Most scholars hold that there is no linguistic support for a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. Rather Genesis 1:1 is viewed as a summary of everything that is detailed in the verses that follow. So there is not textual support for saying that any verse in Genesis 1 happened at this or that point in earth history.
This is where, in my opinion, the marrying of Genesis 1 with established science begins to break down. Eventually, one has to be seen as having a level of plasticity so it can be made to fit the other. That is, hermeneutics is deemphasised as the text is moulded to fit the science, or the established norms of science are deemphasised to make billions of years fit into the text.
There is nothing in the earthâs history that suggests that at some point it was totally covered with water. The water, whatever itâs source, would have accumulated over long stretches of time so the surface would be gradually covered with liquid water. As Liam noted you are trying to stretch history and scripture to force fit them together. And what would be the purpose in showing Moses just that one point in the Earthâs history?
Hi Liam, i am not trying to find textual support for Gen 1:2. I am just trying to observe what the verse was saying. The vision is given to describe a point in time in earth history where the earth was covered by water already. I am also not trying to follow what most scholars says as there are many different interpretations about Gen 1. I am trying to find a new angle or paradigm. As far as i know, there are not any agreed hermeneutics in how to interpret Gen 1. Of course in an open forum like this, many faces new ideas with their preassumption already and reject anything new outright. But what if Moses did write as according what he saw in his vision. Gen 1:2 is the starting point, and this is not even the first day.
Genesis 1:2
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:3
And God said, âLet there be light,â and there was light.
Then we should try to understand the meaning of his vision rather than equating it to video footage with an unclear timestamp.
Not only is the core of Revelation a clear example of what a recorded vision from God looks like, it also contains the closest biblical parallel to the structure of the creation week. The accounts of the seven seals, trumpets and bowls parallel the Genesis days: there are seven, a repeated refrain, the last is special, and the events blend Godâs initiative with earthly action.
Despite the close structural similarity, the bowls of Godâs wrath in Revelation 16 havenât spawned the same interpretive mistakes that bedevil the days of Godâs creation. We donât tend to wonder how Godâs wrath can be a liquid that can physically pour out of bowls and turn into plagues. We donât stretch the bowls into great cisterns in order to match the scale of what is depicted. But yet, itâs common to get bogged down looking at the pre-creation water literally or stretching the days into ages.
I think we need to respect symbolic ways of communicating. Creation is only envisioned as a week this one time. The seven-day structure, as well as two statements in Exodus, clearly connect it to a human template for work and rest. Other accounts of creation use different timing or no timing (Genesis 2, Job 38, Psalm 104, Proverbs 8, John 1, Colossians 1, etc.). The seven days arenât inherent in creation, but inherent in that particular vision of creation that was shaped to teach us how we, Godâs imagers, should work and rest. God stooped to be seen as a human labourer who works days, takes off nights, and rests at week-end. God assumed our form so we can image theirs.
This isnât archived footage. Itâs a painting, and all the more helpful if we ponder it alongside several other biblical paintings.
And that they simply represented the cosmology of that particular day and that particular culture rather than some kind of scientific Treatise that reflects the current models
It is certainly part of the very meaning of the words they use. To me it looks very much like the meaning of words such as âearthâ and âworldâ is based on an awareness which only extends a few thousand kilometers in space and a few thousand years in time. In that way, what they said can even be called true.
Thanks Marshall for pointing exactly what i am trying to do. I am obviously treating Gen 1:2-11 as a video footage. But why not?
While the book of revelation is also containing vision of the future, the imagery is strikingly different from Genesis 1. So colorful. Seven churches, seven angels and seven trumpet. The vision of glory, the battle of armageddon, the 1000 years reign. And yes, those things require careful observations and so far no one agree with each other. I donât blame them. It is not an easy task to understand the book of revelation. Those who are convicted strongly to take one position should be aware that they might be wrong as well.
Gen 1 however is a vision of the beginning of the work of God. The content is different because it is a fact that had happened already. It is not intended to reveal all that had happened in the past, but only concerned with showing Godâs work on earth in relation to His beloved creation that is us. That is why I thought treating this vision as video footage has merit. Why not? What if it is like a video footage? What if Moses wrote those vision so that we the readers can also see the same video footage and treat it as such. Had anyone done that before? It is the easiest approach and for me so far, make the most common sense and more importantly, I can see the compatibility with our scientific understanding of the beginning of creation.
Not my intention to stop only on this point, but it is an important starting point to make the rest of the vision (video footage) understandable. And you are right. The vision did not start with the earliest of earth creation though if you want it, you can lump it together in Gen 1:1.
I must confess that I borrow this idea from a book written by Michael G. Strauss with the title âthe creator revealedâ. On chap 12 and 13, that is basically his argument for understanding Gen 1 that I find compelling. He is also a physicist so I guess he knows a lot more than I do.
