A Literal Theistic Evolutionary Reading of Genesis 1

[Ragdoll]

Ah! Ok, this part: "This means that God didn't do anything on Day 4" ... to me, that does not follow from this part: "you believe the sun, moon and stars were created on Day 1"

Saying the stars were created already doesn't say God did nothing, to me. I can see how it might seem as if it was that way by guessing, but it's a wrong guess about how I see it. On Day 4 God revealed the Sun, moon and stars, and I explained a part of the how the revealing seems to happen beginning with a key change that happens during Day 3 -- remember?

And if you recall, I mentioned how Isaac Newton got something right, but what was it I was pointing out (you need precision...)

Also, by the way, I did not above anywhere write that I thought the Universe -- the stars, solar systems, etc. were created on "Day 1."

But I did say something else. And what I said made a lot more sense. These are theories, we both are offering, but still I'd like to be understood to say what I said, and not a different thing I'd never say.

Look now it seems you might have just guessed at parts of what I was saying without reading it further above == like the incorrect idea I said the stars were created on Day 1 == and guessing will cause trouble in this kind of detailed discussion, because there are so many details and some of the guessing will be wrong, leading to these troubles we are having.

I would have to say Newton was wrong. Didn't our conversation begin with you saying the sun, moon and stars were created on Day 1? How else do these things appear on Day 4 according to the theory? I know the theory and have heard it from many different people from many different denominations. I just don't agree with it. I don't see how it follows the context.

 

[Ragdoll]

What? No. That doesn't follow at all. Or not to my way of thinking. Did I point out already to you in this discussion (I may not have) that I think since Moses of course was not there, this is given to Moses as a vision, with some narration also (often put in quotation marks in many translations), by the Lord? We learn in scripture that visions are the normal way God often communicates to many people -- 1rst Samuel chapter 3 verse 1 for example. A great vision example is that given to Peter in Acts chapter 10. If you look at it you see the common characteristics of a vision: it is representative, in a useful way, of reality, it's true, and often some narration is given also, and only just enough words so that in time the meaning can be eventually understood. Not lots of extra words! (in other words a lot less verbose than my posts, and so much far far better writing)
So, when a vision is then written down, the writer writes what they saw, and also additionally what they heard, both.

God was there....with Moses. God told Moses these things.
Or, as other scholars believe, Moses compiled an ancient creation account and the first 11 chapters of Genesis into the Torah. These scholars say that Genesis 1--11 were more ancient that the other chapters of Genesis. These scholars say that Genesis 1--11 were very ancient, from Adam to Noah on up.
Then there is the other possible scenario that says its all revealed revelation from God to Moses. Either way these chapters were Divinely revealed and preserved.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

That verse says nothing about geocentrism. Do you understand what geocentrism is?

Geocentrism was the belief held by various ancient nations that the earth was the center and the sun, moon, and planets moved around the earth. This earth never moved. In the Bible, the earth moves in a circle. The verse you cited says nothing about heliocentrism. It just says not to worship the sun, moon and stars, That's all it says.

Also, please show me in the Bibe where it says "Thus spoke the Jews." I'd really like to see that verse.

did you read my whole post? I think you skipped past some of it and did not understand it……. The verse was not about geocentricism. The verse was showcasing that the Jewish people , like most people back then, had a very limited understanding of cosmology and they even believed the stars were angels…… then posted the verse to show they worshiped them…. They were worshipping them as celestial god like beings….

 

[Halbhh]

Didn't our conversation begin with you saying the sun, moon and stars were created on Day 1?

No. (and yikes, to me, that's...ugh)

Unless I had a terrible awful typos, I should have said (and think I did) something to the effect they were created during verse 1.

And I did reprise this again in post 142 which I just looked up and here's the link to that instance: A Literal Theistic Evolutionary Reading of Genesis 1

Here in post 142 I do make the assumption everyone will read in to the word "Universe" all the stars --- which maybe I should have also written out that the "Universe" is among various stuff visible stars (and their groupings in galaxies of course) in particular, which are the part of the Universe we most easily see. I just took it for granted everyone will read "Universe" is among other things, stars.

