VIEWS: 25 PAGES: 18 POSTED ON: 11/13/2012
I Creation Account (Gen. 1-2) Beginning of the Creation A Days = 1 2 3 B Order of Events = 1 2 3 4 C Length of the Creation Days = 1 2 3 4 D Style of the Creation = 1 2 3 E Extents of Creation Account = 1 2 3 4 Meaning of Very Good (Gen. F 1:31) = 1 2 3 4 F1 Genesis 1:8 exegesis = 1 2 3 4 F2 1 Timothy 4:4 exegesis = 1 2 3 4 Meaning of the 7th Creation G Day (Gen. 2:1-3) = 1 2 3 4 G1 Exodus 20:8-11 exegesis = 1 2 3 The Creation Account of H Genesis 2 = 1 2 3 4 Other Creation Accounts in I the Bible = 1 2 3 Vantage Point of the J Observer = 1 2 3 4 K Eden = 1 2 3 II The Curse (Gen. 3) The Meaning of Death in A Genesis 2:17 = 1 2 3 4 A2 Genesis 2:17 exegesis = 1 2 3 B Extent of the Death = 1 2 3 B1 Romans 5:12 exegesis = 1 2 3 C Extent of the Curse = 1 2 3 C1 Genesis 3:14-19 exegesis = 1 2 3 4 5 C2 Romans 8:19-22 exegesis = 1 2 3 4 C3 Romans 8:19-22 exegesis = 1 2 3 4 5 6 C4 Romans 8:19-22 exegesis = 1 2 3 4 D Eden Restored? = 1 2 3 III The Genealogies (Gen. 5) The Extents of the Genealogies & the Age of A Creation = 1 2 3 4 IV The Flood (Gen. 6-9) A The Extent of the Flood = 1 2 3 4 A2 Genesis 7:20 exegesis = 1 2 3 4 5 6 A3 Psalm 104:5-9 exegesis = 1 2 3 4 A4 2 Peter 3:3-7 exegesis = 1 2 3 4 B Pre-Flood World = 1 2 3 Agreement between the Biblical Account and the V Scientific Record A Scale of Agreement = 1 2 3 4 5 B The Fixed Laws of Nature = 1 2 3 4 5 C Divine Deception = 1 2 3 4 5 D The Use of New Data = 1 2 3 4 E Biblical Interpretation Method = 1 2 3 4 5 What marks the beginning of the Days of Creation? The Creation days begin with Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"…" The Creation days begin with Genesis 1:3 "And God said, 'let there be light'" I have no opinion on this Is there significance to the order of the Creation Days? The events are not in order, rather this account provides a framework of all Creation events. The events are in order, and there are no gaps in the account The events are in order but there are gaps in between Gen 1:1 and 2 to account for the geologic ages. I have no opinion on this *The Hebrew word translated 'day' is 'yom '. It can represent a 24-hour period of time, the daylight portion of an ordinary day, or an indefinate amount of time. The days are oridinary 24-hour days like we know today The days are just the daylight portion of an ordinary day The days represent indefinate periods of time (possibly millions of years) I have no opinion on this Different Hebrew words are used in the account relating to God's creative acts. Bara (typically translated create), asa (typically translated make), and yatsar (typically translated fashion) Some things are an Ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation while other are a fashioning or making from pre-existing material All these words are synonomous and represent things created Ex nihilo I have no opinion on this Was everything that ever was created listed in the Genesis Creation account The Creation accounts include everything that has ever been created. Every created thing is categorized in some way in the account There are things that have been created that God did not mention, but it is still global in compass. Possibly some life forms that are now extinct, or bacteria or algae for example are not been included The Creation account only lists those things the original audience would be familiar with in their own local surroundings (i.e. visible from the Middle East). I have no opinion on this After the 6th Creation day, God says everything was "very good" as opposed to just "good" as on Creation days 1, 3, 4, and 5 This means that God's original Creation was basically perfect and free of the processes of decay we see today This means that it functioned just how God intended it to, and it operates much the same way we observe today There is no significance to the word choice here I have no opinion on this Day 2 is the only Creation day that does not contain the phrase "And God saw that it was good" (except day 7) (day 6 = "very good"). No Hebrew manuscript contains that phrase, and no English translation contains the phrase. However the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) does contain the phrase. What is the significance? Since it does not appear in any Hebrew manuscripts we can safely say it does not belong. Either the expanse (Day 2) was not good, or this proves there is no significance to the phrase then for any day, including day 6. The phrase does not belong, but that does not take away the significance of the phrase on day 6 ("very good") It doesn't make sense that the phrase is missing for day 2. It must have originally been there, but was lost in later Hebrew manuscript copying. The Septuagint simply preserves the original and intended reading. The phrase is extremely important for each day. I have no clue what you're talking about. The NASB reads, "…everything created by God is good". This