[Gen 1:1]:

GENESIS CHAPTER ONE

I) GOD IS SOLE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Psalm 19:1 also claims that God is creator:

A) [Compare Ps 19:1]:

"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And the firmament is declaring the work of His hands."

B) [Compare Rev 4:11]:

" 'You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for You created all things, and by Your will they were created and have their being.' "

C) [Compare Heb 11:3]:

"By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."

Kenneth S. Wuest states, (in 'Ephesians and Colossians in the Greek New Testament', Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich, 1963, p. 31):

"The writer to the Hebrew says, 'Through faith we understand that the ages were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.' (Heb 11:3). This leaves no room for the theory of evolution which holds that the things that are seen today were made of pre-existing material."

D) [Compare. Jer 51:15-16]:

(v. 15) "He made the earth by His power; He founded the world by His wisdom and stretched out the heavens by His understanding.

(v. 16) When He thunders the waters in the heavens roar; He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth. He sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind form His storehouses."

[Dr. Carl E. Baugh, 'Panorama of Creation', Creation Publication Services, Ft. Worth, Tx, 1992, p. 89]:

"In Jeremiah 51:15, the prophet, by the Word of the Lord, declared... [that] ...God designed the earth by His wisdom and power; He created all of it perfectly. But then, in the following verse, there is a transitional statement. We find that there is now rain, lightning, and a water cycle. Before the flood, there was no rain: a mist went up and watered the earth. But now, there is a judged ecosphere: we see mountains, snows, and varying temperatures.

[Gen 1:1 cont.]:

II) STAGE ONE OF CREATION IS A RECENT AND NOT A RUINED OR CHAOTIC ONE

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

"In the beginning" = "bereshith" = in the beginning of time-space-matter.

Objectors falsely claim that "bereshith" should be interpreted: 'In the beginning of God's creating...' or 'When God began to create...' thus attempting to force the false concept that the universe is much older than it is. Gen 1:1-2 would then be falsely changed to say 'In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth, the earth became ruined and chaotic' thus allowing for a period of time for evolution. This is a grammatical possibility but NOT a contextual one since there is no statement that comes before verse one or any statement which qualifies it. So verses one and two stand alone as a declarative statement about the absolute beginning of all time-space-matter, i.e. of the universe. Furthermore the conjunction "and" which connects verses one and two indicates uninterrupted sequential action - certainly one which is not divided by millions of years. Neither can verse 1 be considered as a summation - as a completed series of creative acts - which then had to be re-created, i.e., fixed if you will. For Genesis 2:1 is a declarative statement indicating that from verse 1:1 to 2:1 there were 6 days which transpired in God's creative work:

A) [Gen 1:31-2:1]:

(v. 1:31) "God saw all that He had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning - the sixth day."

(v. 2:1) Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array."

B) [Compare Heb 4:3b-4]:

(v. 3b) "And yet His [God's] work has been finished since the creation of the world.

(v. 4) For somewhere He has spoken about the seventh day in these words: 'And on the seventh day God rested from all His work."

Nor can 2 Peter 3:3-8 which follows be forced to indicate that the days referred to in the creation account be more than 24 hour days. This is true because 2 Peter 3:8 simply states that God's viewpoint is timeless especially relative to the coming time of His judgment of mankind's evil in spite of the thousands of years that have passed by.

C) [Compare 2 Pet 3:3-8]:

(v. 3) "Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,

(v. 4) and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.'

(v. 5) For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

(v. 6) through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water,

(v. 7) But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

(v. 8) But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

But to man, being finite and restricted in time, a day is a 24 hour period of time.

[Gen 1:1 cont.]:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, ('TWOT'), vol 2, R. Laird, editor, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980, p. 826:

["In the beginning" = "beginning" = "resh^it"]:

"The most important use of 'resh^it' in the OT occurs in Gen 1:1 where it is combined with the proclitic [i.e., connecting] preposition 'b' [= 'in']...

..Many commentators both ancient and modern have tried to read the phrase as 'when' rather than 'in the beginning' as do several modern versions. [This to promote the false doctrine of a million+ year old earth]

..The chief modern justification for this interpretation of the root [word, 'beginning] is to relate it to the phrase 'enuma elish' which begins the Babylonian epic of the creation. However there is no evidence to connect the two different terms, the one in Hebrew and the other in Babylonian...

The proper interpretation of resh^it can be deduced from the other occurrences [of this phrase] and the witness of all ancient versions. The NT (Jn 1:1) translates the Hebrew and follows the LXX [Septuagint, i.e., the Greek translation of the OT] precisely in its reading of (Gen 1:1) the first phrase of the O.T. The use of this root [word, 'beginning'] leaves no doubt that Gen 1:1 opens with the very first and initial act of the creation of the cosmos.

Henry M. Morris states, (The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1976, p. 42):

"...Genesis 2:1 notes the termination of the work of the six days of creation by the following summary: 'Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.' This statement clearly refers to the work of the previous six days, including the first day. However, it includes 'the heavens' in this summary; and the only mention of the heavens during the six days is in Genesis 1:1, a fact which demonstrates that the summary of Genesis 2:1 embraces also the work of Genesis 1:1. In other words, the primeval creation of the heaven and the earth in the beginning was the first act of the first day of the six days, calling into existence the basic elements of the space-mass-time continuum which constitutes the physical universe."

[Gen 1:1 cont.]:

III) THE GOD OF CREATION IS INDICATED AS A SINGULAR GOD WITH MORE THAN ONE PERSONALITY

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

"In the beginning God ['ELOHIM'] created"?

"God" = "Elohim" = PLURAL (The "im" ending in the Hebrew signifies plurality). This indicates the triune nature of the Godhead.

"created" = "bara" = SINGULAR VERB in the Hebrew. Indicates with the singular verb that God operates as a single unity and is therefore one God yet is comprised of more than one Personality due to the plural noun 'Elohim'.

Many passages in Scripture indicate that God is one God with more than one Personalty, Genesis 1:1 is one of them.

For example, Gen 3:22 begins:

A) [Gen 3:22]:

"And the Lord God said, 'The man is now become as one of Us, to know how to distinguish between good and evil"

"And the Lord God"[Elohim = God, PLURAL]

"said" [SINGULAR VERB - ONE GOD]

"The man is now become as one of US" =

"US" = PLURAL - FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT.

Notice, plural subject representing the plurality of the Godhead, (Elohim = God, PLURAL), and the singular verb "said" representing the one true God with three Personalities operating in a unity!

Since Scripture is filled from Genesis through Revelation with references to the plurality of the Godhead: Father, Son & Holy Spirit. And since the doctrine of the Trinity is true then the use of the Hebrew word 'Elohim' with a singular verb would be the perfect way of expressing in the Bible Who God is and how He operates.

Objectors to the doctrine of the Trinity state that the use of 'Elohim' is merely an expression by God of the plurality of His majesty, since kings and rulers do this. An important point to remember here is that God does not follow the precedence of man, (Ro 2:11), so that the use by man of a plural subject to signify plurality of majesty would not rule out another kind of use of the plural subject which God uses to signify His three Personalities. Furthermore, the grammatical form used to signify a plurality of majesty does not follow the same format in Scripture as when God refers to Himself. For example, Scripture uses the word 'Elohim' = 'God' (plural) to refer to God; but an individual ruler is not correspondingly referred to as 'kings' or 'presidents'. The expression of the plurality of majesty is in the form of the plural pronoun 'we' followed by a plural verb where the verb form agrees with the subject in number. The President of the United States therefore would state, 'We are...' not 'We am'. This does not correspond to the use of 'God (plural) + singular verb in Scripture. So one would certainly not state 'Presidents is' when referring to the President of the United States. Yet Scripture uses 'Elohim yesh' = 'God (plural), is' = 'Gods is' to refer to God, (ref. Dt 6:4). Dt 6:4 is the famous saying of Israel called the 'Shama' which faithful Jews say even today, ("shama" = "hear" the first word in the verse). This saying teaches that God does have more than one Personality:

B) [Dt 6:4]:

"Hear O Israel:

The Lord our God (the Lord) is one"

"Yahweh Elohim Yahweh echad"

Let's examine this verse from the Hebrew - the words at God inspired Moses to use:

"Hear O Israel, The LORD our God"

"God" = "Elohim" = PLURAL "

(the LORD) is"

"Yahweh"

"is" = SINGULAR VERB

"one" = "echad"= one which is made up of parts - a composite.

God's is one. This is a strange sounding verse! The writer, Moses, chose to use the Hebrew word "echad" = "one" which the Hebrew commentaries ignore or even change to "yachid" when they teach about this verse. Yet it appears in their manuscript scrolls when they read God's Word as "echad" in the Book of Deuteronomy. Moses chose to use the Hebrew word "echad" which means "ONE WHICH IS MADE UP OF PARTS - A COMPOSITE" rather than the Hebrew word "yachid" which means "ONE, NO PARTS, A SINGLE ENTITY"

C) Compare Gen 2:24 - "echad" - one flesh made up of husband and wife.

D) Compare Gen 22:2 which indicates the use of another Hebrew word for 'one' - "yachid" = Abraham's one and only son of the Promise: Isaac. (Ishmael was not the firstborn of Sarah so he did not fulfill God's promise. And Abraham did have sons after Isaac, ((Gen 25:1)), and they did not fulfill God's Promise either). Isaac obviously is only one individual - an absolute entity, a whole. He could not be divided up into parts and continue to function as Isaac, so the word "yachid" = "one" was chosen by Moses to indicate Isaac's oneness as a single entity and not 'echad'.

Moses also chose to use the Hebrew word "ELOHIM" which means "God" (PLURAL) rather than "ELOAH" which means "God" (SINGULAR). Why didn't Moses write "GOD IS" or "GODS ARE" instead of "GODS IS" = "GOD [PLURAL] IS". Did Moses make a mistake? Not hardly. This construction appears in Scripture dozens of times by numerous authors.

SO GOD IS ONE GOD WHO IS MADE UP OF A NUMBER OF PARTS, I.E. PERSONALITIES .

Here are further passages from a number of different authors in Scripture which indicate the plurality of Personalities in the Godhead:

E) [Eccl 12:1 (author Solomon)]:

"Remember your Creator......."

"Creator" = In the Hebrew this word "Creator" is literally translated "Ones Who created you" which indicates a plurality in the Godhead. [Ps 149:2 (author David)]:

"Let Israel rejoice in its Maker"

"Maker" = the Hebrew is literally translated "Ones making you" = PLURAL

F) [Isa 54:5 (author Isaiah)]:

"For your [Israel's] Maker is your Husband"

"Maker" = the Hebrew is literally translated "Ones making you" = PLURAL

Yet "Husband" = SINGULAR

Scripture also refers directly to the Personalities of the Godhead:

G) [Pr 30:4 (author Solomon)]:

"Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of His hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in His cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name [God the Father] and the name of His Son [God the Son]?"

In the Hebrew the word "Who" is literally translated, "Who are the Holy Ones Who" = PLURAL. So God the Father and God the Son have gone up to heaven and come down, gathered up the wind, wrapped up the waters and established, (i.e. created), the ends of the earth. And there is only one Creator: God. Here right in the Old Testament we find a clear statement that there is more than one Personality in the Godhead!!! We have two of the Personalities of the Godhead specifically referred to: God the Father and

God the Son. And God is indicated as having created all things.

[Gen 1:1 cont.]:

IV) THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED OUT OF NOTHING

@@@gap_theory.htm#2

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

"created" = "bara" (Hebrew) = expresses creation out of nothing. This word is used throughout the Bible and only with God as its subject.

A) [Compare Ro 4:17]:

"As it is written: 'I have made you a father of many nations.' He is our father in the sight of God, in Whom he believed - the God Who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were."

[In other words, 'The God Who calls things into existence that were not']

B) [Compare Heb 11:3]:

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

C) [Compare Ps 33:6-9 N.A.S.]:

(v. 6) "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. [the stars]

(v. 7) He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; [compare Gen 1:9] He lays up the deeps in storehouses.

(v. 8) Let all the earth fear the Lord; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.

(v. 9) For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast."

D) [Compare Col 1:16]:

"For by Him [Jesus Christ] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him."

[Note that Col 1:16 is even more specific: "all things...visible and invisible" were created by Jesus Christ, thus refuting the false doctrines of the preexistence of souls and the creation rather than the eternal existence of Jesus Christ. Col 1:16 also affirms our Lord's diety since only God is Creator, (cp Isa 40:28)]

[Gen 1:1 cont.]:

V) THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH = BASIC SPACE-TIME-MATTER BEFORE FINAL DETAILS AND LIFEFORMS ARE ADDED

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

"Heaven" = "shamayim" = heavens, plural. Can be translated heaven or heavens. Refers to space in general or a particular space such as outer space, depending upon context. Henry M. Morris states, (op. cit., p. 40-41):

"In Genesis 1:1, the term refers to the component of space in the basic space-mass-time universe... ...It does not mean the stars of heaven, which were made only on the fourth day of Creation Week (Genesis 1:16), and which constitute the 'host' of heaven, not heaven itself (Genesis 2:1 [Compare Ps 33:6]).

"earth" = "erets" = The Hebrew word "erets" which is translated "earth" connotes either the planet, a particular portion of it or the material of which the planet is made depending upon the context of the particular passage.

For example,

A) [Gen 12:5]:

"He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land ["erets] of Canaan, and they arrived there."

B) [Compare Gen 1:11]:

"Then God said, 'Let the land ["erets"] produce vegetation..."

"earth" = "erets" = refers in Gen 1:1 to the matter which was created in the space of the heavens in its most basic condition. At this time the earth had no form (cp v. 2) and there were no other planets, stars or other material bodies in the space of the heavens, i.e., the universe, until day four, (Gen 1:14-19). The earth at this time of creation was in its most basic elements and compounds, formless and without structure - its surface being a watery one. Note that later in verse 9 it states, "Let the water under the sky [i.e., the water that is on the surface of the earth] be gathered to one place, and let the dry ground appear."

[i.e., there was no land appearing on the surface of the earth at all]

[Gen 1:1-2 NAS]:

VI) A SERIES OF HISTORICAL 'AND'S' = 'WAW' ESTABLISH CONSECUTIVE & RECENT ACTION OVER SIX 24 HOUR DAYS

(v. 1) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(v. 2) And the earth was formless and void ["empty"], and darkness was over the surface [Lit. "face" *] of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface[*] of the waters"

"And the earth was" =

"And" = "waw" = connects verses 1 & 2 chronologically and sequentially. As a matter of fact, all verses in Genesis chapter one are joined chronologically and sequentially by the conjunction "and" = "waw". Thus a pattern is established which is firmly enhanced by the use of "waw" = "and" wherein the action of each verse is portrayed as following directly after the events of the previous verse. This is verified by the statements in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31 which indicate a creation sequence of 6 literal 24 hour days with an evening and a morning.

James Stambaugh states, (Impact periodical #251 May 1994, in article entitled, 'Star Formation and Genesis 1'):

"The style of [Hebraic] writing of Genesis 1 is historical, using the waw-consecutive to express consecutive action (waw = and). Biblical historians... [i.e., the original writers of the Bible who wrote historical accounts used] ...this style to: 'express actions, events, or states, which are to be regarded as the temporal or logical sequence of actions, events, or states mentioned immediately before.' What this means for Genesis 1 is that God describes a sequence of events that occur one after the other throughout the creation week. We see this sequence reflected in the English as 'And 'God said,' 'And there was,' or 'And it was,' with which each verse in Genesis 1 begins. Each occurrence signifies that some action followed another in a real time sequence.

This is very important as it relates to the events of Genesis 1. Francis Andersen observes: 'A string of (waw-consecutive) clauses in narrative prose (historical) states events as occurring in a time sequence one after another. It is implied that one is finished before the next begins, so it is possible to speak of the verbs as 'perfective' in aspect. So the events of Genesis 1:14-19 have an opening waw-consecutive 'And God said,' and a closing pattern of waw-consecutives 'and it was evening, and it was morning' separating the 4th day from the previous and subsequent commands God issued. The point for the interpreter is that each day in Genesis 1 must be a completed event! So God began His creation of the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4 and finished them on that same day. This also rules out the concept that the days may overlap in some manner."

[Gen 1:1-2 cont.]:

(v. 1) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(v. 2) And the earth was formless and void ["empty"], and darkness was over the surface [Lit. "face" *] of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface[*] of the waters"

VII) AND AT THIS POINT THE EARTH WAS YET WITHOUT FORM AND LIFE AND LIGHT - TO BE ADDED IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS

"was" = "hayetha" = objectors to a 6 day creation often maintain that the word "hayetha" be translated "became" which is grammatically possible. So verse two would then falsely read, 'And the earth became ruined and chaotic.' But this contradicts the context by suggesting more than a 6 day creation in which the formerly perfect earth deteriorated into a ruined and chaotic condition. There are a number of reasons why this is not what God's Word is stating which will be stated shortly. In addition to this the Hebrew verb form "hayetha" is NOT normally used to indicate a change of state as in 'became'. The Hebrew word 'haphak' is normatively used for that. In Scripture "hayetha" means "was" 98% of the time. If "became" were the correct interpretation, (and it is NOT), then it is still evident that objectors to a 6 day creation ignore the possible interpretation using the word "became" that God's first stage of creation could be described as 'the earth became formless and void' followed by God's next five 24 hour day stages of giving it form and life.

"formless and void" = "tohu waw bohu" =

"formless" = In verse 1, God created the heavens and the earth and in verse 9 God drew back the water which covered the entire earth. The earth therefore was evidently without form - without structure - having formless liquid water covering its entire surface.

THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, (TWOT), vol 2, R. Laird Harris, Editor, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980, pp. 964-5:

'''tohu... [formless] ..."the adjectives 'formless' and 'empty' seem to be the key to the literary structure of the chapter. [Gen chapter 1] The record of the first three days refers to the heaven and earth receiving their 'form,' and the record of the last three days to the filling-up of their 'emptiness,'....

The 'gap' or 'interval' theory, which posits a millennia-long period of time implied by or in Gen 1:2 and which usually translates 1:2a by the less likely 'but the earth became without form and void,' has come into increasing disfavor in recent years. Its main exegetical support, Isa 45:18, reads '(God) did not create (the earth) tohu' and has been [falsely] interpreted to mean that therefore an original creation described briefly in Gen 1:1) was destroyed; that the geologic ages ensued (during the 'gap'); and that the new creation portrayed in Gen 1:3ff, was built on the wreckage of the old. But Isa 45:18, after the phrase quoted, goes on to say that God 'formed (the earth) to be inhabited,' thereby assuring the reader that tohu was not his ultimate purpose in creation....

...The word tohu in Gen 1:2, likewise, refers not to the result of a supposed catastrophe (for which there is no clear biblical evidence) but to the formlessness of the earth before God's creative hand began the majestic acts described in the following verses...

...since 'create' in Gen 1:1 is a summary statement epexegeted in the remainder of the chapter (cf. concluding summary in Gen 2:1-3), it may be that Isaiah designates by 'create' all of God's works during the six days. He did not 'create' chaos but a cosmos."

Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 49-51:

"The creation narrative in Genesis 1 tells the steps by which He brought form to the unformed earth and living inhabitants to its empty surface. There is certainly no contradiction with the statement in Genesis 1:2 that the initial creation was of basic elements rather than of a completed system. The initial creation was not perfect in the sense that it was complete, but it was perfect for that first stage of God's six-day plan of creation.

Likewise, the word "bohu" does not connote a desolation, but simply 'emptiness.' When initially created, the earth had no inhabitants; it was 'void.'

The essential meaning, therefore, is: 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (or space and matter), and the matter so created was at first unformed and uninhabited.'

The created cosmos, as discussed earlier, was a tri-universe of time, space, and matter. Initially there were no stars or planets, only the basic matter component of the space-matter-time continuum. The elements which were to be formed into the planet Earth were at first only elements, not yet formed but nevertheless comprising the basic matter - the 'dust' of the earth."

Initially, the earth had no form; and similarly, this state must apply to the waters also. The picture presented is one of all the basic material elements sustained in a pervasive watery matrix throughout the darkness of space. The same picture is suggested in II Peter 3:5..."

A) [2 Peter 3:5b NAS]:

"by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,"

B) [Compare Pr 8:26-27 NAS]:

(v. 26) "While He had not yet made the earth and the fields, Nor the first dust of the world.

(v. 27) When He established the heavens, I [wisdom, v. 12] was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,"

"When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep" =

"circle" = "chug" = circle, sphere

This verse is describing God's creative process whereby the earth is in a state described as "the deep" (cp Gen 1:2). Then God formed the earth's "face" into a circle. So the earth in Genesis 1:2 was "formless" awaiting the Holy Spirit's creative process of forming the earth into a sphere. "Deep" = "tehom" refers to the great watery depths of the earth as further defined by the rest of verse 2. Compare Gen 7:11; Isa 51:10 - same word is used to describe the watery depths on the earth.

[Henry Morris, cont.]:

"...The fact that this 'compass' [circle] had to be 'set' on the face of the deep shows that the face of the deep originally had no such sphericity - it was formless, exactly as intimated in Genesis 1:2. Elements of matter and molecules of water were present, but not yet energized. The force of gravity was not yet functioning to draw such particles together into a coherent mass with a definite form. Neither were the electromagnetic forces yet in operation and everything was in darkness. The physical universe had come into existence, but everything was still and dark - no form, no motion, no light."