So, verse 1 happens and all the Universe of stars and various planets and much more is created, before the "first day" ('day' as in day and night, the cycle) which is on Earth and which only begins later in time, perhaps much later, long after verse 1, after an unknown amount of time has passed, and the moment of verse 2 arrives!

Verse 1 = time passes.... ..... ....

And then! --> The amazing moment in verse 2 finally arrives and happens!

And then comes finally verse 3!, the beginning of the first day, and daylight! arrives. And is seen.

On Earth.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

God was there....with Moses. God told Moses these things.
Or, as other scholars believe, Moses compiled an ancient creation account and the first 11 chapters of Genesis into the Torah. These scholars say that Genesis 1--11 were more ancient that the other chapters of Genesis. These scholars say that Genesis 1--11 were very ancient, from Adam to Noah on up.
Then there is the other possible scenario that says its all revealed revelation from God to Moses. Either way these chapters were Divinely revealed and preserved.

most scholars don’t believe Moses wrote genesis.

but outside of that thought you could use this article. They reference several books by scientists and scholars.

BioLogos Guided Tours #1: Ancient Cosmology and the Bible - Articles

 

[Halbhh]

God was there....with Moses.

In my understanding, in a vision God is with the person. Whether Moses or another recipient. Of course God was often with Moses in a special way we read later, 'face to face'. (and both ways are instances of God being with the recipient)

God told Moses these things.

Yes, we have those words! That's part of the wonder of it!

In the text, there's no ambiguity at all that we have distinct spoken Words!

Like this:

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”

!! Praise the Lord.

So, a full vision of many scenes, and with narrations from God! -- reminding us of Peter's vision in Acts 10 as I wrote more about above regarding visions in that earlier post to you.

I'm going to call it a day for now here. Have a good evening!

 

[Ragdoll]

No. (and yikes, to me, that's...ugh)

Unless I had a terrible awful typos, I should have said (and think I did) something to the effect they were created during verse 1.

And I did reprise this again in post 142 which I just looked up and here's the link to that instance: A Literal Theistic Evolutionary Reading of Genesis 1

Here in post 142 I do make the assumption everyone will read in to the word "Universe" all the stars --- which maybe I should have also written out that the "Universe" is among various stuff visible stars (and their groupings in galaxies of course) in particular, which are the part of the Universe we most easily see. I just took it for granted everyone will read "Universe" is among other things, stars.

So, verse 1 happens and all the Universe of stars and various planets and much more is created, before the "first day" ('day' as in day and night, the cycle) which is on Earth and which only begins later in time, perhaps much later, long after verse 1, after an unknown amount of time has passed, and the moment of verse 2 arrives!

Verse 1 = time passes.... ..... ....

And then! --> The amazing moment in verse 2 finally arrives and happens!

And then comes finally verse 3!, the beginning of the first day, and daylight! arrives. And is seen.

On Earth.

Since I don't want to make any assumptions, as you say I have, I want to kindly ask you to explain the events of the first Day in as much detail as you can, providing me a very clear explanation of your views.

 

[Ragdoll]

most scholars don’t believe Moses wrote genesis.

but outside of that thought you could use this article. They reference several books by scientists and scholars.

BioLogos Guided Tours #1: Ancient Cosmology and the Bible - Articles

Prophecy teaches us..


2 Timothy 4:3-4

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

With that said, it is reasonable to believe that these modern scholars who deny that Moses wrote the Torah are turning aside to myths. Tradition says Moses is the author of most of the Torah. I trust tradition over all these modern deceptions. Here in the 21st century, almost everything you hear today is not true. Educators no longer educate. So when scholars turn away from sound doctrine, they only prove the prophecies spoken about them. So now I believe tradition all the more.