is a translation of "pan ktisma Theou kalon ". Most modern translations follow the NASB, but the KJV, NKJV and ASV translate ktisma as "creature" rather than "created". The term kalon is the same term used for "good" all through the Creation narrative in Genesis 1 in the Septuagint. What is your interpretation of this verse and its implications on the continued "good"ness of Creation. I believe the NKJV translates it accurately. The "good"ness of Creation was lost at the Fall because of Adam's sin. The NASB is correct. That some will fall away to doctrines of demons (1Tim 4:1) proves the creature is not "good" as the Bible defines "good". What's left is to say that all that is created by God was good in the beginning, and still is good today. The NASB is correct, but the "good" in this verse is strictly talking about foods made for consumption as mentioned in the preceding verse. I have no clue what you're talking about. Creation days 1-6 all close with the refrain "and there was evening and there was morning, day x". The 7th Creation day does not end with the refrain. What is the significance of that? This is significant, as it implies the 7th day is still ongoing based on Hebrews 4, and proves that it is possible for the Creation days to be more than 24-hour periods of time. This is significant because the day is set apart as holy (i.e. the Sabbath as in Exodus 20:10-11) There is no significance to the absence of the refrain I have no opinion on this In this passage, God institutes the Sabbath (4th of the 10 Commandments). He states that because He created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th, so should we during the course of a workweek. In Genesis 2:3 God rested (Heb shavath ), and in Ex. 20:11 God rested (Heb nuach ). What is the significance of God's rest with respect to the length of the Genesis 1 days? Also compare the paralle account in Deuteronomy 5:12-15. The fact that the Creation days are mentioned in the context or our workweek proves that the days in Genesis 1 are 24 hours in duration. This passage is not incredibly important in helping us understand the length of the days in Genesis 1. After all, the parallel passage in Deuteronomy does not mention Creation, and the word for God's rest is different than that used in Genesis 2:3, so the passages are purely for analogical purposes only not for literal comparison. I have no opinion on this Genesis 2 describes Creation in a different manner. Why is this so? The Creation account of Genesis 2 is contradictory to Genesis 1 in that it describes events in a different order. The Account in Genesis 2 is focused on mankind. Verses 5-6 describe the physical conditions of earth on Day 3 before plants and man were created. Verse 8 refers to the part of Day 3 when plants were created. Verse 15 refers to Day 6 when man and animals were created. The account in Genesis 2 is focused on mankind. The entire account is a zoom-in on Day 6. Verses 5-8 refer to local conditions around the area where Adam was created. He was then moved to Eden to work the land there. All of these events took place on Day 6. I have no opinion on this Other passages in the Bible address the Creation account in Genesis. Passages such as Job 38-41 and Proverbs 8 seem to add detail that is not mentioned in Genesis. How should these passages be interpreted in light of Genesis 1 and 2? They do add detail that is not mentioned in Genesis 1 and 2. They should be combined to form a better, more complete Creation account. They seem to add detail, but they are poetic passages not historical accounts like Genesis. They are useful in coloring the Creation account, but should not be taken too literally. Only Genesis 1 and 2 are the literal Creation accounts. I have no opinion on this From reading the opening chapter of Genesis, what is your take on the vantage point of the observer? The narrative takes place with a vantage point from the heavens. God is looking down from above when He creates and fills the earth. The day and night implied as a point on earth rotates in and out of view. The vantage point is above the earth in the heavens. God is omnipresent, so evening and morning make no sense from His perspective. They were put there to mark the beginings and endings of the Creation Days. The vatage point is on earth as implied by the Spirit of God being on earth (1:2). All things created during the Creation Days were done so from a position on earth. I have no opinion on this Does the Bible say that the conditions present in the Garden of Eden will be restored in the New Creation? No. The Bible paints a very different picture between the Garden of Eden and the New Creation. In the present Creation the sun was present, Adam and Eve were married, there was a sea, there was night. Rev. 21-22 says these things will not be in the New Creation. Yes. Edenic conditions will be restored in the New Creation. It will be a perfect world