[Gen 1:1-2 NAS cont.]:

(v. 1) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

(v. 2) And the earth was formless and void ["empty"], and darkness was over the surface [Lit. "face" *] of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface[*] of the waters"

VIII) A GAP THEORY OF TIME BETWEEN VERSES ONE AND TWO IS REFUTED

A) "FORMLESS AND VOID" IN GEN 1:2 INDICATES THE EARLY STAGE OF GOD'S CREATION PROCESS AND NOT A CONDITION OF DETERIORATION

"Now the earth was formless and void" = "void" meaning devoid of life forms until God got to the steps beginning on the fourth day when He commenced creating living creatures. Scripture does not teach that the earth was void because it reflected the evil condition of Satan and his demonic angels.

"formless and void" [cont.] = "tohu waw bohu"

Many hold to a 'gap' theory of interpretation whereby verse one represents a completed creation and verse 2 indicates that the earth then became 'ruined and desolate' as a result of Satan's fall and consequent occupation of the earth. Thus the words "tohu waw bohu" are translated on the order of 'ruined and desolate'. This is grammatically possible, but contextually in error. Nevertheless, objectors to a strict and exclusive 6 literal 24 hour days of creation often point to passages such as the following:

1) [Isa 24:1-2]:

(v. 1) "See, the Lord is going to lay waste the earth and devastate it;

He will ruin its face and scatter its inhabitants -"

This verse is misapplied to Gen 1:1 to prove that the earth was at first created then laid to waste to become "formless and void". However, the rest of the passage in Isaiah, especially verse 2, indicates that the earth's inhabitants will be scattered; inhabitants meaning men:

[Isa 24:1-2 cont.]:

(v. 1 ) "See, the Lord is going to lay waste the earth and devastate it; He will ruin its face and scatter its inhabitants -"

(v. 2) it will be the same for priest as for people, for master as for servant, for mistress as for maid, for seller as for buyer, for borrower as for lender, for debtor as for creditor."

If this passage in Isaiah applies to Gen 1:1 then there is a question as to how the 'inhabitants' who must be human based on verse 2 got scattered before they were created later on in Gen 1:26 on the 6th day. The proper interpretation is that God in the yet future time of the 7 year Tribulation period will "lay waste the earth..." when people will occupy the earth at that time, (cp Rev chapters 6, 8-9, 15-16).

Other passages such as Jer 4:23-31 are similarly misused. The conclusion is falsely drawn that Jer 4:23-31 can be applied to Gen 1:1-2 because the language is similar in verses 23-24. But similarity does not prove identity especially if the context is different:

2) [Jer 4:23-31]:

(v. 23) "I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone.

(v. 24) I looked at the mountains, and they were quaking; all the hills were swaying.

(v. 25) I looked, and there were no people; every bird in the sky had flown away."

[Notice that this presumes that there were people in the past - therefore this could not be applicable to Gen 1:1]

[Jer 4:23-31 cont]:

(v. 26) I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert; all its towns lay in ruins before the LORD, before His fierce anger.'

[Towns which were formerly occupied by people]

(v. 27) This is what the Lord says: 'The whole land will be ruined, though I will not destroy it completely.

[Notice that God said He "will not destroy it completely". So "the whole land will not be ruined." Since this limits the ruin on the earth to an incomplete ruin of only a land and not the entire earth then this passage has no application back to Genesis 1:1 & 2, especially when the earth was to have been previously occupied by man. The following verses establish a different context from Gen 1:1]

(v. 28) Therefore the earth will mourn and the heavens above grow dark, because I have spoken and will not relent, I have decided and will not turn back.'

(v. 29) At the sound of horsemen and archers every town takes to flight....

[This speaks of a human army which will cause the destruction]

(v. 31) I hear a cry as of a woman in labor, a groan as of one bearing her first child - the cry of the Daughter of Zion gasping for breath...

[Note that the subject of destruction is not the whole earth as in Gen 1:1-2 but God's Chosen People Israel. Note that verses 1, 22, 27, 31 and others are ignored which indicate that Israel is the subject of the passage and not the whole earth and that total destruction will not result:

3) [Jer 4:1]:

" 'If you will return, O Israel, return to Me,' declares the Lord."

4) [Compare Jer 4:27]:

"This is what the Lord says: 'The whole land [of Israel] will be ruined, though I will not destroy it completely.

"formless and void" (cont.) =

"tohu waw bohu" =

TWOT, op. cit., vol 1, p. 92:

"(bohu) void, waste, emptiness,

Always occurring with tohu 'waste' (q.v.), bohu describes the primordial condition of the earth, 'void' at the beginning of creation (Gen 1:2), or 'made empty' by God's judgment (Isa 34:11; Jer 4:23). It is probable that the descriptions in Isaiah of the desolations of Edom and those in Jeremiah of Israel borrow this phrase from the Genesis picture of a primordial chaos."

Objectors to a 6 day creation who use Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23 to back up their gap theory apply the interpretation of "tohu waw bohu" in Isaiah and Jeremiah - that God would make a portion of the earth "tohu waw bohu", i.e., 'formless and void" through a conquering human army - to the "tohu waw bohu" in Gen 1:2. They conclude that in a similar way in the beginning did God make the earth BECOME 'formless and void'. However, they ignore a more suitable interpretative possibility that the earth simply 'was formless and void' awaiting the next stage in God's creative process of shaping it and filling it with living creatures, including man.

Henry M. Morris states, (op. cit., p. 49):

"In justification of this claim, [of the gap theory of the earth being millions of years old], reconstructionists maintain that God, being perfect, would never create the universe in a chaotic state. Therefore, they say, such a state must have come about long after the creation itself, probably because of Satan's sin and judgment. Furthermore, they point out, Isaiah 45:18 specifically says that God created not the earth "in vain [Hebrew tohu], He formed it to be inhabited."

Such an interpretation of Genesis 1:2, however, is very forced and unnatural. The word "tohu" can carry various shades of meaning. It occurs twenty times in the Old Testament and is translated in the King James Version no less than ten different ways ('vanity,' 'confusion,' empty place,' 'nothing,' etc.). Its proper translation depends on the specific context and the best translation in the context of Genesis 1:2 is exactly as the King James scholars rendered it: 'without form' "

@@@gap_theory.htm#2

@@@gap_theory.htm#1

Following are a few of the doctrinal points from Scripture which support the fact that the earth was not previously created and then reformed:

B) THE DOCTRINES OF SCRIPTURE REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE GAP THEORY

1) GEN 1:28 COMMANDS MAN TO MULTIPLY & FILL THE EARTH NOT REPLENISH WHAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN THERE

a) [Gen 1:27-28]:

(v. 27) "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

(v. 28) God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.' "

[Henry Morris, op. cit., pp. 75-78]:

"The first command given to this first man and woman was to 'be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.' The King James translation used the term 'replenish,' but this does not suggest the idea of 'refilling,' either the Old English term itself or the Hebrew word from which it is translated. The Hebrew word is 'male', and means simply 'fill', 'fulfill,' or 'be filled.' Of the more than three hundred times it is used, it is translated (in KJV) by 'replenish' only seven times; and even these could as well have been rendered 'fill.' It is certainly erroneous to use this one verse as a proof text for the gap theory, as many have done."

2) THE EARTH WAS CREATED SPECIFICALLY FOR MAN

Scripture indicates that the earth was created as man's dominion and for his good pleasure. So there is a question as to why there might have been an earth created long before man:

a) [Gen 1:26]

(v. 26) "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' "

b) [Compare Heb 2:5-8]:

(v. 5) "It is not to angels that He has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.

(v. 6) But there is a place where someone has testified: 'What is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?

(v. 7) You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor

(v. 8) and put everything under his feet.

In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.'"

[So Scripture indicates that it is not to angels that God gave the world but to man]

c) [Compare Isa 45:18]:

"For this is what the Lord says - He Who created the heavens, He is God; He Who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited - He says: 'I am the Lord, and there is no other."

Here God states that He did not create the earth to be empty. So there is a question as to how then the earth could be permitted to be empty for ages without man to inhabit it.

And God's Word states that the world was specifically created as man's inheritance:

d) [Mt 25:34]:

"Then the King [The Lord Jesus Christ] will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed by My Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom [of the earth] prepared for you since the creation of the world."

"prepared for you since the creation of the world." = prepared for mankind since "the beginning" when "God created the heavens and the earth", (Gen 1:1).

Therefore there would be a question as to the purpose for the creation of the earth, permitting it to deteriorate into a chaotic and voided condition and then eons later re-creating the earth and subsequently creating man for whom the earth was created in the first place.

3) SINCE THE CHAOTIC AND DYING CONDITION OF TODAY'S CREATION WAS A RESULT OF ADAM'S FALL, THE EARTH BEFORE ADAM WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THAT WAY

If death existed on the earth millions of years before Adam was created especially in the form of animals living and dying then God's Word that Adam's original sin brought death to the universe is untrue:

a) [Ro 5:12]:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death [entered the world] through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned - "

Note that the death of all things, not just of mankind is meant here since the phrase "and death" is connected grammatically to the previous clause "entered the world." Thus we have, "just as sin entered the world, death [entered the world] through sin".

This could not simply be the death of mankind, since there is no specific limiting qualifier appearing in the verse to limit death to mankind only. Furthermore, if there were such a qualifier, then the verse would deteriorate into redundancy and become nonsensical as follows:

'Just as sin entered the world through one man, and the death of all men entered the world through sin and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.' = Of course death came to all men when the death of all men entered the world! This rendering becomes redundant and nonsensical. One therefore must conclude that death in this verse refers to the death of all living things and not just mankind.

b) [Compare 1 Cor 15:21]:

"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man."

And what purpose would it serve to have creation reflect the lost condition of man before Adam and Eve were even created much less lost:

c) [Compare Ro 8:19-22]:

(v. 19) "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.

(v. 20) For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the One Who subjected it, in [the sure, v. 24] hope

(v. 21) that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

(v. 22) We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

(v. 23) Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies."

Note that verse 21 says that all of creation is under a bondage of decay, i.e., that which results from death - of plants and animals. So one may conclude here that decay and death are not in God's perfect order of things. Thus decay and death could not have been part of God's original creation which He declared as very good, rather it came about as a result of Adam's sin in the garden and not before.

So as believers await the redemption of their bodies, (cp. 1 Cor 15:35-49), so the whole of creation which reflects the sinful condition of man via decay and death also awaits its redemption into the new heavens and the new earth, (2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1).

4) THE EARTH CREATED ONE TIME RECENTLY

a) [Rev 21:1]:

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea."

Notice that the FIRST heaven and the FIRST earth passed away in Rev 21:1 thousands of years after Adam and Eve were created, strongly indicating that God created the heavens and the earth only one time before this and did not recreate it again before Rev 21:1.

Other passages strongly indicate that God created the heavens and the earth and all life forms therein including man in a total of six days and then rested:

b) [Gen 2:1-2]:

(v. 1) "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array, [including all life forms especially man, vv. 1:11-27].

(v. 2) By the seventh day God had finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work."

c) [Compare Heb 4:3b-4]:

(v. 3b) "...And Yet His [God's] work has been finished since the creation of the world.

[Notice that Heb 4:3b is stating that God's entire work of creation of the world has been finished. The next verse states the time that God spent doing this entire creative work]:

(v. 4) For somewhere He has spoken about the seventh day in these words: 'And on the seventh day God rested from all His work.'"

So God's creative work is stated in Scripture as taking an uninterrupted 6 days, ruling out the possibility of an earlier creation which deteriorated into chaos.

[Dr. Baugh, op. cit., p.5-6]:

"A repetitive phrase given again and again [in the creation account in Scripture] is 'the evening and the morning,'... ....[So] "...creation days are literal [24 hour days]. The word "Yom" is used in the Hebrew, and unless there is a specific contextual arrangement, it always means a literal day... the reason the days of creation had to be literal is because of the interrelationship of life.

[Plant, insect, animal life and non-living elements of nature such as light, rain, air etc. are interdependent upon one another such that they need to be in creation at the same time for one another to survive]:

[Dr. Baugh, op. cit., p. 9]:

"It was on day number three that God created the botanical life forms. It was not until day number four that God created the stellar heavens - the sun and the moon - to create the ability for photosynthesis. If the earth were enshrouded in a cloud of darkness, there would not have been the ability for photosynthesis until the sun and more of the stellar heavens were visible and usable as light sources. In a matter of forty-eight hours, most of the botanical life forms would be dead. In a matter of twenty-eight days, all of them would be dead without the ability, designed by the Lord, that the stellar bodies give for photosynthesis upon the earth.

Even if that were not the case, it was not until day number six that God created the insects that are so very important to the procreation of most of these botanical life forms. There is such an interplay of the life forms that the days of creation have to be literal [24 hour] days."

5) THE GEOLOGICAL AGES MODEL BELIES THE GAP MODEL WHICH WAS CONCEIVED OF IN ORDER TO SUPPORT IT!

[Henry Morris states, (op. cit., p. 47)]:

"The gap theory is thus self-defeating scientifically. It attempts to accommodate the geological ages by postulating a worldwide cataclysm, but a worldwide cataclysm denies the premise on which the geological age system is based, and would indeed obliterate all the so-called evidence of the geological ages.

The geological age system depends on the supposed evolutionary succession of the fossils preserved in the sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust. A cataclysm of such dimensions as to leave the earth inundated with waters and with darkness covering the face of the deep could have been nothing less than a global explosion, blowing billions of tons of debris into the sky to blot out the sun, and all the rest of the solid earth down into the ocean. Such a disintegrative explosion would obliterate the sedimentary crust and all its fossils, and thus would leave no evidence of the 'geological ages' which the gap theory is attempting to accommodate."

6) THE GAP THEORY CONTRADICTS THE ESSENCE OF GOD

[Henry Morris states, (op. cit., p. 47-48)]:

"The Bible says, however, that death came into the world only when Adam brought sin into the world (Romans 5:12, I Corinthians 15:21). This fact directly contradicts the assumption in the gap theory that death prevailed for ages before Adam. Furthermore, this primeval prevalence of suffering and death even before Satan's rebellion leaves only God Himself as responsible for such a state. But the very idea that the God of order and love would directly create and use a universal system based on randomness and cruelty seems almost blasphemous. These, however, are the implications of the gap theory."

7) MAN WAS THERE AT THE BEGINNING

Still other passages indicate that in the beginning man was created, not later on in another time period after the time period in which the heavens and the earth were created. Man, God's Word testifies, was created there in the Genesis 1:1 beginning when "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.":

Henry M. Morris states in the October 1994 issue , (#70), of 'Impact', pp. aa-c:

"The Lord Jesus Christ...clearly affirmed the truth of recent creation. Jesus Christ was the Creator of all things (note John 1:1-3:10; Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2, 10; etc.).....Christ says there have been people on the earth since the very beginning of the world - and He ought to know, for He was there!

For example, when the Pharisees asked Him about marriage and divorce, He replied that 'from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female' (Mark 10:6). He did not say that God made the first man and woman fifteen billion years after the beginning of the creation, but right from the beginning of the creation. In fact, the whole creation had been prepared for them (even the stars had been made to serve them 'for signs, and for seasons.' Genesis 1:14, 16), and they were given 'dominion...over all the earth' (Genesis 1:26). Such a stewardship responsibility would be an anachronism if animals and plants had already been living and dying - many even becoming extinct - for long ages before they were placed under some kind of human 'dominion' (note also Hebrews 2:6-8, Ps 8:6-8)......

What conceivable purpose could God have had in interposing a billion years of suffering and death in the animal kingdom prior to implementing His great plan of salvation for lost men and women?

[And what purpose to have creation reflect the lost condition of man before Adam and Eve were even created much less lost?]

He is neither cruel nor capricious, and would never be guilty of such pointless sadism....

Beginning with Abel (the first prophet of God according to Jesus in Luke 11:51), God sent prophet after prophet to transmit His word to men. More often than not their message was opposed, even to the point of bloodshed, and this also has been going on from the beginning. Jesus Himself referred to 'the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world' (Luke 11:50). That is, prophets have been preaching and dying since the very foundation of the world - not starting five billion years later.

This opposition to God's plan has been instigated by Satan himself. Jesus called Satan 'a liar, and the father of it,' as well as 'a murderer from the beginning' (John 8:44). He had not only deceived Eve with his humanistic philosophy ('ye shall be as gods,' Genesis 3:5), but also had caused Cain to murder God's first prophet. This too was at 'the beginning,' not five billion years after the beginning for even if animals had been dying for a billion years before this, as theistic evolutionists claim, their deaths could not be called 'murders.' Note also I John 3:8: 'The devil sinneth from the beginning.'

There is yet coming a time of God's great wrath on this unbelieving world. Again it was Jesus who said: 'In those days shall be affliction, such as was not since the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time," (Mark 13:19). The clear premise of this prophecy by Christ was that there had, indeed, been tribulation and affliction 'since the beginning of the creation which God created' (and, therefore, people had been on the earth all during that time), but that the coming period of 'great tribulation' would be still worse.

Also note that, according to these words of Christ, the creation had both a 'beginning' and a termination ('created' is in the past tense, in consistency with the use of this word all through the Bible). The world and its inhabitants are NOT continuously being created, as evolutionists and many progressive creationists would have us believe, for the creation was a completed event of the past. See also Hebrews 4:3 for a clear affirmation that all of God's 'works were finished from the foundation of the world.' Thus, the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all things were created in the beginning, has repeatedly made it clear that the supposed billions of years of a groaning, travailing creation (note Romans 8:22) prior to man's creation and fall never existed at all. God created men and women at the beginning, and then, when Adam sinned, quickly began to implement His great plan of redemption. To the redeemed He has promised 'a kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world' (Matthew 25:34), without the slightest intimation that there would be a fifteen-billion-year prelude before He would ever start the program of redemption.

The same emphasis was later carried forward by His apostles. Peter, for example, promised the soon return of Christ, 'whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began' (Acts 3:21).

Similarly, at the birth of John the Baptist, the prophet/priest Zacharias stressed that God's 'horn of salvation'' was coming, 'as He spake by the mouth of His holy prophets, which have been since the world began' (Luke 1:70). Thus, just before and just after Christ's earthly ministry, we are assured that Jesus spoke clearly and truly when He said that God's prophets have been transmitting God's word to man not just since human history began, but 'since the world began.' Thus the world and its human inhabitants began essentially at the same time.

Consider also the testimony of the apostle Paul: 'For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, [by people] being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse' (Romans 1:20). This powerful verse explicitly tells us that the evidences of God can be seen so clearly in His created world that it is inexcusable for people not to see them. Furthermore, they were being seen and understood by people, not just since a certain imaginary population of evolving hominids somehow acquired souls, but 'from the creation of the world.'

'hominids' = imaginary human like creatures which noncreationists maintain preexisted and evolved into human beings.

Consider the words of our Lord Himself in Mark:

a) [Mk 10:6]:

"[Jesus said] But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.'"

"at the beginning of creation" =

"creation" = The word creation here must refer to that which was created rather than the process of the six days of creation as detailed in Genesis chapter one. Otherwise "at the beginning of creation" would teach that man's body, soul and spirit were created at the beginning of the six day creation process, i.e., on day one, or two conflicting with the Genesis account of man's creation on day six.

So "at the beginning of creation" = refers to the beginning, (six day), period when God created His Creation, (i.e., all things). At the beginning man and woman were created, not billions of years of evolution later - or even hundreds of years.

Dr. Carl E. Baugh states in "Panorama of Creation", Creation Publication Services, Fort Worth, Tx, 1992, p 2:

"This verse [Mk 10:6] says a number of things to us.

First of all, it says that the universe is not sixteen and a half billion years old. It says that the earth is not four and a half billion years old.... ...From the beginning of creation, we can then point back to the history of man....

Man came on the stage fully operational, with the ability to accomplish all that God designed for him to accomplish... ...From the beginning of creation, we can trace the history of man."

So the universe is not billions of years old, nor even millions.

[Dr. Baugh, op. cit., p. 3]:

"Man and woman were made on the sixth day of creation. It was not until after that sixth day that the Bible says, 'It is finished'.....

b) [Gen 2:1-2]:

(v. 1) "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

(v. 2) By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work."

[Dr. Carl Baugh cont., op. cit., p. 3]:

...So the entire creation was made in a progressive form in a matter of six days. Yet, the time scale for the physical six-day creation is 'the beginning.' "...

@@@k04

So the universe is not billions of years old, nor even millions - only thousands of years old.

[Henry Morris states, (op. cit., p. 44-45)]:

"...All actual historical records agree in substance with the Bible's short chronology. A longer chronology, which of course is needed to support the modern dogma of evolution, must be based on uniformitarian extrapolation...

["the belief that physical processes have always functioned in the past essentially as they do at present" (Morris, p. 47)]

...of certain present physical processes. It should be recognized, however, that all such calculations necessarily must be based on a number of unproved and, as a matter of fact, untestable assumptions. They can never be as accurate or reliable as actual historical records, of which the Bible is certainly the most accurate and reliable.

Furthermore, there are many physical processes which, even with these uniformitarian assumptions, can be shown to agree in order of magnitude with the short Biblical chronology, and only a few which can be made to give a chronology long enough to support the evolutionary idea....