 

[Ragdoll]

did you read my whole post? I think you skipped past some of it and did not understand it……. The verse was not about geocentricism. The verse was showcasing that the Jewish people , like most people back then, had a very limited understanding of cosmology and they even believed the stars were angels…… then posted the verse to show they worshiped them…. They were worshipping them as celestial god like beings….

The verse was telling them not to worship those things.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Prophecy teaches us..


2 Timothy 4:3-4

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

With that said, it is reasonable to believe that these modern scholars who deny that Moses wrote the Torah are turning aside to myths. Tradition says Moses is the author of most of the Torah. I trust tradition over all these modern deceptions. Here in the 21st century, almost everything you hear today is not true. Educators no longer educate. So when scholars turn away from sound doctrine, they only prove the prophecies spoken about them. So now I believe tradition all the more.

here is the thing….. it’s not tradition….. it’s modern Christian tradition. I mean Moses dies before the story of the Torah is even completed. Moses did not write about his own death……the Bible, just like any other book, goes through phases.

a biblical author did not become possessed by the Holy Spirit and their hand start to uncontrollably write exactly work for word what Yahweh wanted. That’s not even biblical.

Genesis would have had many authors and have been edited to be better and better. They say it’s contributed in the name of Moses as the main person for the bulk of it.

and anyone can use that verse. I think YEC and ID are the people being warned about……. See you can literally take that prophecy and apply it to anyone you disagree with lol.

It’s called the weaponization of scripture. It’s a child’s game of if you disagree with me then that means this this and this. It’s when someone confuses their own interpretation, and often a bad one, for being the actual Bible. They often claim, if you disagree with me you’re disagreeing with Yahweh… it’s silly.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

The verse was telling them not to worship those things.

Exactly….. don’t worship this becsuse many did. We know they did. Throughout the Bible they repeatedly worship other gods. So why would some of them worship stars? Is it because they knew they were these burning balls of gas and energy or is it because they thought they were beings?

 

[Ragdoll]

here is the thing….. it’s not tradition….. it’s modern Christian tradition. I mean Moses dies before the story of the Torah is even completed. Moses did not write about his own death……the Bible, just like any other book, goes through phases.

So the Bible is just any book to you. Nothing out of the ordinary. Just another human work written by humans, inspired totally by humans. Yeah, I get it. But that's not what Christians believe. I'm a traditional Christian and the ecclesiastical linage is traced back to ancient times with no gaps in the linage. This view you are trying force here began in modern times. None of the ancients would recognize this view you hold as their own.

a biblical author did not become possessed by the Holy Spirit and their hand start to uncontrollably write exactly work for word what Yahweh wanted. That’s not even biblical.

Sadly, you do not understand the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not a demonic spirit so their is no forceful control over the human body. The human body remains in control while the Spirit calming instructs the Prophet what to write, whether through vision or by words. There is no possession. Only demons possess a human body.

Genesis would have had many authors and have been edited to be better and better. They say it’s contributed in the name of Moses as the main person for the bulk of it.

That's what I said. Moses wrote the bulk of it. Joshua wrote after the death of Moses.

and anyone can use that verse. I think YEC and ID are the people being warned about……. See you can literally take that prophecy and apply it to anyone you disagree with lol.

Not true at all. Just study what the ancient Christians believed and up to the present and there you will see what the prophecy is speaking about. YEC is faithful to the text. YEC churches have the lowest rate of apostasy and produce good fruit. Jesus said you will know them by the fruits of the spirit. I am YEC based on the good fruits I see from YEC church. I only attend YEC churches. I make that a requirement before I even walk into a Church.

It’s called the weaponization of scripture. It’s a child’s game of if you disagree with me then that means this this and this. It’s when someone confuses their own interpretation, and often a bad one, for being the actual Bible. They often claim, if you disagree with me you’re disagreeing with Yahweh… it’s silly.

2 Corinthians 10:4-5,

4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"


Hebrews 4:12,

"For the word of God is alive, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intents of the heart."