with no more pain and suffering. I have no opinion on this God tells Adam the he should not eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil for, "in the day that you eat from it, you will surely die (Heb. moth tamuth) " (NASB) This death is purely a physical one based on God's curse on Adam (Gen. 3:19) This death is purely a spiritual one based on the fact Adam did not physically die the day he ate from the tree, and the fact that God immdiately gave them a covering for their shame (Gen. 3:21) to repair the relationship the way Christ did permanently on the cross The death mentioned is physical and spiritual based on the reasons above. I have no opinion on this The phrase "you will surely die" (NASB) is moth tamuth in the Hebrew Bible (BHS). This is a grammatical construction known as an infinitive absolute in which the infinitive form is immediately followed by the imperfect second person masculine singular form of the same verb. Most literally it translates "to die...you will die". What is the best interpretation of this phrase? As in most other biblical cases, this construction is used to add emphasis on the verb. Instead of saying "you will die", emphasis is added to say "you will most certainly die" or "you will surely die". This translation carries the effect of God being extremely serious about judging any disobedience with a swift and severe judgment I agree with those who feel this should more appropriately be translated "dying, you will die". This translation carries the idea of a gradual death that was triggered by Adam's disobedience in eating the fruit. Don't have a clue what you're talking about Does the death brought about by Adam's sin affect the human race alone, or is animal death aresult as well? This death is specific to human beings and has no bearing on animal death. Animal death could have happened before Adam's sin and punishment This is the beginning of death. There was no animal or human death before this event I have no opinion on this "...Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, for all sinned-" (NASB). The phrase "death spread to all men" reads in the Greek "eis pantas anthropous ho thanatos dielthen ." What is the intended purpose of this phrase? The phrase "and so death spread to all men" almost seems like a side note that Paul wrote to clarify that the death brought on by sin is only applicable to those who are capable of sin, namely humans. Therefore, this death does not apply to the animal kingdom. There is no significance to the phrase. The death brought on by Adam applies to man as well as animals. This verse basically says that all death on earth started at the Fall I have no opinion on this When God pronounced His curse on the serpent, Eve and then Adam, did all of Creation receive the curse or was it restricted to mankind. The curse is restricted to mankind with local effects such as thistles on the ground near Adam. As a result of Adam's fall, we all have a sin nature and are in need of a Savior, but all Creation remains virtually unaffected by Adam's sin. The curse affects all of Creation. Through Adam's fall, we have all sinned and are in need of a Savior. And all Creation groans bacause of this event. Nature is now very different than the perfect Creation of Genesis 1-2. I have no opinion on this Read the passage of the Curse in an English translation. The Lord curses the ground (adamah ) because of man (adam ) (Gen. 3:17). After reading, which best matches your interpretation with regards to the effects of the Curse on God's entire Creation? The passage clearly mentions that all of Creation was Cursed. Since God had finished His Creation (Gen. 2:1-3), we know that the thorns and thistles were not a new creation, but simply Adam was removed from the garden and placed in an area where they would be a hindrance to him. Genesis 3:17-18 and 4:11-12 indicate that the cursing of the ground is a local phenomena in which it is difficult to cultivate. Also, Noah was to bring rest from the work on the cursed ground (Gen. 5:29). No other part of the passage indicates a universal extent of the Curse to all Creation. The cursed state of nature is implied in that the serpent was to undergo a physical change and thorns and thistles were now introduced. These are processes of decay to which Creation is held in bondage to the present (Rom. 8:21). The passage does not discuss any ongoing physical curse on any of God's Creation. These curses were intended solely for Adam, Eve and the Serpent. I just cannot tell. This passage is the most commonly used passage to say that the curse issued at Adam's Fall applies to God's entire Creation. After reading the passage in an English translation… The passage is clearly referring to the Curse in Genesis 3:14-19. The passage does not seem to refer to the Genesis 3 Curse at all The passage maybe only indirectly refers to the Curse in Genesis 3, but it is not obvious. I just cannot