I am a bit surprised that all of the comments here do not seem to have any idea about this particular approach especially considering this is biologos forum. Oh well.
I did a search and actually Dr. Strauss has been mentioned before on the Forum. There have been posters before who felt the Bible has to be scientifically accurate to be believed, gbob comes to mind, but most are not that concerned with force fitting an agreement.
What we see in Genesis is God imposing order on a pre-existing, chaotic, watery world. You might check out the work of Denis Lamoureux, who writes for BioLogos. He is a professor of science and religion, and an expert on Genesis. Take a look at his web page. He has lots of free resources, including courses.
In the Christmas story, do we âassume that the three wise men were named Caspar, Melchoir and Balthasarâ? No. Should we even assume that there were three of them? No. The Bible doesnât even say there were three of them (regardless of our tendency to accept that âthreeâ, which is merely as bolted-on folklore).
So why start with the assumption that âGenesis 1 was written by Mosesâ? The whole of the remainder of that paragraph is based on that false assumption, and so lacks any real basis.
Thatâs better. Note that for about two thirds (around 65%) of the lifetime (so far) of the universe, there was no earth. None at all. You make a good observation.
Now ponder that vastness of time of an earth-less universe. Universe. No earth. For most of its existence, the universe was earth-less. Let that sink in. Universe, yes; earth no; for two-thirds of time.
Now ponder the first few words of the Bible âIn the beginning God created the-heavens-and-the-earthâ. This isnât âcreated the heavens, then waited for most of its existence, then created the earthâ. No. It is âthe-heavens-and-the-earthâ, and the language expresses a single act, creating a single entity comprising multiple parts within that single entity and single act.
The helps alert us to the fact that we are approaching the text incorrectly if we think scripture was constructed to express modern science. It wasnât. And if we think it was, we run the risk of abusing scripture. Scripture was written and collated and edited and finally compiled for ancient foreign people in ancient foreign cultures in ancient foreign times. Scripture is primarily theirs: by them and for them. Now, by faith, we believe it is additionally for us, too, by extension. But it is not primarily ours, nor was it ever written primarily to us.
In accepting God-given science and God-given scripture, we need to appreciate what each is⌠and just as importantly, what it isnât. In particular we need to rid ourselves of the man-made idea that scriptureâs Gen.1-11 is telling anything resembling what we modernists would call âhistoryâ. It isnât. It really isnât. Instead we must ask of Gen 1-11 âif not documentary history, then what is it instead?â And there begins a wonderful voyage of biblical discovery!
I am not a historian nor an expert as technical scholar on this issue. Tradition agree of the authorship of Moses. While Moses might not write the whole of pentateuch, he might be the author of most of the pentateuch except on those passage concerning events after his death.
This is however a discussion beyond me as I am not the expert on this. I just take it for granted that is why the assumption. If not Moses, then you better come with someone.
I agree wholeheartedly that Genesis was written for the people at that times and written by people who with the knowledge of that same time. That is not what I am trying to cross here. my point is whether our modern science can be compatible with what they observed at the time. For example:
Genesis 1:2
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
The vision said that darkness was over the fade of the deep.
our modern science said that there were thick cloud of dust on the atmosphere and prevented the sunlight to penetrate, thus the darkness. that is the compatibility that I am referring. is it possible that there might be a compatibility? perhaps. what if it is not? that is okay since Gen 1 is not the passage of science anyway. But we are searching since they both are telling about the same God.
Gen 1-11 is not a prophesy about the future, but a revelation about what had happened in the past. It is a story after the fact. it is documentary in nature because basically it is telling us what had happened in the past. the language is not allegorical like the book of revelation. If you read something about the past, it is always documentary in nature. why not Gen 1-11? Documentary history is the first thing we should explore about Gen 1-11. if it is not possible, then yes⌠letâs move on to other voyage of biblical discovery.
Well then maybe you can explain how the firmament is compatible with science. Remember that the firmament is a hard dome, the sun, moon, and stars are set in it, and above it there is a body of water.
Gen 1:6-8 And God said, âLet there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.â And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
from the viewpoint of the observant in the ancient times, they thought that there was water contained above (with is like a dome) where water would come down from time to time. That was as far as they knew. They had no knowledge of the science of water etc.
From the modern science (mind you that I am not the expert here and I only borrow mostly from the writing of Michael G Straus), it was the time when the atmosphere became translucent, so what was happening in the cloud became observable since the light now could penetrate though not fully. we had to wait till the atmosphere became transparent before sun and moon became observable.
⌠or the states of matter like solid, liquid, and gas. So sometime I wonder⌠even if they could see out farther into the universe, might they not describe it as a kind of sea? I am not looking for any kind of concordism⌠it just seems to me they didnât have the words to describe much of anything that was happening in the creation of the universe, or the solar system, or the earth. So even if they did have a vision of such things, I am not sure we would recognize an attempt of theirs to describe what they saw.