 

[Halbhh]

Since I don't want to make any assumptions, as you say I have, I want to kindly ask you to explain the events of the first Day in as much detail as you can, providing me a very clear explanation of your views.

This chapter would be given in part as a vision (and I offered additional aspects on that in that previous post to you). In the days of the vision we are seeing a series of revelations of what happened in the past -- a representation of real events of the past (visions are representations about real things) -- long before the moment the vision is given to the person. So, if you like, please go back to that post about the vision earlier also.

 

[Ragdoll]

This chapter would be given in part as a vision (and I offered additional aspects on that in that previous post to you). In the days of the vision we are seeing a series of revelations of what happened in the past -- a representation of real events of the past (visions are representations about real things) -- long before the moment the vision is given to the person. So, if you like, please go back to that post about the vision earlier also.

Where does it say that the Genesis account was a vision? Adam didn't need visions. Moses didn't need visions. Not all revelation is through visions. Genesis was most likely not a vision.

But even so, if it was a vision, what is written is from God, approved by God on Mt.Sinai. What we have of the creation account in Genesis is descriptive.

Genesis 1:1 is the first act of creation. There is no gap between v.1 and v.2.

Genesis 1:2 follows v.1 and God is continuing what He began in v.1.

 

[Halbhh]

Where does it say that the Genesis account was a vision?

I'm so glad it does not focus us that way onto the recipient of the vision, because then it would make this partly a story about a specific person, such as about Peter and Cornelius.

Acts 10 NIV

When a vision is about a person, then the person figures centrally to the vision, and we need to hear which person the vision was given to, and their situation/beliefs/needs/and what God is planning for that specific person or a particular city or particular nation.

 

[Ragdoll]

I'm so glad it does not focus us that way onto the recipient of the vision, because then it would make this partly a story about a specific person, such as about Peter and Cornelius.

Acts 10 NIV

When a vision is about a person, then the person figures centrally to the vision, and we need to hear which person the vision was given to, and their situation/beliefs/needs/and what God is planning for that specific person or a particular city or particular nation.

But where does it say that the Genesis account was a vision, and to whom? Moses needed no vision. He spoke to God face to face. What we know is that the creation account is literal history and not allegory. Each day represents a full rotation of the earth. So I'm more concerned about proper exegesis than theory. I reject all theories. I only focus on what is knowably true. A theory is only as good as the context allows it to be. So going into visions is not contextual to the chapter. There are other means of revelation besides visions. I'm also confident that Moses had at very least approved Genesis in God's Presence on Mt.Sinai. But even if it was presumably a vision, it still says what it says.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm more concerned about proper exegesis

Right! That's the best.

Seeking the original intended meaning, the way the text was meant to be read and understood, such as we might from a devoted Jewish believer that was well read in scriptures many centuries BCE -- that would be good!

And the main thing I'll say about that is at the end below, but let me address the much less important question about 'vision' first.

We have been talking both of us of some theories we each have about things like the separation of the waters for example.

But thinking this was revealed with a visual revelation in addition to the communicated part, that's not a theory at all like the kinds we have been discussing above which were only about mere physical details.

The way I realized that the chapter was given also with revelation that was visual, in addition to the spoken Words of God -- both -- I gradually realized from reading the entire bible over years of reading.

On that, I'm currently well towards finishing the Old Testament for the 3rd time, and currently I'm using mainly the ESV translation, while previous I'd read using the NIV, NASB, KJV, and more, having read some books like Genesis or Ecclesiastes or Isaiah many more times (4 - 7). I'm near to 60 now, and while I've always been skilled at reading comprehension, I've learn how to read better than in my teens and 20s (just most people that read fully through the bible I first did that about age 12 just as a goal, like earning a badge...not the ultimate best way to read).

While I've read in various ways such as in bible study groups with multiple commentaries being read for every passage, which is great, and also done that same on my own... -- it's very good to compare many different commentaries because they are like a individual view, even if quite good, and sometimes another one will be better on something.... We can't rely on just 1 commentary. We need to compare them.