tell what it's referring to The phrase in verse 20 "…the Creation was subjected to futility…" (NASB). The Greek word for "futility" is "mataiotes " (See Eccl. 1:2 for the same word). It speaks of a meaninglessness, a worthlessness found in the ktisis (Creation or Creature). God subjected this ktisis to matiotes in hope of becoming free from its bondage. In the context of the passage, I believe this matiotes refers to... This futility refers to the Fallen or Cursed state of God's entire Creation. Through Adam's sin, the Creation was subjected to a state of decay, corruption, etc… that will be lifted in the new Creation. This futility refers primarily to the seemingly meaninglessness ambitions of man (Eccl. 2:11). The Creation just has to endure the plight of man until the new Creation. This futility is reserved for the creature itself, not the Creation. Ktisis is more properly translated as creature (as in the King James Version) and refers in this context to our anxious longing to be set free from our bondage of corruption. This futility refers to the Creation having to endure man's negligence of it. God told man to govern the Creation (Gen. 1:26). After the Fall, man was incapable of taking dominion, so all of Creation must endure with hope for when all things are made new and the Curse is lifted. This futility refers to the seemingly begininglessness and endlessness of natural processes. After the fall, God set in motion cyclical processes such as the hydrologic cylce and plate tectonics. I just cannot tell In verse 21 the Creation is said to be in a state of "slavery to corruption" (NASB). This "corruption" is translated from the word "phthora ". Based on the context of the passage, this corruption… Refers to the fallen state of man. The Creation is in bondage to the effects of man's sin nature which began at the Fall. The decay is a moral decay of man. Because of this, man cannot obey God's original command to take dominion of His Creation. Refers to the fallen state of the Creation itself. At the Fall, God cursed the Creation and now it is held in bondage to its own physical decay. Does not refer to the Fall. The Creation has always been in a state of decay due simply to the natural laws God ordained at the beginning. I just cannot tell There is the concept that when man fell to sin, paradise was lost. When the new heavens and earth are made (Is. 65:17; 66:22; Rev. 21:1) it will be Eden restored. Just as in the beginning animals were vegetarian (Gen. 1:29-30) so they will be in the future (Is. 11:6; 65:25) when the curse is lifted (Rev. 22:3). What are your thoughts on this theory? There is no reference to Eden at all in these passages about the new heavens and new earth. The references to lions and lambs living together is not to be taken literally. The new earth will be completely different than the one Adam and Eve knew. For example there will be no sun, moon (Rev. 21:23-25; 22:5) or sea (Rev. 21:1) I think this is an accurate description. Creation was subjected to futility when Adam sinned and waits eagerly for the time when the curse is lifted and it is no longer in bondage to corruption (Romans 8). I just cannot tell The Hebrew words for 'father' & 'son' can also be translated 'grandfather' & 'grandson' or 'great- grandfather' & 'great-grandson' and so on. The genealogies listed in Genesis 5 and 10 are complete and can be trusted to calculate a date all the way back to Creation at roughly 6000 years. The genealogies are roughly complete but we may not be able to say with certainty that we can add up the dates exactly. The date for Creation is roughly 6000-10,000 years ago. As with other Biblical genealogies, there is no way we can expect the early genealogies to be complete. Therefore, there is no way we can accurately date the Creation event based on the ages given. I have no opinion on this The Hebrew words for earth ('eretz ') and heavens ('shamayim ') can be translated 'land' and 'sky' respectively. Context must be the deciding guide. The Bible clearly states that the Flood was a global event. The highest mountains were covered with floddwaters. All humans perished except Noah and his family. All animals perished except the two of each kind that were on the ark. The Bible describes a local Flood. The effects were universal in that all humans perished except Noah and his family because they did not obey God's command to fill the earth. Animals outside of the area of Mesopotamia had no need to be on the ark, only those which lived in the region. The Biblical Flood is a myth adopted from nearby cultures, and is not an historical event. I have no opinion on this The depth of the Flood waters. The Hebrew allows two translations with drastically different results. 