[assuming that things have remained relatively the same throughout the ages, which one can observe in the world around us is just not the case]

...The weight of the scientific data is heavily on the side of a recent creation and chronology of history, in agreement with the Biblical record.

With such facts in mind, there is no good reason not to accept the simple literal Biblical chronology. This is not necessarily Ussher's* chronology; but it will be of the same general magnitude, since Ussher did base his calculations on the Biblical data....

[*...The best-known chronological system based on these Biblical data is that of Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), who computed the date of creation as 4004 B.C.....]

...There are many uncertainties in such calculations... In addition to Ussher's date of 4004 B.C. for the creation, many other dates have been computed, some of which are as follows (all in years B.C.): Jewish, 3760; Septuagint, 5270; Josephus, 5555; Kepler, 3993; Melanchthon, 3964; Luther, 3961; Lightfoot, 3960; Hales, 5402; Playfair, 4008; Lipman, 3916; and others.

In addition, all the above calculations assume the completeness of the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11. Many writers have argued that one or more gaps of unknown magnitude may be assumed in these lists, especially in Genesis 11....

....In any case, they cannot be stretched sufficiently to accommodate modern evolutionary chronology, which places the origin of modern man at about 3,000,000 B.C., rather than totaling more than about five thousand years in these chapters without rendering the record irrelevant and absurd. Consequently, the Bible will not support a date for the creation of man earlier than about 10,000 B.C."

8) GOD SAID IT WAS VERY GOOD NOT RUINED OR CHAOTIC

[Commenting on Gen 1:31 - 2:3, Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 79-80]:

"God had now completed His work but, before settling down to 'rest' in contemplation of what He had produced, as it were, He first surveyed it all and pronounced the whole creation to be 'very good,' Six times before, He had seen that what He had made was 'good'; but now that it was complete, with every part in perfect harmony with every other part, all perfectly formed and with an abundance of inhabitants, He saw with great joy that it was all (literally) 'exceedingly good.' On each previous day, the account had concluded by saying (literally) 'the evening and the morning were a fifth day.' and so on; but now it says, 'the evening and the morning were the sixth day' (the definite article occurring for the first time in this formula), thus also stressing completion of the work.

This one verse is itself sufficient to refute any theory which tries to accommodate the geological ages concept in the Genesis record of creation. Everything in the universe (the next verse specifically includes all the host of heaven in its scope) was still at this time exceedingly good, in God's own omniscient judgment. There could have been nothing that was not good in all creation: no struggle for existence, no disease, no pollution, no physical calamities (earthquakes, floods, etc.), no imbalance or lack of harmony, no disorder, no sin and, above all, no death! Even Satan was still good at this point; his rebellion and fall must have come later.

Fossils, of course, speak of death - often of violent and sudden death. They also speak of disease and injuries, of storms and convulsions - in short, of a world like the present world, 'the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together' (Romans 8:22). Since death only 'entered into the world' when sin came in through man (Romans 5:12), and since the whole creation was very good before man sinned, it is as obvious as anything could be that the fossil record now found in the sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust could only have been formed sometime after man sinned. The fossils could not have been deposited either before the six days of creation (as in the gap theory) or during the six days of creation (as according to the progressive creation day-age type of theory). How could God have possibly looked upon a world of struggle and travail, and looked into the rocks to see the remains of billions of dead animals (as well as humanlike creatures), and then described it all as exceedingly good? Such a suggestion in effect makes God out to be a monster - not the 'God of all grace' ([Who] cares for every sparrow), not the God of love and mercy (therefore too kind to create a world by such a process as suggested in the geological age concept), the God of perfect wisdom (therefore certainly able to devise a better way than that), the God of omnipotence (thus fully able to create by such a better way), and the God of infinite order (not the 'author of confusion' and of wasteful inefficiency which is implied if the fossil record is indeed a record of prehuman earth history), as revealed in the Bible...

...The cataclysmic events of the great Flood in the days of Noah are quite sufficient to account for all the phenomena of the sedimentary rocks and the fossil record. At the time of man's creation, however, the whole universe was a beautiful, perfect creation, the finest that the mind and heart of God Himself could devise for man..."

@@@gap_theory#1

[Gen 1:1-2 NAS cont.]:

(v. 1) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(v. 2) And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."

IX) THE EARTH AT THIS STAGE WAS FORMLESS, VOID OF LIFE, WATERY AND DARK AS GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT CONTINUED HIS CREATION WORK

"darkness was over the surface of the deep" = There was darkness over the earth, not as many maintain because evil had entered creation through the fall of Satan but simply because God had not yet created light, (refer to the next verse: v.3). The explanation of the darkness before the light is a basic and simple one which is well expressed by Dr. Baugh:

[Dr. Carl Baugh, op. cit., p.5]:

"...Why, if God created man and the entire universe in literal days, did He begin with night instead of day?...

God used the Hebrew mind to display the revelation of His Word.... The Hebrew mind begins the day with the night; that is, the succeeding day begins at six o'clock the preceding evening. But, of course, the Hebrews got that idea from God. Why does God begin with night?... God begins with night and nothing, and creates that which brings glory unto Himself."

[Henry Morris states, (op. cit., p. 50-51)]:

"The idea that God, being Light, could not create a world in darkness is invalid, God Himself said: 'I form the light, and create darkness...' (Isaiah 45:7). The physical universe, though created, was as yet neither formed nor energized, and light is a form of energy. The absence of physical light means darkness, just as the absence of form and inhabitants means a universe in elemental form, not yet completed. No evil is implied in either case, merely incompleteness...

...The 'deep' (Hebrew tehom) refers later to the waters of the ocean. Initially, however, the earth had no form; and similarly, this state must apply to the waters also. The picture presented is one of all the basic material elements sustained in a pervasive watery matrix throughout the darkness of space. The same picture is suggested in II Peter 3:5...

A) [2 Peter 3:5b NAS]:

"By the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,"

B) [Compare Pr 8:26-27 NAS]:

(v. 26) "While He had not yet made the earth and the fields, Nor the first dust of the world.

(v. 27) When He established the heavens, I [wisdom, v. 12] was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,"

"When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep" ?

"circle" = "chug" = circle, sphere

This verse is describing God's creative process whereby the earth is in a state described as "the deep" (cp. Gen 1:2). Then God formed the earth's "face" into a circle. So the earth in Genesis 1:2 was "formless" awaiting the Holy Spirit's creative process of forming the earth into a sphere.

[Henry Morris, cont.]:

...The fact that this 'compass' [circle] had to be 'set' on the face of the deep shows that the face of the deep originally had no such sphericity - it was formless, exactly as intimated in Genesis 1:2. Elements of matter and molecules of water were present, but not yet energized. The force of gravity was not yet functioning to draw such particles together into a coherent mass with a definite form. Neither were the electromagnetic forces yet in operation and everything was in darkness. The physical universe had come into existence, but everything was still and dark - no form, no motion, no light."

Incidentally, verse 27 of Proverbs 8 teaches that the earth is spherical in shape, thus refuting objectors' claims that the Bible errs in teaching that it is flat.

C) [Compare Isa 40:22]:

"He [God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..."

[Gen 1:1-2 NAS cont.]:

(v. 1) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(v. 2) And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."

"Now the earth was formless...and the Spirit of God was moving over the waters." = The earth was formless not chaotic because it reflected evil but because, before the land appeared on the surface of the earth, its surface was a watery and formless one, liquid water having no form of its own. God had not yet gotten to the step, (v. 9), when the waters would be "gathered to one place" so as to let the "dry ground appear" with formations.

[Mr. Baugh, op. cit., p.43, states]:

"These verses [Gen 1:1-2] show that even on the first day of creation, before God created light, God created the earth in a watery form. This is extremely important.

Studies done by renowned physicists, such as Dr. Russell Humphreys, show that each molecule of water possesses a small electromagnetic field. When these molecules are aligned, the result is a composite electromagnetic charge of all the molecules of water that are aligned. When all of these molecules are in composite alignment, you have the composite energy of all of the molecules.

God began by creating the earth first in all the universe, even before creating the electromagnetic spectrum of light into the heavenly bodies, such as the sun and the stellar heavens....

...God first created the earth as a sphere of water... The life forms that God would create on day number three [vegetation, plants, trees], being in botanical form, would require this water. On day number five, God would design the fish and fowl. Each of these creatures would require this water. On day number six, God would create insects, dinosaurs, man, and woman before the day was finished."

Note that God the Holy Spirit was actively involved in creation. The word Spirit = "ruach" can mean 'wind', 'breath' or 'spirit' depending upon context. Here the context demands that the word mean God the Holy Spirit as God alone is Creator, (cp. Isa 40:28). And so God the Holy Spirit "moved" = "rachaph" = moved, hovered - also shaked, fluttered, (cp. Jer 23:9; Dt 32:11), over the surface of the waters - a purposeful vibration in order to accomplish the next stage in creation: energizing the matter of the universe.

[Henry Morris states, (op. cit., p. 52)]:

"It is significant that the transmission of energy in the operations of the cosmos is in the form of waves - light waves, heat waves, sound waves, and so forth. In fact (except for the nuclear forces which are involved in the structure of matter itself), there are only two fundamental types of forces that operate on matter - the gravitational forces and the forces of the electromagnetic spectrum. All are associated with 'field' of activity and with transmission by wave motion.

Waves are typically rapid back and forth movements and they are normally produced by the vibratory motion of a wave generator of some kind. Energy cannot create itself. It is most appropriate that the first impartation of energy to the universe is described as the vibrating movement of the Spirit of God Himself.

As the outflowing energy from God's omnipresent Spirit began to flow outward and to permeate the cosmos, gravitational forces were activated and water and earth particles came together to form a great sphere moving through space. Other such particles would soon come together also to form sun, moon, and stars throughout the universe. There was now a 'compass' [circle] on the face of the deep, and the formless earth had assumed the beautiful form of a perfect sphere. It was now ready for light and heat and other forms of enlivening energy."

@@@k04

[Gen 1:3-5]:

X) THE DAY = AGE THEORY REFUTED

(v. 3) "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light.

(v. 4) And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

(v. 5) And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

A) SUCCESIVE DAYS IN HEBREW WITH AN ORDINAL ADJECTIVE AND AN EVENING AND A MORNING = SOLAR, 24 HOUR DAYS

Inspite of 'popular' opinion the word "day" = "yôm" cannot be taken here as age or some other long period of time. The word "day" = "yôm" in the Hebrew Old Testament always means a literal 24 hour day when accompanied with an ordinal adjective, (first, second, etc.).

[James Stambaugh states, 'The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach, pp. 4-5,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp]:

1) YÔM AND NUMBERS

"The word yôm, either singular or plural, is used with a number 359 times outside of Genesis 1. There are four prominent ways in which yôm could be combined with a number to bring forth a certain significance.

First, when the plural noun-form is used with a cardinal number (e.g. one, two, three, etc.) it denotes a specific duration of time (exceptions which contain a singular form of yôm do occur, but are infrequent); this construction occurs 189 times. An example of this can be seen in Genesis 30:36, 'Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob.'

The second uses the prepositions 'on' or 'for' (Hebrew: be, le) to show that an action is to take place on a specific yôm. The number used in this construction is generally an ordinal (e.g. first, second, third, etc.) with yôm in the singular, and occurs 162 times. This can be illustrated by Exodus 24:16, 'For six days the glory covered the mountain, and on the seventh day the Lord called to Moses from within the cloud.' Although the construction in Genesis 1 does not precisely fit this pattern, it does appear that the phrase 'and it was evening, and it was morning' functions in a manner similar to the preposition (that is, on the xth day - comprised of an evening and morning), bringing out the semantic significance of a solar day.

DeVries alludes to the same kind of function:

'After all has been said, the fact that surprises us the most is that bayyôm hahû is used as often as it is in an epitome, i.e., a summarizing characterization concerning a particular day in which Israel's God was in some way seen to be active in crucial confrontation with his people.'

Although there is no hint of a confrontation in Genesis 1, it should be noted that the waye phrases (translated 'and it was') function to summarize the activities of the previous yôm. So it seems reasonable to place the concluding phrases in Genesis I in this category.

The last two types are few in number, but use prepositions to signify a certain yôm as a starting point or a terminal point of an action, and occur a total of 7 times; here too the word yôm is singular, and is associated with an ordinal number. An example of the starting point is in Ezra 3:6, 'On the first day of the seventh month, they began to offer burnt offerings to the Lord.' The terminal point is seen in Leviticus 19:6, '. . . anything left over until the third day must be burned up.' Terence Fretheim observes, 'When the word "day" is used with a specific number, it always has reference to a normal "day".'

There is another point which should be brought out when discussing the syntagmatic relationships of yôm and numbers as they are used in a series. Fretheim observes that the use of yôm in a numbered series such as is found in Genesis 1, Numbers 7 and 29 'always has reference to a normal "day". So, as Fretheim suggests, when the interpreter sees the word yôm, used with a number, occurring several times in succession and in a specific context, this construction serves to denote a solar day. This also is in keeping with the use of numbers in human languages, for numbers point to things which can be properly enumerated - not something abstract, but something that is concrete. This can be seen in some of the things which the Hebrew language enumerated: people, places, objects relating to the tabernacle (rings, candlesticks, curtains), parts of the human body, building materials, etc. It would seem that the Hebrew language uses numbers to modify those things which are well known by human experience. Newman admits the view that yôm in Genesis 1 signifying a normal day 'has the advantage that no clear counter-example [of yôm with an ordinal number] can be cited with yôm meaning a long period of time.' So when the word yôm is combined with a number it would appear that it is meant to communicate a twenty-four hour day."

2) YÔM AND OTHER WORDS

[Stambaugh, op. cit., pp. 5-6]:

There are other words which are often syntagmatically related with yôm: 'morning', 'evening', 'night', light', and 'darkness'. These words, along with the use of numbers, will aid in establishing a particular pattern of use. This, in turn, will aid in an accurate interpretation of yôm in Genesis 1.

The two words, 'morning' and 'evening', are combined with yôm 19 times each outside of Genesis 1 (three times these words share the same reference cf. Numbers 9:15, Deuteronomy 16:4 and Daniel 8:26), and with each occurrence a twenty-four day is signified. This is true no matter what the literary genre or context might be. It should be further observed that when 'morning' and 'evening' occur together without yôm (this happens 38 times outside of Genesis 1, 25 of the 38 occur in historical narrative), it always, without exception, designates a literal solar day. So any combination of the words 'morning', 'evening', and yôm use their extra-linguistic referential value to its fullest extent; pointing to the length of time which is normally associated with these words. Saebo says that yôm is: 'the fundamental word/or the division of time according to the fixed natural alternation of day and night, on which are based all the other units of time (as well as the calendar).'

The word 'night' is similarly associated with yôm. These words are combined 53 times in the Old Testament outside of Genesis 1. The majority (26 times) appear in the historical sections; of the remainder, 16 are in the poetic sections and 11 in the prophetic. The meaning communicated by these combinations is also a solar day. Here too, the extra-linguistic factor (a literal cycle of light followed by a cycle of night, e.g. day and night) points to a reality outside of the word itself. It is thought that this use of yôm as the opposite of night represents its semantic core.

Something slightly different is encountered when one examines the use of the words 'light' and 'darkness' with yôm. 'Light' appears with yôm 15 times outside of Genesis 1, and in most of the cases it refers to the cycle of time, with three observable exceptions: Isaiah 5:30, Amos 5:18, 20. The context makes it clear that the figurative language used in these verses refers to some future time when God will demonstrate His power to man. 'Darkness' is used in conjunction with yôm 11 times beyond Genesis 1, and most of these (seven of them) are figurative. These references are: Ecclesiastes 11:8, Isaiah 29:18, Joel 2:2, 31, Amos 5:18, 20, and Zephaniah 1:15. The Ecclesiastes passage uses 'darkness' as a time of trouble; the prophetic passages use eschatological language to denote some future time. It must also be noted that there are very few uses of 'light' or 'darkness' with yôm in the historical sections ('light' has three and 'darkness' has one). The majority occur in the prophetic genre where often these words have a symbolic meaning of blessing or judgment. However, when these words are used in historical narrative, they employ their referential value referring to that which is known by human experience [i.e., a 24 hour solar day].

3) PLURAL YÔM NEVER REFERS TO MORE THAN THOUSANDS OF YEARS

[Stambaugh, op. cit., pp. 6-7]:

"It appears that yôm was part of a variety of formulae, some of which could denote a long time. The plural use of yôm is the communicator of long time. This does not contradict the previous sections, because, in the illustrations that follow, yôm stands in a syntagmatic relationship that is different from the ones already discussed. The singular use tends to denote a short time. Once this is examined, the interpreter should be able to define contexts in which yôm would clearly communicate longer lengths of time.

It would appear, from the historical genre used in the Old Testament, that yôm in the plural tends to be part of a formula communicating a specific length of time. Gershon Brin observes that yôm is used for 'naming eras in biblical times'. This kind of formula has a personal name or title attached to the era; examples of this can be seen in Genesis 5 and 10, 'days of x [name of patriarch]'. The names within the genealogies could be used to designate the era in which that person lived. This is also frequently observed in the book of Judges, where we read of the 'days of x [name of a king or judge]', and the author states how long it lasted. This formula can also be found in the prophetic genre following the same pattern, with one observable exception. Micah 7:15 is the exception where, instead of a name, this phrase is used, 'when you came out of Egypt'. The reference points to the future when God will show His power to the Gentile nations, so the reference to 'the days of' signifies the period of the exodus from Egypt. The use of yôm in the plural signifies a set length of time, and the syntagmatic relationships within the context determines how long it is. There are occurrences of yôm in the plural that appear to cover a period of thousands of years by using two Hebrew words for a great length of time. They are 'of old' (Hebrew: qedem) and 'everlasting' (Hebrew: 'ôlam). Isaiah 51:9 illustrates the first word as it says, '. . . awake, as in the days gone by, as in the generations of old.' The context is a metaphorical reference to God's work of creation, and this is the same kind of work which will be undertaken for His people. These same words also appear in Jeremiah 46:26, Micah 7:20 and Psalm 44:1 to illustrate that humans had inhabited the earth for a long time (by then a period of some 3,000 years according to Genesis 5 and 10). The second Hebrew word is often used of 'eternal'; it, too, designates a long time period when combined with the plural yôm. These can be observed in Isaiah 63:11 and Amos 9:11. The Isaiah passage refers to the time of Moses, 'Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his people'. The prophet Amos points back to the days of David, 'In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, and wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old'. So the interpreter should conclude that the use of yôm in the plural may signify a long period of time (when specified by the context). This can also be demonstrated by the use of two Hebrew words for a long time translated 'of old' and 'everlasting'. It should be noted, however, that the context is one of history, and when the writers used these words for a long time, they did so with an eye to human history that began in Genesis 1:26. The observation can be made, from the plural use of yôm, that the time covered is of the order of a few thousand years, not orders of magnitude larger. Therefore, it does not appear that the context of Genesis will allow the interpreter to fit what could possibly be billions of years into the singular yôm in the events of creation, as is alleged by some.

B) EX 20:8-11 REFERS TO 24 HOUR CREATION DAYS

Also, the word "day" in the creation account in Genesis is the same word translated "day" in Exodus:

[Ex 20:8-11]:

(v. 8) "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.

(v. 9) Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

(v. 10) But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work...

(v. 11) For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

These verses in Exodus confirm the literal 24 hour day time period of creation - otherwise the understanding of the fourth commandment quoted above could not be for Jews to rest for a day but for millions of years. Furthermore, at the conclusion of each day's creation is a statement the same or similar to, "Then there was evening and morning the first day" indicating a literal 24 hour day with an evening and a morning.

C) DAY = AGE THEORY CONTRADICTS GEOLOGICAL AGE THEORY WHICH IT FALSELY ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT

The geological 'theory' of ages RE: the 'accepted' order of fossils in the rocks does not coincide with the sequence of the Genesis 1 narrative if the days are to be taken as ages. The Genesis account has the following creation sequence:

Heavens, i.e., space and earth in its formless stage Light

Firmament = The heavenly space above earth

Dry ground & seas

Plant life

Stars & planets (day & night)

Water animals and fish and birds

Land animals

Adam & Eve

D) DAY = AGE THEORY WOULD NOT ENABLE LIFE ON EARTH TO SURVIVE

[Dr. Baugh, op cit, p.5-6]:

"A repetitive phrase given again and again [in the creation account in Scripture] is 'the evening and the morning,'... ....[So] "...creation days are literal [24 hour days]. The word "yôm" is used in the Hebrew, and unless there is a specific contextual arrangement, it always means a literal day... the reason the days of creation had to be literal is because of the interrelationship of life.

[Plant, insect, animal life and non-living elements of nature such as light, rain, air etc. are interdependent upon one another such that they need to be in creation at the same time for one another to survive]:

[Dr. Baugh, op cit, p.9]:

"It was on day number three that God created the botanical life forms. It was not until day number four that God created the stellar heavens - the sun and the moon - to create the ability for photosynthesis. If the earth were enshrouded in a cloud of darkness, there would not have been the ability for photosynthesis until the sun and more of the stellar heavens were visible and usable as light sources. In a matter of forty-eight hours, most of the botanical life forms would be dead. In a matter of twenty-eight days, all of them would be dead without the ability, designed by the Lord, that the stellar bodies give for photosynthesis upon the earth.