But I've learned a profoundly key thing about reading in the last decade.

First read just to listen, slowly, just trying to absorb all the meanings in the full wordings of entire chapters at a time, chapter after chapter, until a good stopping place.

Just listening.

And then, only then, go and look at commentaries if one wants to see more views on certain sections. (and often I will look up several things at that time)

This is the best way of all I've found, because for one thing having already read through all the bible, you then can make connections as you read naturally. You get more that way, because you have your own automatic cross references in your mind. Especially if you are focused on staying in the open, listening, humble frame of mind (and we can be aided by from praying the prayer Christ instructed us to pray in Matthew chapter 6)

Now, here's what comes across as the original intended meaning to me as I just purely listen, with true listening (instead of thinking about questions and doctrines and so on...)
-->

That this is one of the most wonderful and powerfully uplifting chapters in all the Old Testament (rivaling or even more than Isaiah chapter 55).

It resets the mind!

So, that after reading it with that true listening, I'm suddenly better able to read and understand anything in the Bible I read next.

It's tremendous to better help one begin to hear and get the deeper things in the Garden of Eden account, for example.

This chapter helps us leave the world, and the world's way of contentions/theories/debates/doctrines, and listen to the Word.

That's the original intended purpose I think.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

So the Bible is just any book to you. Nothing out of the ordinary. Just another human work written by humans, inspired totally by humans. Yeah, I get it. But that's not what Christians believe. I'm a traditional Christian and the ecclesiastical linage is traced back to ancient times with no gaps in the linage. This view you are trying force here began in modern times. None of the ancients would recognize this view you hold as their own.



Sadly, you do not understand the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not a demonic spirit so their is no forceful control over the human body. The human body remains in control while the Spirit calming instructs the Prophet what to write, whether through vision or by words. There is no possession. Only demons possess a human body.



That's what I said. Moses wrote the bulk of it. Joshua wrote after the death of Moses.



Not true at all. Just study what the ancient Christians believed and up to the present and there you will see what the prophecy is speaking about. YEC is faithful to the text. YEC churches have the lowest rate of apostasy and produce good fruit. Jesus said you will know them by the fruits of the spirit. I am YEC based on the good fruits I see from YEC church. I only attend YEC churches. I make that a requirement before I even walk into a Church.




2 Corinthians 10:4-5,

4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"


Hebrews 4:12,

"For the word of God is alive, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intents of the heart."

see again. What I said went over your head. You’re so far behind in contextual analysis it’s embarrassing. So reread what did I say.

Did I say the Bible is like every other book?
Or did I say the Bible, just like every other book, goes through phases?

Are you misunderstanding or lying?

notice how you suddenly drop all these irrelevant verses as if the others here don’t know it lol? Have you ever been taught how isolating random verses from their narrative is a sign of immaturity?

if you want to be taken as something more than a child demonstrate it.

 

[Ragdoll]

notice how you suddenly drop all these irrelevant verses as if the others here don’t know it lol? Have you ever been taught how isolating random verses from their narrative is a sign of immaturity?

if you want to be taken as something more than a child demonstrate it.

I haven't dropped any verses. But you have ignored every post of mine so you can move onward with your false analysis which is rejected by both the ancient church and modern church. A true sign of maturity is the ability to accept correction. You don't read anybody's posts but your own. You don't self-correct after being corrected. And now you want to discuss maturity?

 

[Ragdoll]

Right! That's the best.

Seeking the original intended meaning, the way the text was meant to be read and understood, such as we might from a devoted Jewish believer that was well read in scriptures many centuries BCE -- that would be good!

And the main thing I'll say about that is at the end below, but let me address the much less important question about 'vision' first.

We have been talking both of us of some theories we each have about things like the separation of the waters for example.

But thinking this was revealed with a visual revelation in addition to the communicated part, that's not a theory at all like the kinds we have been discussing above which were only about mere physical details.

