Creation

DOCJ and I haven't gotten to verse 3 yet. He said in Message 355 that, "Genesis 1:1 is where the universe was created. It does represent billions of years." That's what I was referring to.

That doesn't help you. Most of the age of the earth occurred before there were any humans and the Bible doesn't suggest that at all.

But that's NOT what the text says. It says that the dry land is "made visible", not "created" on Day 3a. The thing that God "creates" is the separation between sea and dry land.Here is Young's Literal Translation:

quote:

---

Gen. 1:9 And God saith, ‘Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:’ and it is so. 10 And God calleth to the dry land ‘Earth,’ and to the collection of the waters He hath called ‘Seas;’ and God seeth that [it is] good.

---

Can you please explain what you perceive to be a contradiction? No, I do not assume that all creation must be ex nihilo. I agree.

quote:

---

But that's NOT what the text says. It says that the dry land is "made visible", not "created" on Day 3a. The thing that God "creates" is the separation between sea and dry land

---

The literal translation hardly helps you. There wasn't any hidden dry land - it should be pretty obvious that the seabed isn't dry just for start !

quote:

---

Can you please explain what you perceive to be a contradiction?

---

You say that there wasn't any creation and then you describe a creation. How can that not be a contradiction ?

quote:

---

I agree

---

Well, we have some forming which produces Earth, the sky and a distinct region of "waters above the Earth", so I see no reason not to call it a creation of Heavens and Earth.

The text does NOT say that anything was "created" on Day 3a. The land already existed. God declares that He will allow it to "be seen", NOT to "be created". The text is clear on this. I don't see why you are trying to distort the text to say "created" here? Where did I say this??
The text is clear on Day 2 that there WAS a creation, that of a "firmament" (not heavens, not earth, not waters, but "firmament"). This "firmament" was created to separate the waters above from the waters below. On the first three Days, God is forming "realms" which He will populate by "rulers" on the next three Days. The way that God forms these "realms" is by separation of the pre-existing material, and by naming the new realms, thus giving them meaning and function. In some cases, this separation of pre-existing material is accomplished by creating something new; in other cases not.Here's a summary:
Day 1: God forms the realms of "day" and "night" by causing a separation between them and naming them. He separates Day from Night by creating "light".
Day 2: God forms the realms of "sea" and "sky" by separating the waters below from the waters above. He separates the waters by creating a "firmament". Here he names not the two new realms, but the separator between them, which He names "Heaven" (not to be confused with the "heavens", of which the "firmament" is only a part).
Day 3a: God forms the realms of "seas" and "dry land" by causing a separation between water and dry land and naming them. He separates Earth from Seas by gathering the waters together, NOT by creating anything new.

quote:

---

The text does NOT say that anything was "created" on Day 3a. The land already existed. God declares that He will allow it to "be seen", NOT to "be created". The text is clear on this. I don't see why you are trying to distort the text to say "created" here?

---

I guess I am going to have to Do you think that dry land was somehow simply hidden by the water ? How could it be dry if it was under the water ?And saying "let it be seen" does not contradict the idea that it is created. You really seem to think that a narrow literalism is the only possible reading.

quote:

---

Where did I say this

​

The text is clear on Day 2 that there WAS a creation, that of a "firmament" (not heavens, not earth, not waters, but "firmament"). This "firmament" was created to separate the waters above from the waters below.

---

Well I am glad you admit that much. But feel free to go back and read your post.

quote:

---

On the first three Days, God is forming "realms" which He will populate by "rulers" on the next three Days. The way that God forms these "realms" is by separation of the pre-existing material, and by naming the new realms, thus giving them meaning and function. In some cases, this separation of pre-existing material is accomplished by creating something new; in other cases not.

---

Which reveals a lack of substantive disagreement. Refusing to call something a creation even when something distinct is formed is at best a choice of phrasing.
And surely the fact that the material is pre-existing is only relevant if you insist on ex nihilism creation which you denied doing.From your list I get the heavens created in day 2 and the Earth in day 3.