'The waters rose 15 cubits higher and covered the mountains' or 'the waters rose more than 15 cubits and the hills were covered'. The former suggests a global flood that would have covered Mt. Everest. The latter suggests a local flood that was a little more than 23 feet deep and covered the hills around the vantage point of Noah. Which is the preferred interpretation base on the Hebrew and the context? The local Flood interpretation is better based on proper exegesis and contextual clues. The local Flood interpretation is preferred because of conformity with geologic data. The global Flood interpretation is better based on proper exegesis and contextual clues. The global Flood interpretation is preferred because of a better fit with geologica data. There is a better translation than the ones presented here. I have no idea. Psalm 104 is traditionaly called the Creation Psalm. It clearly parallels Genesis 1. Verses 5-9 state that God covered the earth with the deep as a garment and the waters were above the mountains. At God's rebuke the waters fled, the mountains rose and the valleys sank and a boundary was set so that the waters could never cover the earth again. What does this passage mean in realtion to Noah's Flood? The Psalm as a whole refers to Creation, but these verses clearly parallel the Genesis Flood, and they prove that it was a global flood that covered all the mountains. The passage has no implications on the Genesis Flood. The passage clearly refers to the early earth as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 and proceeds to discuss Day 3 where dry land first appears. On Day 3 the boundary was set by God so that water would never again cover the earth in a global sense. This proves Noah's Flood was a local event I have no idea. Peter says that the world (kosmos ) that was in Noah's time was destroyed (apollumi ), being flooded (katakluzo ) by water. He says that people willingly forget this, saying that everything continues just as it always has since the beginning of Creation. Peter says earlier that God did not spare the ancient world (kosmos ), but preserved Noah when He sent a flood (kataklusmos ) upon the world (kosmos ) of the ungodly (2Pet. 2:5). The word kosmos can refer to the entire physical earth, the surrounding land, or the inhabited population. Based on the context of 2 Peter, and proper exegesis, what is the intended meaning of this passage? By refering to Noah's kosmos , Peter claims that the entire globe was destroyed by water. The world that then was was the antediluvian world which was destroyed by the catastrophic global Flood of Noah. The people who knowingly forget this are uniformitarianists who claim that all of earth's processes have continued unchallanged since the Creation. They don't realize that the Flood had drastically changed the physical world and their scientific interpretations are based on a faulty foundation of earth history. This passage refers strictly to the human population (kosmos ). By saying that God spared Noah from the ancient kosmos , Peter is clearly refering to the ungodly people who ruled the day in the first part of Genesis 6. Contextual clues are found in the parallel nature of verses 4, 6 & 7 of 2 Peter 2. All these refer to the godly being spared from the destruction of the ungodly. Likewise chapter 3 discusses the ungodly who deny the promise of the return of Christ. There is no reference here to the physical world being destroyed. The passage reflect's Peter's view of what happened during the Great Flood of Noah, but he was just a fisherman. There is no way he could know anything about geologic uniformitarianism. In context he is clearly talking about those who deny Christ's coming again. Consequently, we can gather no scientific meaning about the physical world from his letter. I have no idea. Not much is known Biblically about the world. But there are a few clues as to what the earth may have been like and what physical properties may have been present. What is your opinion of what the pre- Flood world was like from reading Scripture. The Bible really doesn't say much about the pre-Flood world. Any try to reconstruct it involves purely secular notions. Much can be gleaned from clues from the beginning chapters of the Bible. The pre-Flood earth displayed features common to the world we know such as topography and a hydrologic cycle (flowing rivers out of Eden), the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers were present, gold and other minerals had formed, bedrock had eroded to form soil for plants to grow and humans and other creatures inhabited the earth just as they do today. Basically the pre- Flood world roughly equals the world today. I have no idea. In your view, how closely should one demand agreement between what the Bible says about the opening chapters and what one should or should not find in the scientific record The Bible is the inerrant word of God. Nature is cursed according to Gen. 3 and Rom. 8. Since nature is cursed, we cannot hope to find true agreement between the Bible and science. The Bible is the inerrant word of God. In