• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Genesis Creation Account: PART 2 (the clincher in paragraph 15)

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member


Fourth “Day”

“‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16; Psalms 136:7-9.

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma‧’ohr′, which means the source of the light.

Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma‧’ohr′ in verse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.

An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life.

Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on.—Genesis 1:15; Genesis 8:20-22.

Fifth “Day”

“‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.”—Genesis 1:20-21.

It is of interest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters were to swarm are called “living souls.” This term would also apply to the “flying creatures [that] fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse.” And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.

Sixth “Day”

“‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’ And it came to be so.”—Genesis 1:24.

Thus on the sixth “day,” land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. But this final “day” was not over. One last remarkable “kind” was to come:
“And God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.’ And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”—Genesis 1:26-27.

Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as some have concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of chapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that were pertinent to the arrival of humans—Adam the living soul, his garden home, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife.—Genesis 2:5-9, Genesis 2:15-18, Genesis 2:21-22.

The foregoing is presented to help us understand what Genesis says. And this quite realistic account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6 × 24), but over many millenniums of time.

How Did Genesis Know?

Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.”3 Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: “The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.”4

From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, like in the Cambrian Explosion, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.

All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.

The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

1. Old Testament Word Studies, by William Wilson, 1978, p. 109.
2. Putnam’s Geology, by Edwin E. Larson and Peter W. Birkeland, 1982, p. 66.
3. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, Part 1, p. 335.
4. Aid to Bible Understanding, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1971, p. 393.
a. Ibid., pp. 392, 393.
b. The Lamp, “The Worlds of Wallace Pratt,” by W. L. Copithorne, Fall 1971, p. 14

Comments?
 
Last edited:

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.”3 Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: “The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.” ... The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

Comments?
The Buddhist account of "creation" is far more interesting to me (Dighanikaya 1), and agrees more with the prevailing theory of cycles of creation/destruction; much of the Biblical chronology is similar to the Buddhist chronology, but the latter gives an even larger perspective (in terms of the cycles of creation). Your Bible dictionary is incorrect in claiming the uniqueness of Genesis.

According to early Buddhism, various deities in the various heavens possess immense power and lifespans (but neither are infinite). Who's to say that one of these limited deities couldn't have described Genesis to its writer?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I can interpret The Wheels on the Bus to be about the fall of the Roman Empire if I so choose. This is a lot of picking nits and very selectively to make a scientifically unjustifiable story fit into the jigsaw of modern understanding, with scissors to cut it into the right shape.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Hockycowboy said:

]The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order:

(1) a beginning;

(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;

(3) light;

(4) an expanse or atmosphere;

(5) large areas of dry land;

(6) land plants;

(7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning;

(8) sea monsters and flying creatures;

(9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;

(10) man.

Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.


What science is this, astrology, anthroposophy, phrenology, exobiology, and alchemy? You do realize, don't you, that most of us here are at least high school graduates, some even college graduates. Might want to keep it in mind when you make silly pronouncements like this.


.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Might want to keep it in mind when you make silly pronouncements like this.

Refutation usually requires some sort of source-based argument. Otherwise, it's just 'words without substance', like I stated.

It's amazing, really. Only in these past 200 years, has the Bible been subjected to all this ridicule, accused of having numerous contractions. Yet, the words in the Bible haven't changed...Boyle, Newton, Keppler and others read and studied these chapters and books; and these deep thinkers found no such discrepancies! In fact, they called the Bible, "God's Word." Amazing!

What they did find fault with -- especially Newton -- was religious tenets.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Refutation usually requires some sort of source-based argument. Otherwise, it's just 'words without substance',
Okay, let's look at them

(1) a beginning; What the heck kind of relevant stage is this? Of course whatever happened had a beginning. It would be like boasting the play had three stages:
1) Its beginning,
2) Its end
3) Everything in between.
Your (1) is a foolish inclusion.

(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; The creation of the earth is much farther down the list. And it was certainly not in darkness; the Sun was shinning very brightly, and it was not enshrouded with water. Water came much later, after the Earth had cooled. As for "heavy" gases, what gases were these that they're distinguished from the light gases, those lighter than air?

(3) light; What light is this? You list the Sun and stars, the only known producers of significant light, later on.

(4) an expanse or atmosphere; So which is it? They aren't the same.

(5) large areas of dry land; Before the Sun and stars were made? I don't think so.

(6) land plants; This is fine, land plants eventually did appear on Earth, but not before the Sun, Moon and stars

(7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; As mentioned, the Sun, Moon and stars appeared way, way, before any plants popped up. And the seasons did not appear until Earth had settled into its elliptical orbit around the Sun.

(8) sea monsters and flying creatures; Sea monsters??? What the heck are these? I'll take "flying creatures" to mean birds.

