A theory on creation
March 25th, 2005I think it is rather pointless, except as entertainment, to try to explain the creation of the universe. It’s fun to debate and the evolutionists are clearly wrong as evidenced by how many times they’ve changed their story and the circular logic they use when challenged. The “creationists” can be just as silly. Most of them don’t understand that the Bible glossed over the subject pretty lightly because that’s not what the Book is about. I sometimes get the feeling that God was in effect saying, “It’s none of your business exactly how I did it. Pay attention to the message.”
Having said that, I’ve done quite a bit of study on the biblical account of creation and I would like to offer a theory, that is based in scripture but that I cannot prove. (Just as you can’t prove yours.)
Genesis 1:1-2:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This is one of many examples of how flawed the KJV really is and why it’s important to study instead of just read.
In the original Hebrew text, there is no period at the end of that first sentence. It was, in fact, a “rhebhia.” It was a punctuation mark used, by the ancient Jewish scholars that wrote this passage, much like we use the ellipsis today. It indicates that something has been omitted; there’s a pause in the narrative here.
Translated properly, then, we would have:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…
The very next word was also mistranslated. It should not be “and,” it should be “but.” (Hebrew: “waw” or ‘kai”) That changes everything. “But” implies that something happened after the ellipsis. “But the earth was without form and void.” As further evidence, the word translated “was” is the Hebrew word “hayah,” which really means “became, or it came to pass.” So now we have, “But it came to pass that the earth was without form and void.” Let’s keep digging.
That phrase “without form and void” is the Hebrew without “tohuw” and “bohuw.” Everywhere else you find those words in the Bible, they refer to something laid waste or desolate as a result of God’s righteous judgment.
Also, in the first verse here, we see the word “create.” Throughout most of the rest of the chapter, we see the word “made.” The Hebrew translated as “created” is “bara’” and means to create from nothing. (That’s my paraphrase; the literal definition is “absolutely to create.”) The word translated as “made” throughout the rest of the chapter is the Hebrew “asah” which implies making something from something that already exists. Among the many definitions for asah we find words like, “bring forth, fashion, finish, fit, fulfill, furnish, bring to pass, prepare.”
I also must mention in verse 2 that God “moved upon the face of the waters.” In II Peter 3 there is a reference to “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” I’m not going to go into all of it, but you’ll find looking at the original Greek there, that he does not seem to be referring to Noah’s flood. He is referencing a complete destruction of all inhabitants of earth and that didn’t happen in Noah’s flood. (You’ll also find there “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” I can’t believe that’s coincidence. As Serena says, “do the math.” We’re into the seventh millennium since the biblical account of creation.)
Is it possible that the reason God promised Noah that He would never flood the earth again was because He had done it not once, but twice?
My conclusion from this is that God created the earth long before the Genesis account. In that account He was remaking it. He “destroyed” it with a flood before He ever created Man. I speculate (with my very limited scientific knowledge) that when Ezekiel 28 makes mention of God casting Lucifer to the ground, that there was war in heaven and Lucifer was cast to the earth, causing “darkness upon the face of the deep.” (The “meteor” that some scientists speculate killed the dinosaurs and started the Ice Age?) God turned out the lights and thus began the “Ice Age.” When God spoke in Genesis 1 and said “Let there be light,” the ice melted and the earth was flooded. He then remade the earth from what was already here.
Here’s some even wilder speculation: Since we know from Ezekiel 28 that “pipes and tabrets” were created in Lucifer and that he was beautful and perfect, is it possible that he was created as God’s most perfect creation up to that point and for the purpose of being heaven’s praise and worship leader? Is it possible that God created the earth for him, originally? Is it possible that God populated the earth with animals, similar to mankind, that would fit the description of Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal man and gave Lucifer charge over them to praise Him?
Maybe when iniquity was found in Lucifer, he was called in before the King for judgment and was cast down to the earth, thus destroying everything that had been given to him.
Later, God remade the earth and created man in His own image as an additional punishment to what had become satan. He was the most perfect thing God had ever created until God created humans in His own image. For one who was the most perfect creation and whose iniquity began with pride in that, there could be nothing more frustrating.
As I said at the beginning, I can’t prove any of this and it matters to me not a whit. It’s fun to discuss but it’s not all that relevant to the purpose of the Bible. In fact, I believe that evolution evolved (pun intended) out of satan’s desire to exploit an opening, that being that the Bible is not about creation and doesn’t fully explain it.
I welcome discussion, but won’t argue this because it’s nothing more than speculation as a mental exercise.
[...] s, I say, “No, it’s good clean fun.” If you read the very first line of the very first comment posted there, you’ll see that ajw308 took this in the spirit it w [...]
I agree that it is fun to discuss these things while keeping our faith on God and not on some fact.
Knowing that the best lies are based on truth and that the enemy twists everything, casts a light of believability over this posting.
This theory that you are offering is just “Gap Theory”. You can read more about it and why it’s wrong to teach it here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c003.html.
God did not “gloss over” the subject of Creation at all. Genesis is very specific in how it happened. What other details could you possibly need? Also, saying “that’s not what the book is about” is ignorance. The Book is about precisely what God wanted it to be about, and what he wanted it to be about is what’s written in it. Everything in the Bible is there for a reason.
Call it what you want. I don’t study theology with labels. The theory presented here is my own.