Even if that were not the case, it was not until day number six that God created the insects that are so very important to the procreation of most of these botanical life forms. There is such an interplay of the life forms that the days of creation have to be literal [24 hour] days."

E) DAY = AGE THEORY CONTRADICTS BIBLE'S TEACHING THAT DEATH FOLLOWED SIN & DID NOT COME BEFORE IT.

[Dr. Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 54]:

"The day-age theory...accepts as real the existence of death before sin, in direct contradiction to the Biblical teaching that death is a divine judgment on man's dominion because of man's sin (Romans 5:12). Thus it assumes that suffering and death comprise an integral part of God's work of creating and preparing the world for man; and this in effect pictures God as a sadistic ogre, not as the Biblical God of grace and love.

XI) "LET THERE BE" = SIGNIFIES SOMETHING WHICH HAS JUST BEEN CREATED WHERE THERE WAS NOTHING LIKE IT BEFORE

[Gen 1:3-5 cont.]:

(v. 3) "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light.

(v. 4) "And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness."

(v. 5) And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

James Stambaugh states, op. cit:

"Throughout the Genesis 1 narrative God speaks and something happens as a result. These commands are characterized by the wording: 'Let there be__." One such command appears in verse 3 (light); two in verse 6 (expanse and divided waters); two in verse 9 (waters gathered and appearance of dry ground); one in verse 11 (sprouting plants); one in verse 14 (luminaries); two in verse 20 (sea creatures and flying animals); one in verse 24 (land animals); and one in verse 26 (man). All, with the exception of one, are used in the sense of God speaking to His creation. In the exception, one gets the sense of one member of the Godhead speaking to the others: 'Let us make man.' This command (i.e.: 'Let there be ___') is known as a jussive [command mood]. God used this command consistently in the first six instances to refer to something brought into existence that did not previously exist. Regardless of whatever these commands signify, ex nihilo (out of nothing) or de novo (something new), they represent a fundamental change in the object that is 'created.' [This includes the sun, moon and the stars on the 4th day]

XII) GOD CREATES LIGHT & THE EARTH EXPERIENCES EVENING & MORNING FOR THE FIRST TIME WITHOUT LIGHT EMANATING BODIES

Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 55-57:

"Verse 3 is the first record of God speaking in the Bible. 'And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.' The Word of God brings light!.... [Before He created the sun, stars and moon]

A) [Compare Ps 33:6, 9]:

(v. 6) "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host."

(v. 9) For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast."

When light appeared, 'God divided the light from the darkness.' Darkness was not removed completely, so far as the earth was concerned, but only separated from the light....

Having separated the day and night, God had completed His first day's work, 'The evening and the morning were the first day.' This same formula is used at the conclusion of each of the six days; so it is obvious that the duration of each of the days, including the first, was the same...

...It is clear that beginning with the first day and continuing thereafter, there was established a cyclical succession of days and nights - periods of light and periods of darkness.

Such a cyclical light-dark arrangement clearly means that the earth was now rotating on its axis and that there was a source of light on one side of the earth corresponding to the sun, even though the sun was not yet made (Genesis 1:16). It is equally clear that the length of such days could only have been that of a normal solar day....

Returning to the significance of light as created, it is obvious that visible light is primarily meant, since it was set in contrast to darkness. At the same time, the presence of visible light waves necessarily involves the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Beyond the visible light waves are, on the one hand, ultraviolet light and all the other short wave length radiations and, on the other hand, infrared light and the other long wave phenomena.

In turn, setting the electromagnetic forces into operation in effect completed the energizing of the physical cosmos. All the types of force and energy which interact in the universe involve only electromagnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces; and all of these had now been activated....

[Recall that the physical laws governing the universe were considerably changed as a result of the Fall and later the Flood, (Gen 2:16-17; 3:14-19), which might very well have included those governing light - for light will indeed be of a different character in eternity future, perhaps as they governed light at creation:

[Isa 60:19-20]:

(v. 19) "No longer will you have the sun for light by day, Nor for brightness will the moon give you light; But you will have the LORD for an everlasting light, And your God for your glory.

(v. 20) Your sun will set no more, Neither will your moon wane; For you will have the LORD for an everlasting light, And the days of your mourning will be finished]

All of this was accomplished on the first day of creation. The physical universe had been created and energized, and was ready for further shaping and furnishing in preparation for man, whose dominion it would be.

B) [Compare Ps 115:16]:

"The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth He has given to man."

XIII) ANGELS CREATED

Although not mentioned in Genesis 1, it is probable that another act of creation took place on this first day. Sometime prior to the third day of creation, a multitude of angels had been created, since they were present when the 'foundations of the earth' were laid - probably a reference to the establishment of solid land surfaces on the earth...

A) [Compare Job 38:4-7 NAS]:

(v. 4) "Where were you [Job, v.1] when I [God] laid the foundation of the earth! Tell Me, if you have understanding,

(v. 5) Who set its measurements, since you know? Or who stretched the line on it?

(v. 6) On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,

(v. 7) When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God [angels] shouted for joy?"

...It is impossible that they [angels] could have existed before the creation of the physical universe itself, since their sphere of operation is in this universe and their very purpose is to minister to the 'heirs of salvation' (Hebrews 1:14). Angels are called the 'host of heaven,' [Isa 34:4] and so could not have been created before the existence of heaven..

B) [Compare Psalm 104:1-5]:

(v. 1) "Praise the LORD, O my soul? O LORD my God, You are very great; You are are clothed with splendor and majesty,

(v. 2) He wraps Himself in light as with a garment; He stretches out the heavens like a tent.

(v. 3) and lays the beams of His upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds His chariot and rides on the wings of the wind.

(v. 4) He makes winds His messengers [angels] flames of fire His servants. [also angels*]

(v. 5) He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

[*(The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, Walvoord and Zuck editors, Victor Books, 1987, p. 868):

"Psalm 104:4 [above] suggests that God arrays His angels ("messengers") with physical phenomena, similar to ways He often manifested Himself."]

...Psalm 104 (verses 2-5) says that angels were made as spirits after the materialization of God's light-arrayed presence in the stretched-out heavens, but prior to the laying of the solid foundations of the land. Therefore, although angels are not mentioned as such at this point in Genesis, their spiritual presence as fascinated observers at the remaining acts of creation and formation may certainly be inferred.

XIV) THE LIGHT WAS THERE BEFORE LIGHT BEARING BODIES WERE CREATED.

[Gen 1:3-5 cont.]:

(v. 3) "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light.

(v. 4) "And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness."

(v. 5) "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

"Let there be light" = "light" = "or" singular, i.e., 'Let there exist the whole spectrum of visible and invisible light waves which emanate out throughout God's newly created heavens and earth - but not from any particular created source of light giver(s). This is different from Genesis 1:14 which states, "Let there be lights" = "lights" = lights, plural, literally in the Hebrew: "maor" meaning "light givers", i.e., those created bodies in the heavens which emanate light waves: stars, sun and moon. Notice that these light giver bodies were created AFTER the light was created. This light emanated out from no particular created source onto the earth.

TWOT, op. cit., p. 25:

"...Light is of course associated with light-bearing bodies but it is distinct from them, as seen its creation apart from the luminaries (Gen 1:3)...

...God's role as creator of light is stressed. Eventually, he will make the sun unnecessary...

A) [Isa 60:19-20]:

(v. 19) "No longer will you have the sun for light by day, Nor for brightness will the moon give you light; But you will have the LORD for an everlasting light, And your God for your glory.

(v. 20) Your sun will set no more, Neither will your moon wane; For you will have the LORD for an everlasting light, And the days of your mourning will be finished."

Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 65-68:

"On the first day, He had said: "Let there be light!' (Hebrew 'or'), On the fourth day, He said: 'Let there be lights' (or light-givers, Hebrew 'ma-or'). Intrinsic light first, then generators of light later, is both the logical and the Biblical order.

The chief purpose of both the light of the first three days and the light-givers of all later days was to 'divide the light from the darkness' (verses 4, 18), and this can only mean that the two regimes were essentially identical. The duration of the days and nights was the same in each case, and the directions of light emanation on the earth from space must have been the same in each case.

In other words, light rays were impinging on the earth as it rotated on its axis during the first three days of essentially the same intensities and directions as those which would later emanate from the heavenly bodies to be emplaced on the fourth day.

Light was coming during the day as though from the sun and during the night as though from the moon and stars, even though they had not yet been made.

Scripture indicates that the pre-Fall and pre-Flood worlds were vastly different from today's post-Flood world. Many of the physical laws evidently were different. For example, God created man spiritually alive NEVER to die physically. After the Fall men were born spiritually dead and did die physically, (Ref: Gen 2:16-17 = die = lit. die, dying indicating TWO deaths, spiritual then physical, cp. Eph 2:1). Then after the Fall God's curse drastically changed the earth also, indicating changes in physical laws, (Ref: Gen 3:14-19). These changes may very well have included changes in teh characteristics and speed of light and the Laws of Thermodynamics - so that now things are 'winding down' as can be observed throughout the universe.

Henry Morris, cont., op. cit., p. 57:

"After the first day, the earth was no longer without form, but it was still void of inhabitants. It must next be prepared as a home for man during his probationary period. Ultimately the entire universe would be made available for man's exploration and utilization, but first he must be given the earth (Psalm 115:16), on a trial basis, and it must be made ready as a uniquely suitable planet for him to dwell on.

The earth is indeed a planet uniquely suitable for human habitation. Of special importance is its oxygen atmosphere and its hydrosphere of... ...water. Both are vital for man's existence and both are unique to the earth, so far as all the evidence goes.

The first essential in God's preparation of the earth was a carefully designed atmosphere and hydrosphere. "Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure?.....

It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (Isaiah 40:12,22)."

[Gen 1:6-8]:

(v. 6) "And God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

(v. 7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

(v. 8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second [literal 24 hour] day."

XV) GOD THEN CREATES A FIRMAMENT IN HEAVEN DIVIDING THE WATERY MASS IN THE STRATOSPHERE INTO TWO HEAVENLY MASSES OF WATER

A) THE THREE HEAVENS DEFINED AS STRATOSPHERIC, STELLAR AND GOD'S THRONEROOM

"Heaven" = literally "heavens" plural = "shamayim"

Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 58:

"There are three particular "heavens" mentioned in Scripture:

1) THE ATMOSPHERIC HEAVEN

a) [Jer 4:25]:

"I looked, and behold, there was no man, And all the birds of the heavens had fled."

["heavens" = the atmosphere around the earth which includes the firmament composite of hydrogen and water]

2) STELLAR = THE STARS, OUTER SPACE = HEAVEN

a) [Isaiah 13:10]:

"For the stars of heaven ["shamayim" = the stellar heavens] and their constellations Will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises, And the moon will not shed its light."

3) GOD'S THRONE ROOM

a) [Heb 9:24]:

"For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us."

"heaven" = "ouranon" = heaven, singular, where God's presence is made known.

b) [Compare Mt 5:34]:

"But I tell you, 'Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is 'God's throne;"

Note that Psalm 148:4-6 states that God created waters above the heavens and that these waters are established forever, which means that they will be reset above the heavens in the future:

c) [Compare Ps 148:4-6]:

(v. 4) "Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!

(v. 5) Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created.

(v. 6) He has also established them forever and ever; He has made a decree which will not pass away."

B) FIRMAMENT DEFINED AS AN EXTENDED FLATTENED OUT EXPANSE DIVIDING THE WATERS IN THE HEAVENS

"firmament" = from the Latin firmamentum meaning support.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co, Springfield, Ma, 1980, p. 428:

[firmament =] "the vault or arch of the sky: HEAVENS."

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, Francis Brown, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Ma, 1979, defines the word firmament from Scripture as follows:

"firmament" = "raqyia" [Hebrew transliteration] = "extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out; cf. Jb 3718...

1. (flat) expanse

2. the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it..."

TWOT, vol II, op. cit., p. 862, states:

"raqyia... ...identifies God's heavenly expanse. The Mosaic account of creation uses raqyia interchangeably for the 'open expanse of the heavens' in which birds fly (Gen 1:20 NASB), i.e., the atmosphere... ...and that farther expanse of sky in which God placed 'the lights... for signs and for seasons' (vv. 14, 17, referring apparently to their becoming visible through the cloud cover; the stars, sun, and moon presumably having been created already in v. 3), i.e. empty space... ...over which, as Job said, 'He stretches out the north' (Job 26:7)...

...In pre-Christian Egypt... ... the LXX [Greek translation of the O.T.] ...rendered raqyia by stereoma, suggesting some firm, solid structure. This Greek concept was then reflected by the Latin firmamentum, hence KJV 'firmament.'

[Note that at the time of the LXX translation there was in Greek mythology the concept of a stone vault of heaven which contain the stars embedded in them]

...Babylonian mythology recounts how Marduk used half of Tiamat's carcass to form the heavens... ...held in place by a crossbar (!). In the OT, however, Isaiah insists that God 'stretches out the heavens [lit.] like gauze (doq, Isa 40:22); and even Ezekial's limited canopy (raqyia) is 'as the [lit] eye of awesome ice' (Ezk 1:22), i.e. transparent, 'shining like crystal' (RSV), though so dazzling as to be terrifying (KD; cf. Dan 12:3 'brightness').

1) [Compare Job 37:18 NIV]:

"Can you [Job] join Him [God] in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?"

Note that when God created the Heavens it is described as spreading out the skies - hard as a mirror of cast bronze.

TWOT comments on this verse, (op. cit., vol II, p. 862): "the rendering of Job 37:18, 'The skies, strong (hazaqim) as a molten mirror' (cf. Ps 150:1, their 'mighty expanse')..."

2) [Isa 44:24]:

" 'This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, Who formed you in the womb; I am the LORD, Who has made all things, Who alone stretched out the heavens, Who spread out the earth by Myself,"

Notice that God stretched out the heavens.

Note that without a canopy of water surrounding the earth, a worldwide flood could not have occurred, for the earth would only have been able to provide 1 inch of water:

3) [Compare Ps 148:4-6]:

(v. 4) "Praise Him, highest heavens,

And the waters that are above the heavens!

(v. 5) Let them praise the name of the LORD,

For He commanded and they were created.

(v. 6) He has also established them forever and ever;

He has made a decree which will not pass away."

C) THE FIRMAMENT DESCRIBED AS METALLIC CRYSTALLINE HYDROGEN - A WATER VAPOR CANOPY IS RULED OUT

[Dr. Baugh, op. cit., pp. 46-51]:

The Hebrew word for firmament is 'raqiya', which means to press, or pound together into thin metal sheets. This is the explanation of how the canopy, or arch of heaven, was formed and stretched out around the world in thin metal sheets....

..one of the elements in water (hydrogen) binds together in a crystalline lattice. Under such pressurized transformation, the hydrogen in water takes on the characteristics as described in the Biblical account of creation...

..It is obvious from the Biblical context that this firmament included two composite layers of water, adjacent on each side with a firmament in the middle. Some Biblical exegetes suggested that perhaps this firmament referred to the expanse [of land] and [that] the water on the surface of the earth was in one composite form. They also maintain that we had a bubble of water approximately eleven miles above the earth as a second layer. However, the clear scriptural mandate is that this entire firmament was encased by layers of water on both sides as a composite part of the firmament. Later, the scripture describes the seas and oceans on the surface of the earth.

[So God's Word describes the firmament as a flattened, extended, stretched surface which has water above it and below it. And this firmament is to be called the heavens. Dr. Baugh describes this canopy as one which is eleven miles above the earth and is a composite - a sandwich - of solid crystalline water + metallic hydrogen + solid crystalline water. This composite provides the earth with tremendous benefits]:

We can, therefore envision a model of the firmament approximately eleven miles above the surface of the earth. We believe the firmament was approximately eleven miles above the surface, because there exists a heat sink at that elevation. It is between -130 degrees Fahrenheit and -180 degrees Fahrenheit at that elevation. Nearer to the earth it is warmer, and further from the earth it is warmer for at least some space. If we were to amass the amounts of water present on Earth, and assimilate the greater amount of water within the earth, this would leave the approximate remainder of a ten-to-twenty-feet thick lineal dimension double encasement of water in solid crystalline form as the firmament....

Here we have a firmament, not just water in cloud or vaporous form, but in solid form.

[Dr. Baugh, op. cit., p. 61:

"Just a canopy (of) water vapor would not satisfy a complete and needed explanation. Water vapor collapses into vortices, eddies, and spiral circles of energy; but, with a world energized by a firmament of compressed hydrogen held in place by a layer of crystalline water which would keep the temperature at a consistent level, the necessary requirements would be the result.]

[Dr. Baugh, op. cit., pp. 46-51, cont.]:

The Hebrew context shows that the water and the firmament are in a very special form. It was apparently in crystalline form - pure, transparent, relatively thin ice. It was probably no more than twenty feet thick at best. The Hebrew word used to describe this firmament is really quite astounding. In fact, if we do not follow the Hebrew literally, our model does not work at all. The biblical record has to be literal, or it really isn't verifiable. This firmament had to be of literal composite, just as the scripture stated.

The word used in the Hebrew to describe the firmament is "raqiya" ...[which] means to compress or pound out, and stretch out this arch of heaven in thin metal sheets....

On day number one, God concluded the creation of the day by saying: 'It was good.' On days three through six, He also concluded the days' creations by saying: 'It was good.' However, on day number two, God did not say that it was good.....

[This is because on] day number one, He had already pronounced it as good....

He did not create new elements on day number two; He simply used the elements He created on day number one - the elements of hydrogen and oxygen.

Many very fine scientific creation researchers have envisioned for decades that there was a greenhouse effect before the Flood, and in all probability, there was. They envisioned that there was water vapor, perhaps in cloud form, above the earth. However, if we simply use the vaporous form of water, the scriptural mandate in Genesis 1:14-18 cannot be fulfilled, because it says the stars were 'set' or enhanced - added in full dimension to this firmament. If the firmament cover had simply been water vapor, the stars would only have been seen in approximately eighty percent of the detail that we see today. [because of what would be a much greater amount of cloud cover before the flood] Yet the Biblical record says that they [the stars] were enhanced.

The original Hebrew word used is the word "nathan". The literal translation means that they were added and yielded in full dimension within this firmament. The only way this could have worked is for the word "raqiya" to have a literal meaning.

["raqiya" = compressed or pounded out, and stretched out in thin metal sheets]

Researcher Dan Cook spoke to one of the physicists involved in the hydrogen bomb project at Laurence Livermore National Laboratories. That physicist related to him that the scientists there, some years back, took the elements of water and compressed them under supercold, cryogenic circumstances. Hydrogen became near-metallic in form, and took on the characteristics of metal. It became crystalline, transparent, fiber optic, superconductive, and ferromagnetic. All of these characteristics have tremendous implications.

The hydrogen in the water was compressed and energized, and the pressure held in stasis form because of the crystalline ice on each side; for the Biblical record states that God made the firmament in the middle, with water above and water beneath. Under such supercold circumstances where great pressure exists, in addition to tremendous energy, hydrogen takes on metallic characteristics. Envision the earth before the Flood, with a firmament consisting of compressed energized hydrogen taking on near-metallic characteristics, in the middle of a solid water formation suspended about eleven miles above the earth. This configuration would have done some wonderful things.

On day number four, when the sun was created, the energy of the sun upon this hydrogen would have caused a gentle pink glow. At high noon there would have been a light pink coloration in the sky; at sunrise and sunset there would have been a vivid pink coloration; and at midnight there would have been a magenta pink sky. In other words, the sky before the Flood was never totally dark.

[Gen 1:6-8 cont.]:

(v. 6) "And God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

(v. 7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

(v. 8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second [literal 24 hour] day."

Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 59:

"The concept of an antediluvian water canopy over the earth has appeared in many writings, both ancient and modern. A number of writers have visualized it as a system of rings like those of the planet Saturn, composed possibly of ice particles orbiting the earth. Others have described it as an orbiting 'shell' of ice or liquid water. Some have thought of it merely as dense banks of clouds surrounding the earth, possibly analogous to the cloud cover around the planet Venus..."

XVI) GOD THEN GATHERS THE TERRESTRIAL WATERS TO ONE PLACE CREATING A SINGLE MASSIVE TERRESTRIAL LAND MASS

[Gen 1:9-10]:

(v. 9) And God ["Elohim"] said, 'Let the water under the sky [i.e., on the surface of the earth] be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.' And it was so. (v. 10) God ["Elohim"] called the dry ground 'land,' and the gathered waters He called 'seas.' And God saw that it was good.

[ pp. 214-217]:

"...Especially on the third day was a tremendous amount of geological work accomplished. On that day, the Genesis account tells us that dry land was made to appear above the surface of the waters... ...This process would necessarily have been accompanied by great erosion and redeposition of surface materials as the waters flowed down into the new basins."

[Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 61]:

"The 'waters under the firmament' [i.e., on the surface of the earth] still constituted a shoreless ocean, in which probably all other material elements were randomly dissolved or suspended...

...Tremendous chemical reactions [then] got under way, as dissolved elements precipitated and combined with others to form the vast complex of minerals and rocks making up the solid earth - its crust, its mantle, and its core. The materials so formed tended in general.... with many localized exceptions...to arrange themselves isostatically [equal pressure from every side] with heavier materials sinking and lighter materials 'floating,' and with many substances still in suspension or solution.