The way I realized that the chapter was given also with revelation that was visual, in addition to the spoken Words of God -- both -- I gradually realized from reading the entire bible over years of reading.

On that, I'm currently well towards finishing the Old Testament for the 3rd time, and currently I'm using mainly the ESV translation, while previous I'd read using the NIV, NASB, KJV, and more, having read some books like Genesis or Ecclesiastes or Isaiah many more times (4 - 7). I'm near to 60 now, and while I've always been skilled at reading comprehension, I've learn how to read better than in my teens and 20s (just most people that read fully through the bible I first did that about age 12 just as a goal, like earning a badge...not the ultimate best way to read).

While I've read in various ways such as in bible study groups with multiple commentaries being read for every passage, which is great, and also done that same on my own... -- it's very good to compare many different commentaries because they are like a individual view, even if quite good, and sometimes another one will be better on something.... We can't rely on just 1 commentary. We need to compare them.

But I've learned a profoundly key thing about reading in the last decade.

First read just to listen, slowly, just trying to absorb all the meanings in the full wordings of entire chapters at a time, chapter after chapter, until a good stopping place.

Just listening.

And then, only then, go and look at commentaries if one wants to see more views on certain sections. (and often I will look up several things at that time)

This is the best way of all I've found, because for one thing having already read through all the bible, you then can make connections as you read naturally. You get more that way, because you have your own automatic cross references in your mind. Especially if you are focused on staying in the open, listening, humble frame of mind (and we can be aided by from praying the prayer Christ instructed us to pray in Matthew chapter 6)

Now, here's what comes across as the original intended meaning to me as I just purely listen, with true listening (instead of thinking about questions and doctrines and so on...)
-->

That this is one of the most wonderful and powerfully uplifting chapters in all the Old Testament (rivaling or even more than Isaiah chapter 55).

It resets the mind!

So, that after reading it with that true listening, I'm suddenly better able to read and understand anything in the Bible I read next.

It's tremendous to better help one begin to hear and get the deeper things in the Garden of Eden account, for example.

This chapter helps us leave the world, and the world's way of contentions/theories/debates/doctrines, and listen to the Word.

That's the original intended purpose I think.

I also read and study Scripture. I have an armory of study tools and 84 Bibles of various translations and languages. I read Hebrew, Greek and Latin and prefer those Bibles over the English ones. But the English Bibles I like the most are as listed in order of best to least best:

1. 1537 Matthew's Bible (the crown jewel of English translations).
2. 1539 Great Bible
3. 1535 Coverdale Bible
4. 1568 Bishop's Bible
5. 1769 King James Oxford Edition
6. 1611 King James
7. NKJV
8. MEV (best for Genesis chapter 1)
9. The Orthodox Study Bible
10. ESV (best for Genesis chapter 1)
11. RSV
12. HCSB
13. NIV (1978 & 1984 Editions only)
14. YLT
15. NLT

These are the English Bibles I usually consult but there are others as well. I have many lexicons that cover everything, including lexicons for the Greek Septuagint. There are words in the LXX that do not appear in the New Testament. So the Strong's does not cover all the Greek words used in the Old Testament. The only lexicon I no longer use is the BDB. That lexicon is not good for much. I'll even consult the NIV lexicon before the BDB and that NIV - a 5 volume lexicon - is extremely liberal as though Antifa wrote it. But as much as I detest that lexicon, its actually more useful in study than the BDB. The BDB just regurgitates everything in the KJV. I already have plenty of KJV Bibles. Don't have no use for the BDB when I have many KJVs lol! But the most reliable lexicon I have is the Strong's. You cannot ever go wrong with the Strong's. Hey, I didn't try to make that rhyme lol! But can't go wrong with the Strong's.

Then there are commentaries. These can be very useful but not as useful as I find lexicons. I have many commentaries and some are better than others. I have many tools and find them all useful for my study purposes.