It is most definitely glossed over. It’s most certainly not what the book is about. In over 1500 chapters in 66 books, how many times is the process of creation mentioned? I agree with you completely that what He did say about it is important, but it’s not a complete description and doesn’t need to be since the book is about something else entirely. Creation is only lightly addressed in the book because it’s only tangentially relevant.
Howdy, DC.
You’ve postulated an interesting theory, to be sure, and one I’ve heard before. The problem is, it’s mostly speculative, and raises just as many questions as it answers. This theory first was formulated as a means of harmonizing Christian teaching and evolutionary theory, so I would tread w/ caution. Don’t take any of this commentary as an insult, though. I’ve seriously considered this same hypothesis, in the past.
Additionally, there are scriptural references that appear to contest this theory. For example:
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female–Matthew 19:4
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world–Matthew 25:34
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.–Mark 10:6
For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.–Romans 1:20. (Herein the question arises, how can these things be understood by creatures who were utterly wiped out (which no longer exist) prior to Adam’s creation? The plain meaning of these texts seems to preclude the posited theory.
A few further points: Genesis clearly states that Adam and Eve’s sin brought death into the world. This was not part of God’s original perfect plan for His creation. But judging by the aforementioned theory, death occured on a massive scale, before God created Adam & Eve. Assuming this theory’s accuracy, God comes across as less than forthright, in Genesis.
Regarding Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon men, I see no real reason to deny that they were simply human.
Genesis Chapter One implies that God’s creation of the earth, sun, moon, stars, etc. all happened within the same limited time-frame, given the “and the evening and the morning were the first day, second day,” etc. repetitions.
One more point:
Though I agree that God did not go into the kind of specifics he could have, regarding the creation, he did choose to spend the first two chapters of the first book of the Bible devoted to the subject. His choice of placement indicates the weighty nature of the subject. I wouldn’t classify this as “glossing” over it.
I think our understanding of the creation is important. Muddled thoughts on the issue can lead to an acceptance of evolutionary theories, which are unbiblical.
Though I agree that God did not go into the kind of specifics he could have, regarding the creation, he did choose to spend the first two chapters of the first book of the Bible devoted to the subject. His choice of placement indicates the weighty nature of the subject.
I disagree. The placement was logical. I don’t think creation is unimportant but I find the placement to be more of a “Once upon a time…” kind of thing. You have to start somewhere. The point I’ve been trying to make (apparently clumsily) is that if we were meant to know the details, He would have spelled them out. He didn’t. If we trust the Bible as our authority (and I do), we’re left with many questions about the history of the earth and the history of the universe. The Bible is not and was not meant to be “The History of Everything That God Created.”
By the way, you can’t insult me easily and certainly not over this. I’m not married to this theory. I don’t really care. It was posted as a mental exercise for me. However, I don’t think any of the scriptures you posted disprove it really. You’re opening the door to the whole predestination/God’s omniscience argument with that and I don’t care to get into.
Thanks for reading and commenting. This is a discussion, to me, that is nothing more than barbells for the brain and I don’t think it matters a bit.
(I believe the literal interpretation of creation being completed in 6 24 hour days, by the way. I just don’t think that’s all that’s there. I should have made that more clear.)
I’d have to agree that it’s treading dangerous ground to theorize too much about possible gaps in the creation story.
That being said, I have theorized in the past that the description of creation was the creation of our portion of the universe, not the entire universe.
I’m very skeptical of the idea that the earth had any sort of life prior to that described in Genesis.
The best explanation for the age of the earth is in “The Science of God” by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He argues that the age of the earth is both 6,000 years old and billions. He explains using Einstein’s theory of relativity that from the perspective (in other words, position while this was all happening) of the author of the Genesis account, creation took 6 days. An ever expanding universe would support this.
Furthermore, there may have been other men at the time of Adam, but he was the first to recieve “Neshama”. That is, God breathed His Spirit into Adam.
The thesis of the book is that we should allow science to explain the natural world, and God explain the supernatural. Parts of the book can be read here: http://www.prophecyrevealed.com
I should have added that I personally don’t have any problem accepting a 6 day Creation, and a 6,000 year old earth. If He wanted to make it in 6 seconds He could have, I only offered the above for those more science-minded and/or skeptical.
Interesting DC. You really did some homework there.
-
oops! I forgot. No hyphen here.
If we trust the Bible as our authority (and I do), we’re left with many questions about the history of the earth and the history of the universe. The Bible is not and was not meant to be “The History of Everything That God Created.”
I certainly agree w/ you, on this.
That being said, I have theorized in the past that the description of creation was the creation of our portion of the universe, not the entire universe.
That’s logical, Arielle.
Heehee…JAC… :o)
Cowboy, you are pretty right on the money. The Bible refers to the first earth and the third earth. We are in the second earth. First is prior to the re-creation. Third is future paradise regained. The gap is not a theory, it is truth. This explains the fossils and the dinosaurs etc. The destruction of the first earth coincided with the fall of Lucifer.
Your theory is very interesting, and I think you make some interesting points. I don’t know that we can know because we were not there, no matter how we interpret anything.
What I question is why you are certain that days were 24 hours long, as we measure them. Infinity is nothing to God. In fact, God is infinite. We are incapable of understanding both micro and macro. We are not programmed that way. Does time mean anything to God? Is time chronos or kairos? Do you think God is limited by space or time? I suspect that our explanation of seven days, to create and rest, is a metaphor for a concept that we are incapable of understanding. Whether it is actual or not, who can tell?