Great earth movements also got under way, in response to differential heating and other forces. Finally, surfaces of solid earth appeared above the waters and an intricate network of channels and reservoirs opened up in the crust to receive the waters retreating off the rising continents.

Some of these reservoirs were open directly to the waters descending from above, others were formed as great subterranean chambers within the crust itself. All were interconnected by a complex network of tubes and waterways, so that in essence they were all 'gathered together unto one place.'

Although in one 'place', the waters had assembled in numerous distinct basins, [some underground, some adjacent to the ground] so that God called this 'gathering-together of the waters Seas' (i.e., a plural term)...

A) [Compare Ps 33:7 NAS]:

"He [God] gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; [or "as in a water skin"]

He lays up the deeps in storehouses."

"He lays up the deep in storehouses" = He, God, gathers up the waters, the seas, into underground storehouses - in subterranean caverns]

These were, of course, not the same as our present seas, since the antediluvian arrangement of continental and marine areas was completely changed at the time of the Flood.

Finally, these 'foundation(s) of the earth'

(Psalm 102:25; Job 38:4; Zechariah 12:1; Isaiah 48:13; etc.) had been perfectly laid, and 'God called the dry land Earth.' This name (Hebrew "eretz") is the same as used in Genesis 1:1 and 2, showing that the formless matter originally created is the same matter as used in the finally constituted solid ground. All of this was accomplished during the first part of the third day of creation]

Skipping forward to chapter two, we have further information about the earth at this stage of creation, just before God created vegetation:

B) [Gen 2:5-6]:

(v. 5 NIV) and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God [= "Jehovah Elohim"] had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, [i.e., there was no rain nor anyone to provide cultivation and irrigation, so something had to be done to provide water for the soon to be created plant life]:

(v. 6 NAS) But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground."

So God provided through His creative process a mist which would water His soon to be created plant life.

[Henry Morris states, op. cit. p.84-85]:

"As an introduction to the creation of man, the account [in verses 2:5-6] first describes the condition of the world immediately prior to man's creation... ...a perfectly plausible translation [of these verses] would be...as follows: 'In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens there was as yet no field plant in the earth and no field shrub growing, since the LORD God had not yet established rainfall on the earth and since there was as yet no man to cultivate the ground. But there were water vapors arising from the earth, which kept watering the whole face of the ground.'

The original hydrologic cycle was thus drastically different from that of the present day. The present cycle, which began at the time of the great Flood, involves global and continental air mass movements, and annual and seasonal temperature changes. It is summarized quite scientifically in such Scripture passages as Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, Isaiah 55:10-11; Job 28:24-26; Job 36:26-29: Psalm 135:6-7, and others. This present cycle centers around the solar evaporation of ocean waters, transportation to the continents in the atmospheric circulation, condensation and precipitation in the form of rain and snow, and transportation back to the oceans via rivers. In the original world, however, there was no rainfall on the earth. As originally created, the earth's daily water supply came primarily from local evaporation and condensation. There was also... ...a system of spring-fed rivers. [Ref. Gen 2:10-14]

The change in temperature between daytime and nighttime apparently was adequate to energize daily evaporation from each local body of water and its condensation as dew and fog in the surrounding area each night. This arrangement was implemented on the second and third days of the creation week, prior to the formation of the plants on the latter part of the third day.

The inhibition of true rainfall was probably, as discussed in the previous chapter, accomplished by the great... ...canopy, 'the waters above the firmament.' Maintaining an approximately uniform temperature worldwide, no great air mass movements were possible under the canopy, and the necessary conditions for rainfall unsatisfied.

A few commentators have suggested that the 'mist' was actually a river. However the word means 'mist,' or 'fog,' and is always so used."

XVII) GOD CREATES VEGETATION ON THE EARTH

So now that the earth is prepared to grow vegetation, it is ready for the next state of God's creative process, plant life:

[Gen 1:11-13]:

(v. 11) "Then God [= "Elohim"] said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation [lit., "grass"], plants [lit., "herbs"] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, [*lit., "in which is its seed"], on the earth'' and it was so.

(v. 12) And the earth brought forth vegetation, [lit., "grass"] plants [lit., "herbs"] yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them,[*] after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

(v. 13) And there was evening, and there was morning - a third day.'

A) THE TIME SPAN FOR THE CREATION OF VEGETATION ON THE EARTH WAS A LITERAL 24 HOUR DAY IN WHICH FULLY MATURE PLANT LIFE APPEARED

[Morris, op. cit., pp. 214-217]:

"On the same day, the record says, God made vegetation of all kinds to appear, implying that there was now a uniform mantle of fertile soil over the surface..."

The Hebrew word translated as "herbs" in this verse comes from the Hebrew masculine noun " eseb":

[TWOT, vol. 2, op. cit., p. 700]:

"(eseb) grass, herb...

...The [Hebrew] masculine noun " eseb" [which] is one of four major synonyms for 'vegetation, verdure, herb, or grass.' The English 'herb,' found in the KJV, is used in the broader and older sense of non-woody tissue vegetation, rather than in the more restricted nuance of seasoning or medicinal plants. 'eseb and its synonyms correspond more closely to the American English use of the word 'plant' than to 'herb.'...

...In the creation account this word has its most important role. On the third creative day God called for the earth to 'sprout forth vegetation [deshe'] plants, ['eseb] yielding seed, and fruit trees [esper] bearing fruit with its seed within, each according to its kind, on the earth; and God saw that it was good' (Gen 1:11: cf. v. 12 for fulfillment). In this context, deshe', 'vegetation' appears to be the broader category, subsuming both ' eseb and ' es, 'plants and trees.' "

"Let the earth sprout" = "sprout" = "dasha" = bring forth, sprout up, spring up

Objectors to a literal 6 day creation maintain that "bring forth" = "dasha" indicates that a long time span was needed for plant life to sprout up - not just one 24 hour day. However a very similar verb form in meaning is used to indicate God's creation of animals on the 6th day:

1) [Gen 1:24]:

"Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures ..."

"bring forth" = "yatsa"

The context in both cases is one of a literal 24 hour day in which what was indicated as brought forth was completed in that specific 24 hour time span. So verses 11 & 24 cannot be referring to plant life growing out of seeds from the ground or animal life being born and then growing up. Instead, both verses teach of the sudden creation of both plants and animals in mature form and in abundance.

Consider for a moment that the objectors are correct - that plant life took millions of years to evolve and then animal life would then take another set of eons to arrive in creation. How then would the plant life have survived without the insects which pollinate the plants, and which provide vital nutrients in the soil, etc. etc? God would have had to have supernaturally provided for the plant life's survival? So why not just have God do what He says He did: supernaturally create ALL plant life in maturity in one literal 24 hour day, and then the animal life in maturity several days later so that the interdependencies which He built in could operate for mutual survival. Furthermore, the objectors presuppose a post Flood 'slower-growing-world' existed at the time of creation and not the immeasurably faster-growth-world of creation times. They also limit God from being able to 'sprout up' plants in one day.

Similarly, if the evolutionists are right, (and they are not), then how did animal life evolve first, rather than plant life, and then survive for millions of years if innumerable animal species were directly or indirectly dependent upon plant life for a food supply which supposedly would not be existing until millions of years later?

[Dr.. Carl Baugh states, op. cit., p.46-51]:

"On day number three God would create the other elements in perfect balance. He created the botanical life forms, full-bloomed, with the seeds within the life form...".

Promoters of the interpretation that God re-created the earth and life thereon after it fell into chaos and extinction after many ages maintain that plant life was recreated from dormant seeds. But verse 11 of Genesis 1 cannot be limited to exclude the possibility of original creation rather than a re-creation of what was already there. The context and syntax of the passage do not permit this exclusion and other passages do exclude a re-creation or a regrowth from already existing dormant seeds, especially the passages which state that man was there at the beginning of creation, not re-creation:

2) [Compare Mk 10:6]:

" [Jesus replied] 'But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.'"

[Henry Morris states, op. cit., 62-64]:

"Not only had rocks and minerals been formed, but so had a blanket of fertile soil - sand, silt, and clay-sized particles in an ideally graded mixture, with abundant chemical nutrients and soil moisture.

Then God spoke again, this time organizing certain of the chemical elements of the earth into tremendously complex systems, each with a marvelous informational program built into its chemical structure which could henceforth specify the reproduction of other units like itself. There is no suggestion that these systems...possessed any form of consciousness; but each did have its 'seed in itself' and so had the ability of reproducing its kind.

Three main orders of plant 'life' are mentioned: grasses, herbs, and trees.... ...The three are intended to cover all types of plants and these are the most obvious comprehensive categories...

...It is significant that these plants were made, not as seeds, but as full-grown plants whose seed was in themselves. They thus had an 'appearance of age.' The concept of creation of apparent age does not, of course, suggest a divine deception, but is a necessary accompaniment of genuine creation. The processes operating in Creation Week were not the processes of the present era, but were processes of 'creating and making,' and are thus not commensurate with present processes at all..

[Furthermore, God did not say 'Let the land produce seeds which will grow into plants', instead He said 'Let the land sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees [already] bearing fruit, with seed in them...']

Adam was created as a full-grown man, the trees were created as full-grown trees, and the whole universe was made as a functioning entity, complete and fully developed, right from the beginning [even with light arriving from distant stars, vv. 14-16]. The 'apparent age' that might be calculated in terms of present processes [is irrelevant and] would undoubtedly be vastly different from the 'true age' as revealed by the Creator.

In verse 11 occurs the first mention of both 'seed' and 'kind.' Implanted in each created organism was a 'seed,' programmed to enable the continuing replication of that type of organism. The modern understanding of the extreme complexities of the so-called DNA molecule and the genetic code contained in it has reinforced the Biblical teaching of the stability of kinds. [As opposed to the evolution of one kind into another] Each type of organism has its own unique structure of the DNA and can only specify the reproduction of that same kind. There is a tremendous amount of variational potential within each kind, facilitating the generation of distinct individuals and even of many varieties within the kind, but nevertheless precluding the evolution of new kinds! A great deal of 'horizontal' [within species] variation is easily possible, but no 'vertical' [species to species] changes.

It is significant that the phrase 'after his kind' occurs ten times in the first chapter of Genesis....Each organism was to reproduce after its own kind, not after some other kind... ...the evolutionary dogma that all living things are interrelated by common ancestry and descent is refuted by these Biblical statements, as well as by all established scientific observations made to date."

3) Compare 1 Cor 15:38-39 which indicates that there are different kinds of living beings which are not related to one another - especially via some evolutionary process:

[1 Cor 15:38-39]:

(v. 38) "But God gives it [a seed which is sown] a body as He has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. [i.e., after its own kind]

(v. 39) All flesh is not the same. Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another."

[Henry Morris, cont. op. cit., p.64]:

"It should also be mentioned that the formation of plants, even in such complex forms as fruit trees, occurred before the creation of any form of animal life. This, of course, is quite logical, but it does flatly contradict the accepted evolutionary system, which has marine animals, both invertebrates and vertebrates, evolving hundreds of millions of years before the evolution of fruit trees and other higher plants. Furthermore, many plants require pollination by insects, but insects were not made until the sixth day of creation, which fact argues against the possibility that the days of creation could have been long ages. The idea of theistic evolution is counter to the Biblical record of creation in practically every passage."

B) THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN GENESIS CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO - CHAPTER ONE IS THE OVERVIEW TO WHICH CHAPTER TWO PROVIDES MORE DETAIL

1) INTRODUCTION: OBJECTORS CLAIM CONFLICTING SEQUENCES OF CREATION, CONTRADICTORY CONCEPTS OF GOD AND DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES IN WRITING STYLE, I.E., DIFFERENT AUTHORS BETWEEN CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO

2) [GEN 2:1-6] & [GEN 1:11]

[Gen 1:11-13 NAS cont.]:

(v. 11) "Then God [= "Elohim"] said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation [lit., "grass"], plants [lit., "herbs"] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, [*lit., "in which is its seed"], on the earth'' and it was so.

(v. 12) And the earth brought forth vegetation, [lit., "grass"] plants ["herbs"] yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them,[*] after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

(v. 13) And there was evening, and there was morning - a third day."

Day three of creation is the day when God created vegetation on the earth. Compare with Gen 2:1-6 which caps off the overview account of creation in chapter 1 and then 'pans in' on the earth: first at the moment just before God creates the earth's vegetation. So the first 4 verses of chapter 2 which cap off chapter 1 are as follows:

[Gen 2:1-6]:

(v. 1 NAS) "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.[stars]

(v. 2 NAS) And by the seventh day God [= "Elohim"] completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

(v. 3 NAS) Then God [= "Elohim"] blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God [= "Elohim"] had created and made.

(v. 4 NAS) "This is the account ["toledoths" = literally "generations"] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God [= "Jehovah Elohim"] made earth and heaven."

Then verse 5 of chapter 2 pans in on the earth just after God had the dry land appear, (Gen 1:10), and just before He created plant life, (Gen 1:11):

(v. 5 NIV) and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God [= "Jehovah Elohim"] had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, [i.e., there was no rain nor anyone to provide cultivation and irrigation, so something had to be done to provide water for the soon to be created plant life]:

(v. 6 NAS) But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground."

Then what follows sequentially is Genesis chapter 1 verse 11:

[Gen 1:11]:

(v. 11) "Then God [= "Elohim"] said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation [lit., "grass"], plants [lit., "herbs"] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, [*lit., "in which is its seed"], on the earth'' and it was so.".

Objectors to the absolute authority of the Bible attempt to establish here that there are two conflicting accounts of creation in Scripture in Genesis chapters 1 & 2. They falsely maintain that there is no intended transition and continuation between chapters 1 and 2, (ignoring the conjunction "and" in 2:5); and they further maintain that chapters 1 and 2 offer different sequences of creation, contradictory concepts of God, ("Elohim" vs "Jehovah Elohim"), Dramatic differences in writing styles suggesting two different authors and finally, that the Bible cannot therefore be taken as reliably true throughout. Critics begin their criticism with the 'grand' assumption that the writer of Genesis did not intend to make sense with what he wrote, but rather, he permitted irreconcilable contradictions to be openly and refutably stated in chapters 1 and 2 without any defense for these contradictions whatsoever. If these critics hold to any concept of divine inspiration whatsoever their viewpoint of the intelligence of God is an insult.

[Josh McDowell states, ('Answers to tough Questions', Here's Life Publishers, San Bernadino, Ca, 1980, pp. 170-171)]:

"...Chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of Genesis are alleged by many commentators to be two contradictory accounts of creation... [Objectors to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture state that]...According to the first account [chapter 1] ...man and woman were created together as the crown and climax of creation, after the birds and animals, whereas [they falsely state that] according to the second account [chapter 2, which is actually NOT another, second independent account of overall creation. (Where are the sun and the stars?)] the creation of man is [alleged to have] preceded the creation of the animals and birds while the creation of woman followed their creation....[Critics further claim that] ...The style of chapter 1 is stereotyped, measured, and precise; that of [chapter 2] is diversified and picturesque; there are no recurring formulae, such as are so marked in chapter 1; the expressions characteristic of chapter 1 are absent here (e.g., to create); and where common ground is touched (as in the account of the formation of man), the narrative is told very differently......and without even any allusion to the representation of chapter 1 (e.g., to the 'image of God.').

[Notice that the critics assume before investigation that both narratives are of the same perspective, and of the same events, but a careful examination shows that the narratives have a different perspective from one another and each relates a number of events which the other does not and each narrative begins at a different point in the account of God's creative process:

Chapter 1 begins at the beginning, chapter 2 (v. 5), begins with the stage just before plant life appeared on the already created earth. Chapter 2 goes into minutiae detail such as the names and locations of four river tributaries, (2:10-14); a specific garden which God planted and then placed into it the man he had formed (2:8-9, 15-17); the fact that Adam needed a mate, (2:18), the naming of specific animals by Adam, etc.]

[The critics go on to say that] Chapter 1 displays... ...clear marks of study and deliberate systematization: [chapter 2] is fresh, spontaneous, and, at least in a relative sense, primitive... The present narrative [of chapter 2] differs secondly from chapter 1 in representation. Both the details and the order of the events of creation differ from the statements of chapter 1.

The earth [the critics maintain], instead of emerging from the waters (as in 1:9) is represented as being at first dry (2:5), too dry in fact to support vegetation; the first step in the process of filling it with living forms is the creation of man (2:7), then follows that of beasts and birds (v.19), and lastly that of woman (v. 21ff); obviously a different order from that of chapter 1....

...[So]...the two accounts contain [supposed conflicting] differences. The critics [falsely] assume that... [these imaginary] ...differences came as a result of a mechanical amalgamation by a later editor of two passages from two different documents."

a) BUT GEN 2:4 REFERS BACK TO CHAPTER ONE NOT FORWARD; AND 2:5 ZOOMS IN TO A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF PARTICULAR ASPECTS OF WHAT CHAPTER ONE DESCRIBED

Notice that verse 4 of Genesis chapter 2 states that the preceding verses in Genesis chapter 1 are an account of the creation of the heavens and the earth. Then from verse 5 of chapter 2 on the Bible adds detail and perspective to this account:

First of all, it describes the earth just after the stage of creation described in Genesis 1:9-10.

So first we have the land appearing on the earth:

b) [Gen 1:9-10]:

(v. 9) "Then God said, '"Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear'; and it was so.

(v. 10) And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good."

Then at this point of the third day of creation, before vegetation was created we can learn more from Genesis 2:5 which points to further detail:

[Gen 2:5-6 cont.]:

(v. 5 NIV) and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God [= "Jehovah Elohim"] had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, [i.e., there was no rain nor water above the ground nor anyone to provide cultivation and irrigation, so something had to be done to provide water for the soon to be created plant life]:

(v. 6 NAS) But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground."

So God provided through His creative process a mist which would water His soon to be created plant life.

Then, going back to chapter 1: verse 11 pronounces God's next step in the third day of His creation processes:

[Gen 1:11]:

"Then God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth'; and it was so."

Notice that verse 5 of Genesis chapter 2 begins with an all important conjunction - which is picked up in the NIV and KJV translations, but missed in the NAS: "and"= "waw". The word "and" = "waw" connects the previous chapter 1, (an overview of God's creation of the world), with what follows in chapter 2, (a continuation of the creation account with more information - not an alternative view of creation, otherwise why the connecting word "and" if they were two separate accounts).

3) THE WORD "GENERATIONS" = "TOLEDOTHS" IS THE PIVOTAL WORD UPON WHICH CHAPTER 2 THEN TURNS TO DETAILS OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN CHAPTER ONE

A pivotal passage upon which this controversy can turn either way is Genesis 2:4-5:

a) [Gen 2:4-5]:

(v. 4 NAS) "This is the account ["toledoths" = literally "generations"] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day [i.e., 'the time' = a specific time slot of 6 days per previous context - not here a literal 24 hour a day, cp. Isa chapter 2] that the LORD God [= "Jehovah Elohim"] made earth and heaven."

["in the day" = The context of this passage renders the meaning of this phrase NOT to a specific 24 hour period but to that period of time of Creation which consists of six 24 hour days]

(v. 5 NIV) and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God [= "Jehovah Elohim"] had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.."

A more literal translation of Genesis 2:4 which the critics prefer to misuse is as follows:

(v. 4 KJV) "These are the generations [= "toledoths"] of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

Critics major on the word "generations" = "toledoth" in Gen 2:4, maintaining that this refers to generations of humanity and thus it begins a second and conflicting account of creation in chapter 2 rather than referring back to chapter one's account of creation.

"Generations" =

[TWOT, vol 1, op. cit., p. 380, states]:

"toledoths. Generations, birth... ...derivative of yalad 'to bring forth'... ...[toledoths] occurs only in the plural...

...As used in the OT, toledoths refers to what is produced or brought into being by someone, or follows therefrom. In no case in Gen does the word include the birth of the individual whose toledoths it introduces (except in Gen 25:19, where the story of Isaac's life is introduced by reference to the fact that he was the son of Abraham). After the conclusion of the account in which Jacob was the principal actor, Gen 37:2 says, 'These are the toledoths of Jacob' and proceeds to tell about his children and the events with which they were connected."

So, in Gen 2:4, "toledoths" refers back to what was 'produced or brought into being' by God - namely the heavens and the earth in the 6 days of creation, (Gen 1:1-2:1).

[Henry Morris, op. cit. p. 80]:

"[The] first chapter should have been marked... ...in the middle of verse 4 of Genesis 2. It is there that the first 'toledoth' [= "generations"] ...appears...

["These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created."...]

