion of creation, time, and eternity to be a fascinating subject!

--Joe

[Oscar]

Joe,

There is more to say on the Genesis 1 question than most people realize.  Most American Christians read the creation story through the assumptions of modern Western Civilization.  in reality, the true meaning of a Biblical passage is what the author intended it to mean.

The author of Genesis, Moses, probably worked with written and oral history sources that took him back to the beginnings of civilization and writing.  If so, the question of the literary forms in use in that time period becomes important.  What were they, and how did they work?  There are several possibilities:

1. First you have at least two Sumerian documents which demonstrate the existence of a literary convention of time compression.  They are entitled Enki and Ninhursag and Lugalbanda in the mountain cave.  Both show that events said to belong to one or more days actually took much longer periods of time.  This, along with the Hebrew definitions of "day" provide support for the Day Age theory promoted by Hugh Ross and others.

2. Another possibility is the Dual Register or Literary Hypothesis.  In this view, the days of creation are actually a literary form for organizing the material and do not represent a chronology at all.  There are three days in which the earth, sky, and sea are created, followed by three days in which they are populated.  There are some reasonably good arguments for this idea.  It is favored by many (semi) Reformed bible scholars who are not folks to be dismissed lightly. BTW, this one solves the plant/sun problem you mentioned.

3. Yet another possibility is the Magisterial Day hypothesis.  This makes the days of creation actual 24 hour days in which the orders were given, "let there be...".  These days are then separated by millions of years in which the processes involved worked according to the laws of physics.  This idea is promoted by astronomer/theologian Robert Newman.

4. There are others, but these, IMHO, are the most plausible.  The Gap theory is based on the definitions of Hebrew words plus a lot of speculation.  In my view, this is a pretty weak foundation upon which to build the history of the universe.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

Tom---

Thanks for taking the time to list a few other plausible "theories" concerning the time frame
for Creation. I appreciate it! There have been several books written that are based on the
"Gap Theory", and literally, the whole book will be based on this "theory" being true (the rest
of the book must be accepted upon the premise that this first premise is true). Of course, one
cannot "prove" the veracity of this claim, or totally deny the possibility of it's being true either.

But I must admit, it makes a good read, and I always enjoy a "mystery".

--Joe

[Joe Sperling]

The "Creation Museum" mentioned below in another post opened yesterday in Petersburg, Kentucky. Below is
a short news story about the opening.

CREATION MUSEUM OPENS TO LARGE CROWD

Petersburg, Kentucky      5-28-07     Lexington Gazette

AP---- The "Creation Museum" opened today in Petersburg, Kentucky, drawing more people than originally expected. The crowd, many driving long distances, was composed mainly of  believers in "creation", but also drew a dozen or so protesters, who feel the museum is far from "realistic". The museum, which espouses a literal, 6 day creation of planet earth, houses many dioramas, depicting a very young planet. The Museum's financiers put approximately 27 million dollars into the project, which includes computerized, very realistic "dinosaurs" which move in "dynamation", and which were an immediate favorite of the mesmerized crowds.

The theme of the museum is a young earth, which it's creators believe is less than ten thousand years old-- in direct conflict with science, which puts the earth's age at billions of years.  Many protesters outside said this is extremely "unrealistic", and sends children the wrong message. "Teaching children that the world is only 6000 years old is pure hogwash!!" said Lester Persons of Walter, Minnesota, "it is in direct conflict with the known facts of science, and makes one think we are still living in Medievel times!! I am truly amazed that anyone could believe this nonsense!" he added.