the Bible it says that God's divine nature and attributes are clearly seen in His Creation (Rom 1:20; Ps. 19:1-4). That means that nature is a true witness to the events recorded in Scripture. Our misinterpretation of scientific data makes it sometimes difficult to see the harmony between the two. The two entities should not be harmonized. They shoud be separated as science shapes our understanding of the way things work. The Bible should be used only as a moral handbook. Any entries in it that pertain to science can be discounted based on the author's lack of real scientific knowledge. The Bible is the inerrant word of God. According to Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19:1-4 it should be backed up perfectly by nature. The problem in finding true harmony comes from misinterpretations of both Biblical and scientific data. The Bible has been misinterpreted before (e.g. passages that say the earth cannot be moved, were proven wrong by Copernicus' discovery that the sun is the center of the solar system, not the earth). True harmony is acheivable as our Biblical interpretation evolves into our understanding of the scientific data. The fixed order of nature is a Biblical fact (Jer. 31:35-36; 33:25-26). The breaking of such fixed orders bears theological consequences (such as the rejecting of David's descendents to rule Israel (i.e. Jesus). Based on this, which of the following best supports your view? The laws of nature are fixed. At the Fall, all Creation was cursed and certain natural laws were ordained. It is these laws that the Scripture refers to as "fixed". The laws of nature are fixed, but in order to find harmony between the Bible and science, God must have temporarily 'unfixed' them in the past. Some laws are fixed, others are not. The laws are fixed and have been so since the universe was created. The Fall and consequent Curse have done nothing to break these laws or implement new ones. I have no idea. That God is incapable of deception is assumed here. Based on that, which of the following best describes your belief with regard to harmony between the Bible and science? It is safe to assume that the natural laws we observe today have been in effect since Creation. If there was ever a 'bending' of the laws on God's part without a written or visual witness, it is deception on God's part. This cannot have happened, because God cannot deceive and the heavens declare His perfect attributes (Rom. 1:19-20). Yes the laws are fixed, but God may have altered them in the past without leaving behind a witness to that alteration. As Creator, He is perfectly allowed to do this, and most likely has done this, and it is not contradictory to Scripture. This alteration of the 'fixed' laws in the past has led scientists to false conclusions as to the age of the universe and the geologic history of earth. Since the Bible clearly speaks of a recent 6,000 year Creation and a global Flood, it would be deception on His part to have the scientific data say any different. It is simply sinful man's misinterpretation of that data that creates apparent disharmony. There is no deception involved. The entire Creation is cursed since the Fall, and as such is incapable of conforming to God's Holy Scripture. I have no idea. If a new piece of scientific evidence should come about that contradicts your interpretation or understanding of a Biblical passage. Are you likely to… Embrace the scientific data because no one can really understand some of these ancient Biblical passages anyway. Scientific advances will help us understand God's Word. Ignore the data because it is the concoction of sinful man to try and discount Scripture. The Bible is authoritative, and this new scientific "discovery" just cannot be true. Judge carefully the evidence provided from the scientists. I would also check to see if there is possibly a different way I could interpret the Biblical passage that would still not contradict other passages. If one is found, I may be willing to change my Biblical interpretation. Not be too worried. The Bible and science are separate and should always stay that way. How should one properly interpret Biblical passages? Always consult the original languages. English translations are generally reliable, but they cannot perfectly convey the true meaning of Scripture. Translations are interpretations. Simply pull out my English translation and commentary and carefully look at the context of the passage and the true interpretations should be obvious. Nobody understands the Bible. Shouldn't be too concerned about proper interpretations. Wait for new scientific data to come. The new data will help me understand the difficult passages. I don't really know the original languages, so I just rely on a pastor or somebody to tell me the correct interpretation of a passage.
Pages to are hidden for
"Biblical Account - Geology and the Bible.xls"Please download to view full document