...This statement [Gen 2:4] represents the subscript, or signature as it were, of the author of the section that has gone before...[there being NO human generations mentioned until chapter 4 which is far out of the context of this passage] ...since there was no human author, no man having been present to observe the creation, no human name is attached as in the case of the other ten "toledoths" that occur later in Genesis. [Only the 'Lord God's' name is 'attached'] The account tells about, not the genealogical and historical records of some patriarch, but about the "genealogy" of the universe itself [of which God is Progenitor]"

The phrase "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth..." also includes the word "heavens" and therefore cannot be limited to the generations of mankind on earth. Keep in mind that non living things can be correctly described using the word "generations" = "toledoths" as well as living things. For example, 'a fourth generation Ford Thunderbird'. In addition to this, the word "generations" = "toledoths" cannot here refer to man since no generations of man appear in Genesis until well into chapter 4 and far from the specific context of chapters 1 & 2 to which this word refers. When the word "generations" = "toledoths" does refer to generations of mankind, there are names of specific men linked to it, not so in Genesis chapter 2, however. Therefore this word must apply to generations of something else. So verse 4 cannot be limited to generations, i.e., offspring of mankind as critics maintain. Therefore the word "generations" in 2:4 refers back to the subject of chapter 1 which is the steps, i.e., generations, of God's creative processes of the heavens and the earth - each step evolving into the next step culminating in the creation of man. Similarly, verse 4 is a summary statement of this process leading into verse 5 which begins with the word "and" followed by a more detailed look at specific parts of God's creative process, focusing especially on man for whom the earth was created, (Gen 1:26, 28). Note that the details provided in chapter 2 are not necessarily in chronological order corresponding to the order of creation as presented in chapter one. We know this because there are no phrases which specifically fix the events in chapter two in a rigid day #1 through day #6 type sequential order beginning at the beginning (and not somewhere in the middle like verse 2:5 does).

@@@moses.htm

4) DIFFERENCES IN STYLE DO NOT SIGNIFY DIFFERENT AUTHORS BUT A CHANGE IN FOCUS AND CONTEXT.

OTHER DIFFERENCES ARE IMAGINARY.

Relative to the differences in style, the truth of the matter is that it is characteristic of the Hebrew literary style to make a general introductory statement as in Genesis chapter one and then to follow it with a more detailed account which is more narrowly focused, such as in Genesis chapter two. Note that American daily newspapers utilize this technique all the time without having to change writers. Often the language and grammatical style changes after the initial overview - including different terms, usually more specific and germane in order to accommodate the change in focus from panoramic to close up and detailed. The narrower and closer focus often demands a change in verb tenses and the point of view the account is being made in, (for example, from a narrative third person simple past tense panoramic observation of God's activities at a distance as in Genesis 1 to a detailed narrative description in the third person of the creation itself - often in a pluperfect past tense, emphasizing something already completed in the past and then being observed in the past - as in Genesis 2).

So the critics' claim is actually true that the style of chapter 1 is "stereotyped, measured, and precise" with "recurring formulae" such as the repetitive use of the verb 'to create'. This is because the subject matter and perspective of chapter 1 IS more stereotyped, measured and precise with recurring formulae such as the repetitive use of the verb 'to create'. And since chapter 2's subject matter and focus is more diversified and picturesque, a more "diversified, picturesque" style "without recurring formulae" would be the most appropriate style for Moses to use. Another writer would not be necessary to bring in at chapter 2 because of the different style. God just simply inspired Moses to utilize the appropriate style to correspond to changes in the context. Most accomplished writers do this today when the context dictates it. Refer to a local newspaper. On the other hand, many of the other claims of the critics, (chapter 2 is more "fresh, spontaneous, and..primitive.." as compared to chapter 1, etc.) are imaginary. Only in one's imagination could a claim be substantiated that chapter 1 is not spontaneous or fresh or primitive. What could be more spontaneous, primitive and fresh than chapter one of Genesis 1 which begins,

"In The beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light..." etc.? So the critics' claims that style differences suggest different and conflicting accounts by two different authors are not true. The veracity of God's Word once again stands out as reliable.

[Author Josh McDowell writes, ("Evidence that Demands A Verdict,' vol. II, Here's Life Publishers, San Bernardino, Ca, 1981, pp.138-139)]:

"The style differences have no weight as an argument and simply reflect changes in subject matter...

[critics of the Bible claim an]...anthropomorphic God [i.e., described as exemplifying human behaviorisms in] ...Genesis 2... [Who]... 'fashions,' 'breathes,' 'plants,' 'takes,' 'sets,' 'brings,' 'closes up,' 'builds,' 'walks.' But the critics have quite a superficial argument. Man in his finite mind cannot express ideas about God in anything but anthropomorphisms. Chapter 1 of Genesis [also] expresses God in such equally anthropomorphic terms as, 'called,' 'saw,' 'blessed,' 'deliberated' (verse 26 'let us make'), God 'worked' for six days then He 'rested.' "

As to the matter of chapter 2's lack of "any allusion to the representation of chapter 1 (e.g., to the 'image of God')," the critics assume beforehand that chapters 1 and 2 are two separate accounts of the overall creation process which someone attempted to 'hook' together. They ignore the simplest and most obvious interpretation that chapter 2 is just a continuation of chapter 1 by the same author, providing more detail in a narrower and more focused area of what chapter 1 has already presented. If this is the case, (and it is), then chapter 2, being a continuation of what was already stated in chapter 1, does not need to repeat what was just stated in chapter 1 relative to such things like man being created in the 'image of God'.

5) NAMES FOR GOD DIFFERING BETWEEN CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO INDICATE A CONTEXT CHANGE NOT A CHANGE IN AUTHORS

[Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 83)]:

"In this section, [chapter 2] the most distinctive vocabulary difference is the use of the divine name LORD God ("Jehovah Elohim") instead of God ("Elohim") [chapter 1]. In Genesis 4, however, LORD ("Jehovah") is used almost exclusively (the name God occurs in 4:25). The different names for God were used in order to portray the absolute sovereignty of God in creating the heavens and the earth, (chapter 1: "Elohim"), the ongoing detail that a personal Jehovah yet almighty God was involved with in His creation, (chapter 2: "Jehovah Elohim"), and the personal involvement that Jehovah maintained in an ongoing manner with His creation, especially man, (chapter 4 on: "Jehovah").

So God is referred to in Genesis 2:5 as the "LORD God" = "Jehovah Elohim" for the first time - the most sacred and personal name for God [= "Jehovah"] combined with the term "Elohim" which emphasizes God's almighty and sovereign power. Author Moses changes the focus on creation beginning in Genesis chapter 2, from chapter 1's panoramic and distant view to a close up one in chapter 2, where details of what God has NOW created are closely observed. Moses emphasizes at this time that a sacred, holy and personal God "Jehovah Elohim" has been involved in every minute detail of His creation which He reiterated as "good" and "very good", (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). It is common literary practice to utilize terms and names which reflect a certain desired point of view, relationship, etc. For example, a man might address a woman by her formal name at first and then, after a while, begin to call her by a nickname indicating that a friendship has been established. This may then evolve into a close, intimate husband and wife relationship wherein endearments are used to address one another. When Moses was inspired by God to write the Hebrew word "Elohim" throughout chapter one, this established that there is one sovereign, almighty God, Who, all by Himself, created the heavens and the earth. Then, when the focus was to narrow to more detail, especially on man himself, God inspired Moses to use the term "Jehovah Elohim" which indicates an almighty AND sovereign God Who is involved in every detail of His universe. Later on, when the account begins to settle in on man himself, (chapter 4), Moses was inspired by God to use the term "Jehovah" alone in order to emphasize God's holiness yet His personal involvement with mankind.

6) IMAGINARY CONTRADICTIONS DISSOLVE BEFORE A CLOSE ANALYSIS OF THE TEXT AND CONTEXT

Likewise other differences which critics claim as problematical are merely additional pieces of information provided, not necessarily in chronological order to enhance what had already been presented in chapter 1.

a) CRITICS CLAIM CONTRADICTION:

GEN 1: A WATERY BEGINNING

VS

GEN 2: A Dry LAND BEGINNING

For example, the critics' claim that "The earth, instead of emerging from the waters (as in 1:9) is represented as being at first dry (2:5), too dry in fact to support vegetation..." is refuted by not assuming chapter 2 is a separate creation account and then letting the words say what they normatively mean, arriving at the simplest, most evident interpretation that verses 2:5-6 provide further details of the condition of the earth just before God created vegetation and after God gathered the water to one place to let the dry ground appear, (Gen 1:9-10), rather than to offer a conflicting account which refutes chapter one's statement that the earth had a watery beginning before the land appeared:

i) [Gen 1:9-10]:

(v. 9 ) "Then God said, '"Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear'; and it was so.

(v. 10) And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good."

Then verse 5 of chapter 2 adds some detail and perspective. Notice the word "and" indicating further information on what was presented before, in chapter 1:

ii) [Gen 2:5]:

(v. 5 NIV) and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God [= "Jehovah Elohim"] had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, [i.e., there was no rain nor anyone to provide cultivation and irrigation, so something had to be done to provide water for the soon to be created plant life]:

(v. 6 NAS) But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground."

Then verse 11 of chapter 1 pronounces God's next step in His 6 day creation:

iii) [Gen 1:11]:

"Then God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth'; and it was so."

b) CRITICS CLAIM THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT SEQUENCES OF CREATION BETWEEN CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO IS ANSWERED

[Josh McDowell, op. cit., pp. 138-139]:

[Another claim by objectors to the veracity of Scripture]: "...the first step in the process of filling [the earth] with living forms [according to the critics' interpretation of chapter 2] is the creation of man (2:7), then follows that of beasts and birds (v.19), and lastly that of woman (v. 21ff); obviously a different order from that of chapter 1...." is refuted as follows:

[Josh McDowell states, ('Answers to tough Questions', Here's Life Publishers, San Bernadino, Ca, 1980, pp. 186-187)]:

" 'In Genesis 2:19, there is not explicit warrant in the text for assuming that the creation of animals here happened immediately before their name in (i.e., after man's creation); this is eisegesis, [reading into the text one's own point of view] not exegesis [letting the text provide the meaning] The proper equivalent in English for the first verb in Genesis 2:19 is the pluperfect ('had formed'). Thus, the artificial difficulty over the order of events disappears.'

The second account [i.e., chapter 2] does not teach the creation of man before the animals. The chronological order is not what is being stressed... ...It now speaks of man's condition, demonstrating his need of a helpmate for himself, (v. 20), and that such a helpmate was not found among the animals.

The sequence is not chronological, since there is not any justification to import the idea of time into the second chapter. The initial account of creation had already informed us of the chronological sequence; therefore, verse 19 may correctly be paraphrased, 'And the LORD God having formed out of the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of heaven, brought them unto the man....

[McDowell continues, op. cit., p. 186]:

....no special pluperfect tenses exist in the Ancient Semitic Languages (or in Egyptian), this nuance being covered by perfective forms and equivalents interpreted on context as here in Hebrew."

[In other words, there is no specific verb form in ancient Biblical Hebrew such as the pluperfect tense which indicates that an event was completed in the past before another event in the past. The pluperfect condition is therefore expressed in ancient Biblical Hebrew via the context. Critics take issue with this point but this is standard ancient Hebrew grammatical construction which occurs frequently in the Old Testament. For example, in the following three passages, the context dictated to the translators to use the pluperfect tense, (indicated by underlining):

i) [Ex 17:1; 19:2 N.A.S.]:

(v. 17:1) "Then all the congregation of the sons of Israel journeyed by stages from the wilderness of Sinai, according to the command of the LORD, and camped at Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink."

(v. 19:2) "When they had departed from Rephidim and had come to the wilderness of Sinai, they encamped there before the mountain."

ii) [Joshua 2:22 NAS]:

"And they departed and came to the hill country, and remained there for three days until the pursuers returned. Now the pursuers had sought them all along the road, but had not found them."

iii) [1 Kgs 13:12 NAS]:

"And their father said to them, 'Which way did he go?' Now his sons had seen the way which the man of God who came from Judah had gone.

@@@moses.htm

[Gen 1:14-19]:

(v. 14) "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

(v. 15) and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.'

(v. 16) God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

(v. 17) God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,

(v. 18) to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

(v. 19) And there was evening, and there was morning - the fourth day."

XVIII) GOD CREATES THE LIGHT EMANATING HEAVENLY BODIES

A) ON THE FIRST DAY GOD CREATED LIGHT, THEN ON THE FOURTH DAY HE CREATED LIGHT EMANATING BODIES

"Let there be lights" = "lights" = Notice 'lights' plural literally in the Hebrew: "maor" = "light givers". This is different from Genesis 1:3 which states, "Let there be light" = "light" = "or" singular, i.e., 'Let there exist the whole spectrum of visible and invisible light waves which emanate out throughout God's newly created heavens and earth - but not from any particular created source of light giver(s). So light was created first and then God created light givers.

[Baugh, op. cit. p. 215]:

"The fourth day witnessed the establishment of the sun and moon in their functions with respect to the earth...

...Since the sun now provides all the energy received by the earth for its geological processes, this event also has profound geological implications. Undoubtedly there were innumerable other creative and developmental processes taking place during the six days, as the entire earth was being fitted as a wonderfully harmonious 'dominion' for man to 'subdue' (Genesis 1:28)."

[Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 65-68]:

"On the first day, He had said: "Let there be light!' (Hebrew 'or'), On the fourth day, He said: 'Let there be lights' (or light-givers, Hebrew 'ma-or'). Intrinsic light first, then generators of light later, is both the logical and the Biblical order.

B) THE PURPOSE OF THE LIGHT AND LIGHT GIVERS WAS TO DIVIDE LIGHT FROM DARKNESS

[Morris, cont.]

The chief purpose of both the light of the first three days and the light-givers of all later days was to 'divide the light from the darkness' (verses 4, 18), and this can only mean that the two regimes were essentially identical. The duration of the days and nights was the same in each case, and the directions of light emanation on the earth from space must have been the same in each case.

In other words, light rays were impinging on the earth as it rotated on its axis during the first three days of essentially the same intensities and directions as those which would later emanate from the heavenly bodies to be emplaced on the fourth day.

C) FROM THE FIRST DAY LIGHT ARRIVED WITHOUT COMING FROM THE SUN, MOON AND STARS - WHICH WERE NOT CREATED YET. LATER, THE LIGHT EMANATING BODIES WERE CREATED TO MARK THE SEASONS, DAYS AND YEARS

Light was coming onto the earth during the day but not from the sun and during the night not from the moon and stars, for they had not yet been created. The light came from God.

If such a concept sounds strange, let it be remembered that it is as easy for God to create waves of light energy as to create generators to produce such waves. There was no need for such generators except to serve the additional function (after man's creation) of marking 'signs and seasons, days and years.'

This phenomena will again occur in eternity future:

1) [Compare Isa 60:19-20]:

(v. 19) "No longer will you have the sun for light by day, Nor for brightness will the moon give you light; But you will have the LORD for an everlasting light, And your God for your glory.

(v. 20) Your sun will set no more, Neither will your moon wane; For you will have the LORD for an everlasting light, And the days of your mourning will be finished."

D) THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED 'FULLY GROWN', IT DID NOT EVOLVE

As noted earlier, the universe was created 'full-grown' from the beginning; God did not require millions of years to develop it into its intended usable from. The purpose of the heavenly bodies was 'to give light upon the earth'; so this is what they did, right from the beginning.

Some have objected to this concept on the basis of evolutionary changes supposedly taking place in the stars. The fact is, however, no one has ever observed such changes taking place. As long as men have been observing the stars, they have always looked as they do now (allowing, of course, for the changes in orientation due to the earth's rotation, orbital revolution, and axial wobble).

E) THE EXISTENCE OF NOVAS & SUPERNOVAS AND THEORIES OF STELLAR & GALACTIC EVOLUTION DO NOT REFUTE THE CONCEPT OF THE RECENT CREATION OF A MATURE UNIVERSE

[Morris, cont.]

"The only possible exception of any consequence to this statement might be the novas or supernovas that are occasionally observed in the heavens when stars apparently heat up or explode. Some of these have been observed in galaxies supposedly hundreds of thousands of light-years from the earth; the argument is, therefore, that the stellar event producing the nova or supernova must have taken place the corresponding number of hundreds of thousands of years ago.

This may constitute a minor problem, but there are several possible answers. The tremendous stellar distances commonly cited are obtained only on the basis of a number of very esoteric and questionable assumptions. Geometric methods for measuring such astronomical distances can reach only to about 330 light-years; so any greater distances are uncertain, to say the least. Furthermore, there is no assurance of the uniformity of the speed of light at such tremendous distances. There exist respectable models of relativity and space curvature, for example, which yield light motions such that light would reach the earth even from infinite distances in only a few years.

In any case, our uncertainty as to the exact reconciliation of these distant novas with a recent creation of the universe cannot offset the clear Biblical testimony to such recent creation."

[The Revised & Expanded Answers Book, Don Batten (editor), Master Books, Creation Science Foundation, Green Forest, Ar, 2000, pp. 95-102]:

"Some stars are millions of light-years away. Since a light-year is the distance traveled by light in one year, does this mean that the universe is very old?

Despite all the biblical and scientific evidence for a young earth/universe, this has long been a problem. However, any scientific understanding of origins will always have opportunities for research — problems that need to be solved. We can never have complete knowledge and so there will always be things to learn.

One explanation used in the past was rather complex, involving light traveling along Riemannian surfaces (an abstract mathematical form of space). Apart from being hard to understand, it appears that such an explanation is not valid, since it would mean that we should see duplicates of everything.

CREATED LIGHT?

Perhaps the most commonly used explanation is that God created light ‘on its way’, so that Adam could see the stars immediately without having to wait years for the light from even the closest ones to reach the earth. While we should not limit the power of God, this has some rather immense difficulties.

It would mean that whenever we look at the behavior of a very distant object, what we see happening never happened at all. For instance, say we see an object a million light-years away which appears to be rotating; that is, the light we receive in our telescopes carries this information ‘recording’ this behavior. However, according to this explanation, the light we are now receiving did not come from the star, but was created ‘en route’, so to speak.

This would mean that for a 10,000-year-old universe, that anything we see happening beyond about 10,000 light-years away is actually part of a gigantic picture show of things that have not actually happened, showing us objects which may not even exist.

To explain this problem further, consider an exploding star (supernova) at, say, an accurately measured 100,000 light-years away. Remember we are using this explanation in a 10,000-year-old universe. As the astronomer on earth watches this exploding star, he is not just receiving a beam of light. If that were all, then it would be no problem at all to say that God could have created a whole chain of photons (light particles/waves) already on their way.

However, what the astronomer receives is also a particular, very specific pattern of variation within the light, showing him/her the changes that one would expect to accompany such an explosion — a predictable sequence of events involving neutrinos, visible light, X-rays and gamma-rays. The light carries information recording an apparently real event. The astronomer is perfectly justified in interpreting this ‘message’ as representing an actual reality — that there really was such an object, which exploded according to the laws of physics, brightened, emitted X-rays, dimmed, and so on, all in accord with those same physical laws.

Everything he sees is consistent with this, including the spectral patterns in the light from the star giving us a ‘chemical signature’ of the elements contained in it. Yet the ‘light created en route’ explanation means that this recorded message of events, transmitted through space, had to be contained within the light beam from the moment of its creation, or planted into the light beam at a later date, without ever having originated from that distant point. (If it had started from the star — assuming that there really was such a star — it would still be 90,000 light years away from earth.)

To create such a detailed series of signals in light beams reaching earth, signals which seem to have come from a series of real events but in fact did not, has no conceivable purpose. Worse, it is like saying that God created fossils in rocks to fool us, or even test our faith, and that they don’t represent anything real (a real animal or plant that lived and died in the past). This would be a strange deception.

DID LIGHT ALWAYS TRAVEL AT THE SAME SPEED?

An obvious solution would be a higher speed of light in the past, allowing the light to cover the same distance more quickly. This seemed at first glance a too-convenient ad hoc explanation. Then some years ago, Australian Barry Setterfield raised the possibility to a high profile by showing that there seemed to be a decreasing trend in the historical observations of the speed of light (c) over the past 300 years or so. Setterfield (and his later co-author Trevor Norman) produced much evidence in favor of this theory.1 They believed that it would have affected radiometric dating results, and even have caused the red-shifting of light from distant galaxies, although this idea was later overturned, and other modifications were also made.

Much debate has raged to and fro among equally capable people within creationist circles about whether the statistical evidence really supports c decay (‘cdk’) or not.

The biggest difficulty, however, is with certain physical consequences of the theory. If c has declined the way Setterfield proposed, these consequences should still be discernible in the light from distant galaxies but they are apparently not. In short, none of the theory’s defenders have been able to answer all the questions raised.

A NEW CREATIONIST COSMOLOGY

Nevertheless, the c-decay theory stimulated much thinking about the issues. Creationist physicist Dr Russell Humphreys says that he spent a year on and off trying to get the declining c theory to work, but without success. However, in the process, he was inspired to develop a new creationist cosmology which appears to solve the problem of the apparent conflict with the Bible’s clear, authoritative teaching of a recent creation.

This new cosmology is proposed as a creationist alternative to the ‘big bang’ theory. It passed peer review, by qualifying reviewers, for the 1994 Pittsburgh International Conference on Creationism.2 Young-earth creationists have been cautious about the model,3 which is not surprising with such an apparently radical departure from orthodoxy, but Humphreys has addressed the problems raised.4 Believers in an old universe and the ‘big bang’ have vigorously opposed the new cosmology and claim to have found flaws in it.5 However, Humphreys has been able to defend his model, as well as develop it further.6 The debate will no doubt continue.

This sort of development, in which one creationist theory, c-decay, is overtaken by another, is a healthy aspect of science. The basic biblical framework is non-negotiable, as opposed to the changing views and models of fallible people seeking to understand the data within that framework (evolutionists also often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did).