One of the favorite dioramas is the one which combines dinosaurs with human beings. Though some looked on with amused wonder, others viewed the scene very seriously as the "cave men" and dinosaurs co-habitated in one locale. There were many "oohs" and "ahhs" as the cavemen pulled up in their ancient car, with rock-hewn wheels, and cloth top-covering. A waitress(car-hop) came out and tried to put a HUGE set of brontosaurus ribs on a tray-holder on the side of the car, the weight of the "ribs" causing the car to tip over. In another scene, the cave man, shown in his domicile, then went to put the sabre-toothed cat outside, and the cat ran back in, locking the man outside. The man, being a Neandrathal, mainly found in Germany, was given the proper German accent. He exclaimed "VILMA!!!" quite loudly, apparently calling for his wife, and pounding on the door to be let in. The man's pet, a smaller purple dinosaur, actually communicated in a high-pitched, rapid succession of sounds, reminiscent to the sound of a poodle's bark. The next door neighbors, apparently Cro-Magnons (their little son had blonde hair and carried a huge club,and also displayed what could be called super-human strength), were also a very interesting sight. Everything in the diorama  adhered to the strictest details--even the morning paper, with it's "news" meticulously carved into slabs of stone. Whether you are a subscriber to a young earth or not, a visit to the museum is well worth the time and money.

There is a $19.95 per ticket entrance fee ($9.95 for children--$14.95 for seniors). The museum will be open 6 days a week(10 A.M. to 6:00 P.M). For more information simply google "creation museum" or call 800-778-3390.

[outdeep]

Joe,

There is more to say on the Genesis 1 question than most people realize.  Most American Christians read the creation story through the assumptions of modern Western Civilization.  in reality, the true meaning of a Biblical passage is what the author intended it to mean.

The author of Genesis, Moses, probably worked with written and oral history sources that took him back to the beginnings of civilization and writing.  If so, the question of the literary forms in use in that time period becomes important.  What were they, and how did they work?  There are several possibilities:

1. First you have at least two Sumerian documents which demonstrate the existence of a literary convention of time compression.  They are entitled Enki and Ninhursag and Lugalbanda in the mountain cave.  Both show that events said to belong to one or more days actually took much longer periods of time.  This, along with the Hebrew definitions of "day" provide support for the Day Age theory promoted by Hugh Ross and others.

2. Another possibility is the Dual Register or Literary Hypothesis.  In this view, the days of creation are actually a literary form for organizing the material and do not represent a chronology at all.  There are three days in which the earth, sky, and sea are created, followed by three days in which they are populated.  There are some reasonably good arguments for this idea.  It is favored by many (semi) Reformed bible scholars who are not folks to be dismissed lightly. BTW, this one solves the plant/sun problem you mentioned.

3. Yet another possibility is the Magisterial Day hypothesis.  This makes the days of creation actual 24 hour days in which the orders were given, "let there be...".  These days are then separated by millions of years in which the processes involved worked according to the laws of physics.  This idea is promoted by astronomer/theologian Robert Newman.

4. There are others, but these, IMHO, are the most plausible.  The Gap theory is based on the definitions of Hebrew words plus a lot of speculation.  In my view, this is a pretty weak foundation upon which to build the history of the universe.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

Thank you, Tom.  This is a huge help. 

We Evangelicals have been taught to read every passage of Scripture as if it is the daily newspaper with a special mystical spark that may happen "speak to our heart" about our job or the effectiveness of our mission outreach.  I am trying to understand how to honor the type of literature the writer is using and honor the motivation of the writer without spiritualizing everything away into meaning nothing.

Example:  When it comes to the "lake of fire" passage in Revelation, we Evangelicals are taught to ignore the symbolism of apocalyptical literature and see the damned as living, popping, screaming maggots in eternal flames while liberals are taught that at the end of the day, the passage really doesn't mean anything at all.  It seems to me that there must be a view that says the "lake of fire" is a symbol of something very real and very terrifying (God would be unjust if He did not judge) but not necessarily a giant can of sterno in the center of the earth.

[outdeep]

Tom:  Do you know of any online articles about the Dual Register or Literary Hypothesis?  I think in some ways this is what I was trying to get to in my earlier, ignorant ramblings.

-Dave

[Oscar]

Dave,

Another term for it, probably the most widespread, is the Framework Hypothesis.

If you go here:          http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/presenters/87

you can listen to a talk on it by Lee Irons.

Here is a link to a written article.  You have to scroll down a ways to get to the actual description of it.

http://incolor.inebraska.com/stuart/framework.htm

Tom Maddux