The land was already here, covered with water. It had already been created.Since it was covered with water, it was not dry. I am simply trying to be careful and to urge care with the text, and not to force foreign understandings on it.When an author chooses the word "created" for some things and "be seen" for others, he is making a distinction that should not be ignored. You might WISH that the text said that the earth was "created" on Day 3, but it doesn't. We should not impose our wishes on the text. I did. I see no contradiction in what I wrote. If you think you do, you are misreading me. That's not what I said, and it's not what the text says.

The Bible does suggest the heaven and the earth were created before anything in the earth was created. And it happened before the 6 days of creation. Gen 1:2 is a new sentence beginning from on the earth. Genesis 1:1 is looking down at the heavens and the earth. And if you look at the big bang model it does two things. 1, there was an expansion (as is noted in scripture since it came into existence) from an unexplainable point. 2, the expansion is evidence of an outside region for it expand into it. If the bible were wrong I wouldn't expect congruency between the evidence and scripture.

quote:

---

The land was already here, covered with water. It had already been created.
Since it was covered with water, it was not dry.

---

So it is reasonable to say that dry land was not merely revealed.

quote:

---

I am simply trying to be careful and to urge care with the text, and not to force foreign understandings on it.

---

And yet you do exactly that when you insist that there is a move of focus to Earth. And you aren't really doing that here - certainly you offer no argument that any "foreign" understanding is involved.

quote:

---

When an author chooses the word "created" for some things and "be seen" for others, he is making a distinction that should not be ignored. You might WISH that the text said that the earth was "created" on Day 3, but it doesn't. We should not impose our wishes on the text.

---

If you can show that Hebrew writers insisted on using words in that way, rather than varying words because it reads better as English writers do you might have a point. But simply assuming that they did might well be forcing a foreign understanding on the text - exactly contrary to your stated intent.

quote:

---

That's not what I said, and it's not what the text says.

---

Then I guess you are determined to avoid seeing a more general idea of creation and are pretty much stuck with assuming that it has to be ex nihilo to count.

Does it really suggest that or do you just wish it did? If you were reading Genesis 1 with no preconceived notions, would you conclude that there were billions of years? Well of course Genesis 1:1 is looking down on the earth; there was nowhere to stand on earth yet. How can you stretch a different viewpoint to billions of years? No, the Big Bang didn't expand "into" anything. It was an expansion OF everything. That's like saying that Ian Fleming mentioned Paris and Paris exists so the James Bond stories must be true. Even if there are some congruencies, it's the incongruencies that determine whether or not the Bible is reliable.

So God created the dryness.Really, this nitpicking about whether anything was "created" is pretty silly.

You might consider it "nitpicking", but I would call it "being careful". Too many people read the account carelessly and sloppily, making it say things that it doesn't.The point is that from v.2 onward, there is no mention of the "'eretz" (earth, land) being created; it already exists, covered by the waters. (There is also no mention of the waters being created; they already exist, too.). Yes, there is mention of the dry ground (yabbāsh) being seen (rāʾ), but not of the underlying earth/land ('eretz) being created (bārāʾ or 'asah). Both the nouns and the verbs are different.If they are included in the account at all, the only place for the earth/land and waters to be created is in verse 1.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

So there's "The Earth", which is our world. Then there is the "earth", which is the land in our world.In verse 1, our world was formless and void - that tells me that it existed but it hadn't physically existed as land yet.It isn't until verse 9 that the land is talked about being seen, which implies that it didn't physically exist as land until the third day.As I see it: our world was created on the first day but the land didn't exist until the third.

You can be too careful, to the point of being catatonic.

quote:

---

The Bible does not say when the beginning was, just that it was.

---

It seems to say that In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Then it proceeds to explain how. One of the things that happened was He made Adam. From the chronologies, we can deduce about how long ago that was.