A CLUE

Let us briefly give a hint as to how the new cosmology seems to solve the starlight problem before explaining some preliminary items in a little more detail. Consider that the time taken for something to travel a given distance is the distance divided by the speed it is traveling. That is:

Time = Distance (divided by) Speed

When this is applied to light from distant stars, the time calculates out to be millions of years. Some have sought to challenge the distances, but this is a very unlikely answer.7

Astronomers use many different methods to measure the distances, and no informed creationist astronomer would claim that any errors would be so vast that billions of light-years could be reduced to thousands, for example. There is good evidence that our own Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light years across!

If the speed of light (c) has not changed, the only thing left untouched in the equation is time itself. In fact, Einstein’s relativity theories have been telling the world for decades that time is not a constant.

Two things are believed (with experimental support) to distort time in relativity theory — one is speed and the other is gravity. Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the best theory of gravity we have at present, indicates thatgravity distorts time.

This effect has been measured experimentally, many times. Clocks at the top of tall buildings, where gravity is slightly less, run faster than those at the bottom, just as predicted by the equations of general relativity (GR).8

When the concentration of matter is very large or dense enough, the gravitational distortion can be so immense that even light cannot escape.9 The equations of GR show that at the invisible boundary surrounding such a concentration of matter (called the event horizon, the point at which light rays trying to escape the enormous pull of gravity and bend back on themselves), time literally stands still.

USING DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS...

Dr Humphreys’ new creationist cosmology literally ‘falls out’ of the equations of GR, so long as one assumes that the universe has a boundary. In other words, that it has a center and an edge — that if you were to travel off into space, you would eventually come to a place beyond which there was no more matter. In this cosmology, the earth is near the center, as it appears to be as we look out into space.

This might sound like common sense, as indeed it is, but all modern secular ("big bang") cosmologies deny this. That is, they make arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundaries — no edge and no center. In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so, therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out.

However, if the universe has boundaries, then there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates to clocks on the earth. In other words, it is no longer enough to say God made the universe in six days. He certainly did, but six days by which clock? (If we say ‘God’s time’ we miss the point that He is outside of time, seeing the end from the beginning.)[10]

There appears to be observational evidence that the universe has expanded in the past, supported by the many phrases God uses in the Bible to tell us that at creation he ‘stretched out’11 (other verses say ‘spread out’) the heavens.

If the universe is not much bigger than we can observe, and if it was only 50 times smaller in the past than it is now, then scientific deduction based on GR means it has to have expanded out of a previous state in which it was surrounded by an event horizon (a condition known technically as a ‘white hole’ — a black hole running in reverse, something permitted by the equations of GR).

As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink — eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen. An observer on earth would not in any way ‘feel different’. ‘Billions of years’ would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is traveling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc. — while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly.

In one sense, if observers on earth at that particular time could have looked out and ‘seen’ the speed with which light was moving toward them out in space, it would have appeared as if it were traveling many times faster than c. (Galaxies would also appear to be rotating faster.) However, if an observer in deep space was out there measuring the speed of light, to him it would still only be traveling at c.

There is more detail of this new cosmology, at layman’s level, in the book by DR Humphreys, Starlight and Time, which also includes reprints of his technical papers showing the equations.12

It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem. The interesting thing about this cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). It requires no ‘massaging’ — the results ‘fall out’ so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which the big bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called ‘what the experts don’t tell you about the “big bang”’).

This new cosmology seems to explain in one swoop all of the observations used to support the 'big bang,' including progressive red-shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation, without compromising the data or the biblical record of a young earth..

CAUTION

While this is exciting news, all theories of fallible men, no matter how well they seem to fit the data, are subject to revision or abandonment in the light of future discoveries. What we can say is that at this point a plausible mechanism has been demonstrated, with considerable observational and theoretical support.

What if no one had ever thought of the possibility of gravitational time dilation? Many might have felt forced to agree with those scientists (including some Christians) that there was no possible solution — the vast ages are fact, and the Bible must be ‘reinterpreted’ (massaged) or increasingly rejected. Many have in fact been urging Christians to abandon the Bible’s clear teaching of a recent creation [see Q&A: Genesis] because of these ‘undeniable facts’. This reinterpretation also means having to accept that there were billions of years of death, disease, and bloodshed before Adam, thus eroding the creation/Fall/restoration framework within which the gospel is presented in the Bible.

However, even without this new idea, such an approach would still have been wrong-headed. The authority of the Bible should never be compromised as mankind’s ‘scientific’ proposals. One little previously unknown fact, or one change in a starting assumption, can drastically alter the whole picture so that what was ‘fact’ is no longer so.

This is worth remembering when dealing with those other areas of difficulty which, despite the substantial evidence for Genesis creation, still remain. Only God possesses infinite knowledge. By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant) our scientific theories are much more likely, in the long run, to come to accurately represent reality.

Footnotes

1. T.G. Norman and B. Setterfield, The Atomic Constants, Light and Time (privately published, 1990).

2. D. Russell Humphreys, ‘Progress Toward a Young-earth Relativistic Cosmology’, Proceedings 3rd ICC, Pittsburgh, 1994, pp. 267–286.

3. J. Byl, ‘On Time Dilation in Cosmology’, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 1997, 34(1):26–32.

4. D.R. Humphreys, ‘It’s Just a Matter of Time’, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 1997, 34(1):32–34.

5. S.R. Conner and D.N. Page, ‘Starlight and Time is the Big Bang’, CEN Technical Journal, 1998, 12(2):174–194.

6. D.R. Humphreys, ‘New Vistas of Space-time Rebut the Critics’, CEN Technical Journal, 1998, 12(2):195–212. [Ed. note: Refs 5 and 6, as well as other criticisms of DR Humphreys’ model, with his responses, were published in the CEN Technical Journal, and are available here.

7. Many billions of stars exist, many just like our own sun, according to the analysis of the light coming from them. Such numbers of stars have to be distributed through a huge volume of space, otherwise we would all be fried.

8. The demonstrable usefulness of GR in physics can be separated from certain ‘philosophical baggage’ that some have illegitimately attached to it, and to which some Christians have objected.

9. Such an object is called a ‘black hole’.

10. Genesis 1:1; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Isaiah 26:4; Romans 1:20; 1 Timothy 1:17; and Hebrews 11:3. Interestingly, according to GR, time does not exist without matter.

11. For example, Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 10:12; Zechariah 12:1.

12. D. Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994)"

*****************

.. The fact that both sun and moon are called 'light-givers' does not suggest that they are of the same substance. One actually generates light, whereas the other only reflects light; but both 'give light' as far as their functions relative to the earth are concerned...

..There is no need to try to correlate this simple record of the making of the stars with various modern theories of stellar and galactic evolution. It is sufficient to note that these are all at best only interesting speculations, none of which is generally accepted and all of which encounter important objections. On the other hand, there is no reason at all... ... not to believe that the stars were made just as they are now. No one has ever seen a star or galaxy evolve, or change at all.

Since the heavenly bodies were to be used to denote the 'seasons' (as well as 'days and years'), it is obvious that there were to be distinct seasons through the year, and this implies that the earth's axis was inclined as it is at present. Although the... ...canopy maintained a warm climate everywhere, there would still have been slight seasonal changes in temperature.

The use of the stars also 'for signs' is somewhat more uncertain in meaning. Although various suggestions have been made, the most natural interpretation is that this term has reference to various star groupings which would serve both for easy visual recognition of the advancing days and years and also, by extension, for tokens of the advancing stages of God's purpose in creation. If so, however, these zodiacal 'signs' were soon corrupted into pagan astrology...

...Finally the work of this fourth day of creation was also summarized by an assertion that God saw it all to be 'good.' There was at that time nothing on any of the stars, planets, satellites, or any other heavenly body that was out of place or indicative of conflict or catastrophe [in] any way."

F) DAYLIGHT AND NIGHT TIME ON PREFLOOD EARTH WERE NOT AS DIFFERENT AS TODAY

[Dr. Carl E. Baugh states, op cit, p.51]:

"The biblical record states that God made the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. We have assumed for centuries that the greater light was the sun and the lesser light was the moon. The moon certainly bears an impact on and, to some degree, affects the earth. The moon does not always remain in visual form, however. The lesser light ruling the night, consequently, was not only the moon, even though the moon certainly has a purpose in the orchestrated model. The lesser light ruling the night included transfer of energy from the day side of the earth along the lines of this "reqiya" firmament. The electromagnetic energy was carried along the elemental lines of near-metallic hydrogen, which was fiber optic in nature. This would cause a twilight glow on the night side of the earth, while on the day side of the earth the greater light would literally rule the day.

The statement is made that this light 'ruled the day.' Scientists and researchers are finding that the most important color in the entire spectrum is pink. This is the color that is produced by energized hydrogen. They find that plants grow better under pink light and that individuals respond in mood to pink light. Researchers have found that when a person is affected by the right spectrum of pink light, the brain secretes norepinephren. Norepinephren is a natural tranquilizer and neurotransmitter. Before the Flood, man was dominated by various spectra of pink light. The tranquility of ...his environment offered him the ability to have his brain work at maximum efficiency. The firmament made that possible with a gentle pink glow in various spectral forms, with the greater light ruling the day and the lesser light ruling the night. God made a wonderful orchestral creation, and man ultimately received the full benefit....

There are records, archaeologically discerned, among many cultures which refer to a time in the past when the sky 'hung low'....

...physicists at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories took the element of hydrogen (an element of water) and compressed it under super cold temperatures. When the pressure reached a certain degree under diamond points, the hydrogen took on near-metallic characteristics: superconductive, transparent, fiber optic, ferromagnetic, and crystalline in form....

The Hebrew word for firmament is 'raqiya', which means to press, or pound together into thin metal sheets. This is the explanation of how the canopy, or arch of heaven, was formed and stretched out around the world in thin metal sheets....

...one of the elements in water (hydrogen) binds together in a crystalline lattice. Under such pressurized transformation, the hydrogen in water takes on the characteristics as described in the Biblical account of creation.

We are informed in Genesis 1:16 that the greater light was to rule the day and the lesser light was to rule the night. The transfer of light, fiber optically, means that the greater penetration of light during the day would produce varying shades of pink, and the lesser light of night would produce a deeper shade of pink, in addition to an enhanced moon.

Biologists have found that the greatest plant growth is encouraged under pink light. Further investigation has revealed that it is pink light which optimally triggers the growth of cells within plants.....

A contributing factor to the enormous size of plant life before the Flood was energized hydrogen in the firmament giving off the pinkish glow.

The enormous size of plant life in the antediluvian world also dictated the size of certain forms of animal life, or dinosaurs."

G) APPEARANCE OF THE STARS WAS MAGNIFIED & IN COLOR BY THE RAQIYA FIRMAMENT

[Gen 1:14-19 cont.]:

(v. 14) "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

(v. 15) and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.'

(v. 16) "God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

(v. 17) God set them [the stars] in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth."

[Dr. Baugh op. cit., pp. 56-61]:

The stars were shining at a distance, a startling characteristic of the pre-Flood world. In Genesis 1:14-18, the stellar heavens are described. The stars are in color, and the Biblical record states that God set the stars in the firmament. The ancients described the firmament as a vault above the earth, and the stars were placed in this vault...

[Ancient myths speak of stars in a vault-like sky which appear much closer than they do now. This parallels the preflood model with a crystalline water-metallic hydrogen composite canopy which would magnify the image of the stars, making them appear to be much closer and in color!]

...The Biblical record states very clearly that God 'set' the stars in the firmament much as a jeweler would enhance a diamond by placing it on a background of black velvet. The word 'set' is taken from the Hebrew word 'nathan'; it means 'to add and yield.' In other words, the stars are not physically placed in the firmament, because they are great distances away. But, as light from the stars penetrates the firmament, there is a very strong magnetic field in the middle; it is superconductive without any resistance to the flow of electrons. On each side is an electromagnetic field charged to a lesser degree in the crystalline water formation. What is then presented in a pressurized form on each side is a photomultiplier. Each photon of light which strikes the configuration is multiplied by ten because of the interaction in the atoms. On the earth side of the canopy, the stars were seen with ten times the photons that the light brought to the outer surface of the canopy. Before the Flood, the stars were seen by man as being about three times brighter than they are seen today. In other words, in the firmament, God set the stars, or added and yielded their dimensions in full color.

NASA has found that when a red filter is used in space, the stars appear in beautiful color. This is exciting because God put the stellar bodies in space for signs, for days, for months, and for years. We understand that by observing the rotation of the earth in relation to the movement of the sun and the moon, and other heavenly bodies, we can tell times. But now we can perceive that with the enhancement of the light, those before the Flood could, by the configuration of the stars, tell time at any moment. They would not need a Rolex watch; they would have something far better."

[Gen 1:20-23]:

(Gen 1:20 NKJV) "Then God said, 'Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, ["nephesh"], and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.'

(Gen 1:21 NKJV) So God created ["bara"] great sea creatures and every living thing ["nephesh"] that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

"created" = "bara" = created out of nothing, past tense, indicating a completed act not an evolutionary one.

(Gen 1:22 NKJV) And God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.'

(Gen 1:23 NKJV) So the evening and the morning were the fifth day."

XIX) LIVING CREATURES ARE CREATED:

FIRST SEA AND BIRD LIFE ON DAY 5 AND THEN LAND CREATURES ON DAY 5, (vv. 24-25)

[Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, cont., op. cit., p. 68-70]:

Having made the atmosphere and hydrosphere [water laden part of the earth's surface and atmosphere] on the second day, and then the lithosphere [outer surface of the earth] and biosphere [habitable part of the earth] on the third day, God next proceeded to make animal life for the atmosphere and hydrosphere on the fifth day, and then animal life for the lithosphere and biosphere on the sixth day. All the necessities for living creatures were present on the earth by this time: light, air, water, soil, chemicals, plants, fruits, and so forth. One deficiency yet remained - the earth was still 'void' of inhabitants. However, God had 'formed it to be inhabited' (Isaiah 45:18); and the fifth and sixth days were to be devoted to this final work of creation.

[C. I. Scofield states, (Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible, C. I. Scofield, editor, Oxford University Press, New York, 1967, p. 2, footnote #1):

"The theme 'every living and moving thing,' as distinguished from fishes merely, is taken up again in v. 24 ('living creatures'), showing that in the second creative act all animal life is included."]

(Gen 1:22 NKJV) And God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.'

(Gen 1:23 NKJV) So the evening and the morning were the fifth day."

[Compare Isa 45:18]:

(Isa 45:18 NKJV) "For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there is no other."

A) INCLUDING SEA DWELLING MONSTER SIZED CREATURES ON DAY 5 AND DINOSAURS ON DAY 6, (vv. 24-25)

"creatures" = "tannim" = serpents, dragons, sea monsters - not limited to whales. Refers to sea dwelling 'dinosaur' type creatures, (cp Job 7:12).

1) [Compare Lam 4:3]:

(Lam 4:3 YLT) "Even dragons have drawn out the breast, They have suckled their young ones, The daughter of my people is become cruel, Like the ostriches in a wilderness."

2) [Compare Job 40:15-24 WHICH REFERS TO THE DINOSAURS CREATED ON DAY 6]:

(Job 40:15 NKJV) "Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.

(Job 40:16 NKJV) See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.

(Job 40:17 NKJV) He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.

(Job 40:18 NKJV) His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.

(Job 40:19 NKJV) He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword.

(Job 40:20 NKJV) Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there.

(Job 40:21 NKJV) He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.

(Job 40:22 NKJV) The lotus trees cover him with their shade; The willows by the brook surround him.

(Job 40:23 NKJV) Indeed the river may rage, Yet he is not disturbed; He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,

(Job 40:24 NKJV) Though he takes it in his eyes, Or one pierces his nose with a snare.

[Notice that the monster behemoth has a tail like a cedar tree, bones like huge tubes of bronze, limbs like giant bars of iron and armor plate with barbs which makes him invincible. He drinks huge amounts of water.

"He is the first of the works of God", (v. 19) = Refers to the first in size, i.e., the largest of the animals that God created. The behemoth is so awesome that there is nothing that he fears nor which can defeat him. This description of an animal which existed along side of man, (v. 15), can be nothing other than the huge land dwelling reptilian dinosaur.

3) Furthermore, Job 41:1-34 describes a "Leviathan" as a water dwelling monster who is likewise invincible, (vv. 33-34), fearsome, (v. 33), fire breathing, (vv 20-21). Note that smaller type reptiles and other creatures that exist today can breathe out flames, and with an atmosphere with a much higher oxygen content this characteristic would be even more prevalent in preFlood times. This monster has a scaly reptilian like hide, (vv. 15-17), with sharp protective protrusions, (v. 30), which could not be pierced by sword, spear, or other weapons (vv. 7, 26-29). The "Leviathan" can raise himself up to do battle, (v. 25), against whom no one can prevail, (vv. 25-29, 33-34). And Leviathian is so huge that when he moves through the water it is described as follows:

[Job 41:1-34]:

(Job 41:25 HOLMAN) "When Leviathan rises, the mighty are terrified; they withdraw because of [his] thrashing.

(Job 41:26 HOLMAN) The sword that reaches him will have no effect, nor will a spear, dart, or arrow. 2

(Job 41:27 HOLMAN) He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood.

(Job 41:28 HOLMAN) No arrow can make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him.

(Job 41:29 HOLMAN) A club is regarded as stubble, and he laughs at the sound of a javelin.

(Job 41:30 HOLMAN) His undersides are jagged potsherds, spreading the mud like a threshing sledge.

(Job 41:31 HOLMAN) He makes the depths seethe like a cauldron; he makes the sea like an ointment jar.

(Job 41:32 HOLMAN) He leaves a shining wake behind him; one would think the deep had gray hair!

(Job 41:33 HOLMAN) He has no equal on earth - a creature devoid of fear!

(Job 41:34 HOLMAN) He surveys everything that is haughty; he is king over all the proud beasts."

Such a creature could only be a water dwelling reptilian like monster which roamed the earth the same time as man did, (v. 1).

Tan, (singular) / "tannin", (plural) = whales, dragons, sea monsters, serpentS.

[TWOT, op. cit., vol 2, p. 976]:

"Tannin.... [PLURAL] ...The word denotes 'any large reptile'... Referring to anything from large snakes (Ex 7:9-10, 12; Deut 32:33; Ps 91:13) to enormous sea creatures (Gen 1:21; Ps 148:7)...

[Note that the Hebrew word for jackals is very similar to tannin, the plural form for 'tan' = large reptile, SINGULAR. Since evidence for dinosaur 'dragon' types was not yet discovered at the time of the 1611 King James translation of the Bible, the word jackals was substituted instead in a number of places in Scripture, (cp Ez 29:3; 32:2). Nevertheless dinosaurs are correctly rendered here]

[Gen 1:20-23 cont.]:

(Gen 1:20 NKJV) "Then God said, 'Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, ["nephesh"] and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.'

(v. 21 NAS) So God created ["bara"] the great sea monsters ["tannim" = creatures of the sea] and every living creature ["nephesh"] that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind and every winged bird after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

(Gen 1:22 NKJV) And God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.'

(Gen 1:23 NKJV) So the evening and the morning were the fifth day."

[Henry Morris, cont., op. cit., p. 68-70]:

"The first animals specifically mentioned as the product of this act of creation were the 'great whales,' or 'great sea-monsters,' as most translations render the Hebrew word "tannin". It is significant, however, that this same word is most frequently translated 'dragon.' Evidently the term includes all large sea-creatures, even the monsters of the past that are now extinct. The frequent references to dragons in the Bible, as well as in the early records and traditions of most of the nations of antiquity, certainly cannot be shrugged off as mere fairy tales. Most probably they represent memories of dinosaurs [created on Day 6] handed down by tribal ancestors who encountered them before they became extinct"

Dr Henry M. Morris stated, (Impact brochure, July 1993 issue, in article entitled, 'DRAGONS IN PARADISE'):

"Genesis 1:21 [KJV], says that 'God created great whales,' but the Hebrew word for 'whales' (tanniyn) is translated 'dragons' in over 20 other passages. Note especially Isaiah 27:1: 'In that day the Lord...shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and He shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.'

This type of sea dragon was called a leviathan (see also Psalm 74:14; 104:26). It was described by God Himself in Job 41:1-34 as a fearsome, fire-breathing (v.21) monster whose scaly hide (vs. 15-17) could not be pierced with sword or spear (vs. 7, 26-29). God also described a huge land dragon [created on Day 6] called a behemoth (Job 40:15-24) that 'moveth his tail like a cedar' and is 'the chief of the ways of God,' impossible to capture (v. 17, 19, 24). Various other dragons are depicted as dwelling in different types of habitats and as being of various sizes (e.g., Isaiah 34:13; Micah 1:8; Malachi 1:3). In some of these cases, modern translations have rendered tanniyn as 'jackal,' but the Hebrew word means 'dragon,' or 'monster,' not jackal.

Dragons were even described in reputable zoological treatises published during the Middle Ages. Even though dragons sometimes were said to have supernatural abilities, all these ancient nations regarded them as real animals, frequently encountered by humans.

The article on dragons in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1949 edition) noted also that dinosaurs were 'astonishingly dragonlike,' even though its author assumed that those ancients who believed in dragons did so 'without the slightest knowledge' of dinosaurs. All dinosaurs are assumed by evolutionary geologists to have been extinct since the end of the Mesozoic Era, about 65 million years ago, whereas the first dinosaur fossils were not discovered until early in the 19th century.

In any case, dinosaurs - like dragons - are said to have existed at one time in great numbers and varieties all over the world. Great dinosaur bone beds have been found on every continent, as far north as Spitzbergen in the Arctic Ocean and as far south as Antarctica, about 400 miles from the South Pole.