(9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
Well, the term "beast" is commonly taken to mean a mammal. So the use of "mammal" is unnecessarily repetitive. And "tame" generally refers to animals domesticated by man, and man hasn't even made his appearance yet.

(10) man. Okay.​

So, science would not in any way agree with the general order of these "stages." And as I pointed out, a couple of them don't make any sense.


.
.
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Refutation usually requires some sort of source-based argument. Otherwise, it's just 'words without substance', like I stated.

It's amazing, really. Only in these past 200 years, has the Bible been subjected to all this ridicule, accused of having numerous contractions. Yet, the words in the Bible haven't changed...Boyle, Newton, Keppler and others read and studied these chapters and books; and these deep thinkers found no such discrepancies! In fact, they called the Bible, "God's Word." Amazing!

What they did find fault with -- especially Newton -- was religious tenets.

Uhm, not to burst your bubble, but plenty of scholars have ridiculed the Bible and for far longer than 200 years. Also, the words have changed dramatically, as that is why revisions happen, not to mention translating across multiple languages and adhering to sentence structure tends to butcher what was actually said 2,000 years ago in Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek.

Plus, the moment you cite the NWT you lose credibility. None of its writers were fluent with the afore mentioned languages, which means they relied on already translated versions and just rewrote the Bible to make it say what they wanted it to say. There is a good reason that many theologians (myself included) disregard the NWT as a serious translation, and www.biblegateway.com refuses to even list it.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
the moment you cite the NWT you lose credibility. None of its writers were fluent with the afore mentioned languages, which means they relied on already translated versions and just rewrote the Bible to make it say what they wanted it to say. There is a good reason that many theologians (myself included) disregard the NWT as a serious translation, and www.biblegateway.com refuses to even list it.

I'll be glad to use any translation, I have no bias. (Although I prefer reading the Divine Name in them, to differentiate from "LORD" and "Lord". Psalms 8:9 is a great example; so is Psalms 110:1.)

What's the "good reason"? I find many excellent reasons to use the NWT, one of which is consistency with translated words. Regarding which, I could show you all kinds of discrepancies with most of the other versions. But I still use them!
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
the words have changed dramatically, as that is why revisions happen, not to mention translating across multiple languages and adhering to sentence structure tends to butcher what was actually said 2,000 years ago in Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek.

For the most part, the meaning in the contexts hasn't changed. The Dead Sea scrolls, Ryland's papyrus fragments, and other ancient writings have borne this truth.
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
For the most part, the meaning in the contexts hasn't changed. The Dead Sea scrolls, Ryland's papyrus fragments, and other ancient writings have borne this truth.

Are you fluent with ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek? I am going to assume No.
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
I'll be glad to use any translation, I have no bias. (Although I prefer reading the Divine Name in them, to differentiate from "LORD" and "Lord". Psalms 8:9 is a great example; so is Psalms 110:1.)

What's the "good reason"? I find many excellent reasons to use the NWT, one of which is consistency with translated words. Regarding which, I could show you all kinds of discrepancies with most of the other versions. But I still use them!

You use the NWT because you are a JW. No other reason needs to be given. Of course you are going to be partial to it.

I do not use the NWT because it is a bad translation. For more info on what I mean by that: Metzger on the errors of the New World Translation

Dr. Metzger was one of the leading NT biblical scholars of the 20th century. He specialized in the Greek NT and was an instructor at Princeton Theological Seminary, and was elected president of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas as well as the Society of Biblical Literature. His pedigree blows most theological scholars out of the water.

I am not picking a fight or bad mouthing you personally, but none of the NWT writers even had a college degree, and none were fluent with the biblical languages. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out who has the greater understanding of the Bible (that would be the PhD's).

Edit: there's really nothing left for you to say to me. You won't convince me of anything. :shrug:
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
none of the NWT writers even had a college degree.....

And Jesus' Apostles were fisherman, and 'unschooled and ordinary.' What's important is Luke 10:21.

Next, you'll tell me, "all the PhD holders agree with each other"! Lol.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Genesis 1,2,3 are part of an entire book. The entire book is Genesis. It is all one creation account including the stories of Noah, Abraham, Joseph in Egypt, Judah and Tamar. Reducing the text to physics and literal stories is a bad thing to do to adults. Its good for children to learn the stories and be familiar, but mature congregations ought to be hotbeds of social welfare. That is what Genesis would have them be. Turning it into a literal book and a Physics text reduces it to something nobody has to wrestle with in a personal way. It becomes a dead foreign untranslated thing that is mostly good as a wall hanging. Noah becomes just a story about a man who was obedient. Joseph becomes just an account of a messianic person. Abraham becomes just a historical note.
 
Top