Even more astonishing have been the vast numbers of dinosaur tracks and trails. The symposium Dinosaur Tracks and Traces (Ed. by D. D. Gillette and M. G. Lockley, Cambridge University Press, 1989, 454 pp.) documents hundreds of dinosaur-track sites all over the world. They are found in alluvial-fan deposits, flood-plain sediments, lake sediments, dune-like formations, deltas, and shoreline systems.

Many geologists have decided recently that the age of the dinosaurs did come to a sudden end as the result of a global catastrophe of some kind, although there is much disagreement as to what type of catastrophe this may have been. A great flood, accompanied by tremendous eruptions, with the implied resulting worldwide climatic change from subtropical to the present latitudinal variations, could well account for the vast dinosaur graveyards and trackways all over the world? The Bible, of course, describes just such a flood that occurred several thousand years ago. There are now thousands of scientists who have become creationists and are convinced that the Biblical flood provides a much better explanation than the geological-age system for the phenomena of earth history, including the dinosaurs and their extinction.

In that connection, suppose the dinosaurs continued to survive for a time in the post-flood world. This would account perfectly for all the dragon stories, many embellished over the centuries with legendary accretions, but at the same time based on a substantial residuum of fact. Bill Cooper, a British student of antiquities, has published a most impressive compilation of dragon/dinosaur encounters with ancient people ('Living Dinosaurs from Anglo-Saxon and other Early Records.' Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, volume 6, no. 1, 1992, pp. 49-66).

It may even be that some dinosaurs still survive in isolated regions and especially in the oceans and deep lakes of the world. The famous plesiosaur-like creature dredged up near New Zealand in 1977 (see Oceans magazine, November 1977 pp. 56-59) and the numerous native accounts of a brontosaur-like animal in the swampy interior of the Congolese rain forests (see Science magazine, November 1980, pp. 6,7) should be neither dismissed nor ignored.

Most creationists believe that dinosaurs have co-existed with man from the beginning, only becoming extinct in the Middle Ages. That being so, one must envision a pre-flood world with vast herds of dinosaurs occupying many areas in every region. The antediluvian population would certainly be familiar with their existence...

Even after the flood, dinosaurs could still be seen occasionally, though not in the great herds common in former times. At the climax of the Satan-caused sufferings of the prophet Job, for example, God told him to observe two of these great animals, the land-dwelling behemoth and the ocean-dwelling leviathan, and to realize that - even though no man alone could ever vanquish such awesome reptiles - God was well able to defeat them, for it was He who had made them....

...Although the behemoth was the strongest of all created land animals, 'He that made him can make His sword to approach unto him' (Job 40:19). And though the leviathan 'is a king over all the children of pride,' yet God says that not even leviathan can 'stand before Me' (Job 41:34, 10). God one day 'shall punish leviathan...and He shall slay the dragon that is in the sea' (Isaiah 27:1)."

B) ALL KINDS OF SEA & BIRD LIFE ARE IMMEDIATELY CREATED FROM THE SIMPLEST TO THE MOST COMPLEX

...The first introduction of animal life was not a fragile blob of protoplasm that happened to come together in response to electrical discharges over a primeval ocean, as evolutionists believe. Rather, the waters suddenly swarmed abundantly with swarming creatures (the waters did not 'bring forth,' as mistranslated in the Authorized Version [American version of the KJV]).

The Hebrew word "sherets", [Gen 1:20] which is rendered by 'moving creature' in the Authorized Version, is actually translated 'creeping thing' in the eleven other places where it occurs. It seems to be essentially synonymous with 'remes,' which is also translated 'creeping thing' (Genesis 1:24, etc.). As used in Genesis 1:20, however, it evidently refers to all kinds of marine animals: invertebrates, vertebrates, reptiles.

[Henry Morris states, op. cit., p.68-70 cont]:

"...In the Biblical sense, plants do not have real life, or soul (or consciousness); but both animals and men do...

...The types of animals mentioned in this passage are apparently intended to include every inhabitant of the waters and atmosphere. Furthermore, each was to reproduce after its own kind. Like the various plants, the actual biochemical reproductive systems of the animals were programmed to assure the fixity of the kinds. Physically and chemically, animals are similar to plants. Modern genetics has shown that all replicating systems function in the framework of the marvelous information program in the DNA molecule. The DNA for each kind is programmed to allow for wide individual variations within the kind, but not beyond the structure of the kind itself.

In this case, God not only declared that His work was good, but also pronounced a blessing on the animals He had created. Though not an object of God's love as man would be, animals nevertheless are objects of His care and concern. Not even a sparrow would ever fall to the ground without His noticing and caring (Matthew 10:29), and He continually provides food for them (Matthew 6:26).

The blessing included both a command and a provision for the continued multiplication of the animals He had created, so that they would soon occupy all parts of the world. It is interesting that a similar command was given later to the animals emerging from the ark after the Flood (Genesis 8:17).

C) "LIFE" = "NEPHESH" = 3 DEFINITIONS WHICH ARE USED IN SCRIPTURE

1) "LIFE" = "NEPHESH" = THAT INVISIBLE AND IMMATERIAL LIFE PRINCIPLE WHICH ANIMATES THE BODIES OF ANIMALS AND MAN.

The word 'life' [Gen 1:20] occurs for the first time in this verse (Hebrew 'nephesh'). Actually, this is the word also for 'soul,' and is frequently used to refer to both the soul of man and the life of animals."

[Dr. Robert A Morey states, ('Death and the Afterlife,' Bethany House, Minneapolis, Mn 1984, pp. 45-46)]:

"...the word 'nephesh' refers to that invisible and immaterial life principle which animates the bodies of animals and man. In Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 30; 2:19; 9:10, etc., an animal is call[ed] a 'nephesh' as long as it is living. A dead animal is never called a 'nephesh' because its body would be devoid of the life principle. In this sense, once the life principle was breathed into the body of Adam, he became a 'nephesh,' a living creature (Gen. 2:7)....

That 'nephesh' is an immaterial and invisible life principle is seen from the fact that Adam's body was complete yet unanimated until God placed in it 'the spirit of life,' i.e., the life principle (Gen 2:7). The idea of spontaneous generation (i.e., life arises out of non-life) is demonstrably false on every account. Adam did not become alive when his body was complete. His body awaited the introduction of the invisible and immaterial life principle before he could become a 'nephesh,' that is, a living creature.

2) "LIFE" = "NEPHESH" = A FIGURE OF SPEECH FOR THE WHOLE PERSON.

Second, the word 'nephesh' is used in figurative language. The biblical authors often used synecdoches; [= a figure of speech by which a part is expressed for the whole, ex. # of 'guns' for # of fighting men] i.e., they used a part to represent the whole in a figurative sense. Thus 'nephesh' sometimes meant the whole person, as in Gen. 36:6 where the people in the household were called 'nepheshim' [= 'household']...

3) "LIFE" = 'NEPHESH" = THE UNIQUE PART OF MAN WHICH TRANSCENDS THE LIFE PRINCIPLE, SEPARATES HIM FROM ANIMALS AND LIKENS HIM TO GOD AND REMAINS CONSCIOUS AFTER DEATH.

Third, 'nephesh' is used to describe the part of man which transcends the life principle, separates him from animals and likens him unto God.

God is a self-conscious being [Who] as a cognitive ego can say, 'I Am.' Thus God swears by His 'nephesh,'i.e., His soul, or ['self'] in Jer. 51:14 and Amos 6:8. In this sense, God is said to possess a 'mind,' 'will,' 'heart,' 'emotions,' 'self,' etc. (Job 23:13). The 'nephesh,' or soul, of God is His transcendent self which hates sin (Ps 11:5). In no way can God's 'nephesh' be reduced to the principle of physical life, because God does not have a physical body, [Jn 4:24].

When 'nephesh' is used of God, it obviously transcends the mere life principle of animals who do not have self-awareness. In the same way, 'nephesh' is used to describe that part of man which transcends the life principle.

Man, as God's image-bearer, is a cognitive ego who can say, 'I am,' Thus 'nephesh' was translated to indicate that man possesses mind, emotions, will, heart, ego, self, etc.

It is this transcendent self that is traditionally called 'the soul.' At death the transcendent self as well as the life principle leaves the body. The word 'nephesh' was often used in the Old Testament to describe activities and relationships which were sustained in this present world. However, when a person died and his transcendent self, or ego, went to Sheol, [an invisible world to which the soul, while remaining conscious, goes after death; specifically paradise or torments in Hades; probably in the center of the earth. Ref. Ps 63:9; Isa 14:3-7; 44:23; Ez 26:20; 31:16; Lk 16:20-31; 23:43; Rev 20:13-14] he was said to be 'cut off' from the living. This does not logically imply that the person was not now functioning on a different level in another world. Being cut off from this world cannot logically be used to argue that the person cannot consciously exist in another world.."

[And Scripture literally refers to individuals being conscious of their state after they have died, cp. Isa 14:3-7; 44:23; Ez 31:16, 32:21; Lk 16:20-31; 23:43]

D) BIBLICAL CREATIONISM PUTS LAND PLANTS FIRST THEN MARINE & BIRD LIFE SIMULTANEOUSLY, CONTRADICTING THE IMAGINARY EVOLUTIONARY ORDER.

Once again it is obvious that the orthodox evolutionary order is not the same as the order of creation recorded here in Genesis. Evolutionary theory says that marine organisms evolved first, then land plants, later birds. Genesis says that land plants came first, then marine creatures and birds simultaneously. Furthermore, if anything, the largest sea animals were the first, again contrary to evolutionary theory."

[Gen 1:24-25]:

(Gen 1:24 NKJV) "Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind'; and it was so.

(Gen 1:25 NKJV) And God made ["AsAh"] the beast [wildlife] of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

XX) NEXT, LIVING CREATURES OF THE LAND ARE CREATED ON DAY 6

"living creatures" = "chay" = living thing

A) Compare applicable verses from Genesis chapter 2:

[Gen 2:19-20]:

(Gen 2:19 NKJV) "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. name."

(Gen 2:20 NKJV) So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air [lit., "heavens"], and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him."

Notice that the context of verses 19-20 indicates that the animals had already been created before man and that God then brought a number of them - not all of them, (field and domesticable types) to Adam to name.

[Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 70-72]:

"After the creation of animal life, and its impartation to air and water creatures on the fifth day, only one day of divine work remained. Animals must be formed for the land surfaces - the lithosphere and biosphere.

It is noteworthy that the record says that God 'made' (Hebrew 'asah') these land animals; whereas He was said to have 'created' ('bara') the air and sea animals. It would seem, if anything that the land animals were of a higher order than the others and therefore they should have taken a higher category of divine activity.

The reason for this apparent anomaly undoubtedly is that the act of creation (verse 21) was that of 'every living soul,' not only of sea and air creatures. Since this 'soul' principle was created on the fifth day, there was no need to mention it again on the sixth day. The formation of land creatures merely involved new types of organization of materials already in existence, including the nephesh as well as the physical elements. There was no intrinsic difference in the actual 'making' of land animals from that of the marine animals or, for that matter, of the making of plants. All involved the same fundamental biochemical structure and reproductive mechanisms.

B) ALL CATEGORIES OF LAND ANIMALS WERE CREATED SIMULTANEOUSLY - NO EVOLUTION, ONLY CREATION

The land animals made during the early part of the sixth day are categorized as 'cattle, creeping things, and beasts of the earth.' This description is evidently intended to be comprehensive, in so far as land animals are concerned. Very likely, the term 'cattle' refers to domesticable animals, 'beasts of the earth' refers to large wild animals, and 'creeping things' refers to all animals that crawl or creep close to the surface of the ground.

This classification has no correlation with the arbitrary system of man-made taxonomy (amphibians, reptiles, mammals, insects), but is a more natural system based on the relation of the animals to man's interests. Thus the term 'beasts of the earth' includes the large mammals such as lions and elephants, and probably also the large extinct reptiles known as dinosaurs. 'Creeping things' includes the insects and smaller reptiles, and probably also most amphibians and many small mammals (e.g., moles, rats; note Leviticus 11:29-31).

All three categories of land animals were made simultaneously, as is evident from the inverted order of listing in verses 24 and 25. Once again, it is obvious that there is not the slightest correlation with the imaginary evolutionary order (that is, insects, then amphibians, then reptiles, then all mammals). As a matter of fact, evolution places insects, amphibians, and land reptiles all before the birds that Genesis says were made the day before.

There was no evolutionary struggle for existence among these animals either, for 'God saw that it was good.' Neither could one kind evolve into a different kind, because God made each category 'after his kind.'

All these land animals were said to have been 'brought forth' from the earth, or ground. That is, their bodies were composed of the same elements as the earth; and when they died, they would go back to the earth. They also all had 'souls,' because they were said to be 'living creatures' ('nephesh' again). In this respect, they were like air and water animals (Genesis 1:21) and also like man (Genesis 2:7).

C) THE WORLD WAS NOW FULLY PREPARED FOR THE CREATION OF MAN

[Morris, ibid]

"The world was now fully prepared for its human inhabitants, who would be given dominion over it. God did not need five billion years to prepare for man, as theistic evolutionists seem to think. In fact, He did not even need the six days that He took! The reasons for taking six days apparently were, first, to stress the orderly and logical relationships between the different components of the creation and, second, to provide a divine pattern for man's six-day work week. A regular day of rest and special fellowship with God would be essential for man's good, and God's example would be the best pattern and incentive for man to keep such a day.

Actually the formation of the land animals must have taken only a small portion of the sixth day. The second chapter of Genesis describes in fuller detail the rest of the events of the sixth day, events which are only briefly outlined here in the first chapter.

[Gen 1:26-27]:

(Gen 1:26 NKJV) "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'

(Gen 1:27 NKJV) So God created [Heb. bArA] man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

XXI) LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE

A) GOD IS MADE UP OF MORE THAN ONE PERSONALITY HENCE, THE PLURAL FORMS IN "LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE"

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our Likeness...' " = "God" = "Elohim" = PLURAL

"said" = singular verb in the Hebrew

"Us" = PLURAL

"make" = singular verb in the Hebrew

"our" = PLURAL

"in our image according to our likeness" =

"our image" = The construction here of plural subject followed by a singular verb indicates one God with more than one Personality, i.e., the Trinity.

In order to avoid attributing God with more than one Personality, objectors to the Trinity state that "our image" refers to God and the angels who are deciding together to create man in their image. This would then infer that angels have the image of God on a equal basis with the Almighty eternal God and thus contributed in creation, ("Let us make"), with Him as Creators. However, the image that the passage is referring to is a unique one to God and God alone as implied by the word "our". If "us" is to include angels then a plural verb form of "make" instead of singular would have been inspired by God to be used. God's image is an eternal image which angels and man are made into only in a finite way. If equality were meant instead of similarity, then the verse should have been worded 'Let us make man equal with us' and not "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our Likeness...' "

B) MAN IS CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE

"in our image" = "image" = "selem" = image is used in a special sense here since God, being infinite and Spirit, is not limited to a finite human form. Therefore, a human being created in the image of God means that each individual human being possesses in a finite way certain qualities which God possesses such as a consciousness of God Himself, the ability to love, worship, think and perform creatively like no other living creature on the earth.

"make" = 'asa' = [TWOT vol. 2, op. cit., p. 701, states]:

"The significant interchange between the words bara 'create' [Gen 1:1] and 'asa' [Gen 1:26] is of great interest. The word 'bara' carries the thought of the initiation of the object involved. It always connotes what only God can do and frequently emphasizes the absolute newness of the object created. The word 'asa' is much broader in scope, connoting primarily the fashioning of the object with little concern for special nuances.

The use of bara in the opening statement of the account of creation seems to carry the implication that the physical phenomena came into existence at that time and had no previous existence in the form in which they were created by divine fiat. The use of 'asa' may simply connote the act of fashioning the objects involved in the whole creative process."

Later in the book of Genesis, in chapter 2, we have the creation of the woman. God used the side of Adam which He took from Adam to make the woman. The word 'made' in verse 22 of Genesis chapter 2, ('made He a woman'), is the Hebrew word transliterated as 'banah', (Strongs #1129). It means to build or to construct from existing materials as opposed to the Hebrew word, 'bara' which means to create out of nothing, (Gen 1:1). The physical bodies of the man and the woman were made out of something that already existed. Adam's body was made, (Hebrew: 'yatsar' = 'formed', Gen 2:7), from the earth material which God previously had created - had previously 'bara' = created out of nothing by His spoken word. So God did not 'bara' - create out of nothing - the body of Adam; rather, He formed it out of the 'dust of the earth'. But what He did create out of nothing was man's soul and spirit. God breathed into man the breath of lives, (Hebrew "hayyîm," masculine, plural: two lives in one living being existing together: man's soul and his human spirit. Hence man alone of the creatures God created on earth has two lives: a physical/mortal life and a spiritual/immortal life which lives on after physical death. This was an act of creation of never before existing entities - the unique soul and spirit of a man - in the image of God, (Gen 1:26).

[TWOT vol. 2, op. cit., p. 768, states]:

"Man was made in God's image ("selem") and likeness ("demut") which is then explained as his having dominion over God's creation as vice-regent..."

1) [Compare Ps 8:5-8 NIV]:

(Ps 8:5 NKJV) "For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

(Ps 8:6 NKJV) You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet,

(Ps 8:7 NKJV) All sheep and oxen-- Even the beasts of the field,

(Ps 8:8 NKJV) The birds of the air, And the fish of the sea That pass through the paths of the seas."

[TWOT, ibid, cont]:

"Psalm 8:5-8...[just quoted ...is similar citing man's God-given glory, honor and rule. God's image obviously does not consist in man's body which was formed from earthly matter, but in his spiritual, intellectual, moral likeness to God from whom his animating breath came."

[TWOT, op. cit., p. 191-192]:

"demut. Likeness....in v. 27 [of Gen 1], the actual act of creation, only selem is used, not demut. The two words are so intertwined that nothing is lost in the meaning by the omission of demut...

...The word 'likeness' rather than diminishing the word 'image' actually amplifies it and specifies its meaning. Man is not just an image but a likeness-image. He is not simply representative but representational. Man is the visible, corporeal representative of the invisible, bodiless God. demut guarantees that man is an adequate and faithful representative of God on earth..."

[Walter Martin commented on this verse in his book 'Kingdom of the Cults", (Bethany House, Minneapolis, 1985, p. 54), which defends the Bible against accusations that Scripture teaches polytheism, (= belief in more than one God)]:

"Now it is obvious that God would not [have to] create man or any created being in His image if He were [already] talking to them, so He must have been addressing someone else. [It could not be angels because they are not reported anywhere in Scripture as having anything to do with creation nor do they have such a creative capacity nor any equality with God. So]...Who but His Son and the Holy Spirit, Who are equal in substance could He address in such familiar terms...[as "Let Us create man in Our image after Our likeness"]. Since there is no other God but Jehovah (Isa 43:10,11 [45:5]), not even a lesser mighty god can exist, then there must be a unity in plurality and substance in the Godhead, otherwise Gen 1:26 doesn't make any sense."

[Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 73-75]:

"On this sixth day, [a divine] council took place, and the...[eternal]...plan took place...

...The highest, most complex of all creatures was to be made by God and then was to be given dominion over all the rest - all the animals of the sea, air, and land. Man's body would be formed in the same way as the bodies of the animals had been formed (Genesis 1:24; 2:7). Similarly, man would have the 'breath of life' like animals (Genesis 2:7; 7:22), and even have the 'living soul' like animals (Genesis 1:24; 2:7). Thus, though man's structure, both physical and mental, would be far more complex than that of the animals, it would be of the same basic essence; therefore God proposed to 'make [Hebrew 'asah'] man in Our image.'

And yet man was to be more than simply a very complex and highly organized animal. There was to be something in man which was not only quantitatively greater, but qualitatively distinctive, something not possessed in any degree by the animals.

Man was to be in the image and likeness of God Himself! Therefore, [in v. 27 it says that] he was also 'created' ('bara') in God's image. He was both made and created in the image of God..

...There can be little doubt that the 'image of God' in which man was created must entail those aspects of human nature which are not shared by animals - attributes such as a moral consciousness, the ability to think abstractly, an understanding of beauty and emotion, and, above all, the capacity for worshiping and loving God. This eternal and divine dimension of man's being must be the essence of what is involved in the likeness of God. And since none of this was a part of the animal 'nephesh,' the 'soul,' it required a new creation."

[Dr. Robert A Morey, op. cit., p. 46]:

"'nephesh' is used to describe the part of man which transcends the life principle, separates him from animals and likens him unto God.

Man, as God's image-bearer, is a cognitive ego who can say, 'I am,' Thus 'nephesh' was translated to indicate that man possesses mind, emotions, will, heart, ego, self, etc.

It is this transcendent self that is traditionally called 'the soul.'

God is a self-conscious being [Who] as a cognitive ego can say, 'I Am.' Thus God swears by His 'nephesh,' i.e., His soul, or ['self'] in Jer. 51:14 and Amos 6:8. In this sense, God is said to possess a 'mind,' 'will,' 'heart,' 'emotions,' 'self,' etc. (Job 23:13). The 'nephesh,' or soul, of God is His transcendent self which hates sin (Ps 11:5). In no way can God's 'nephesh' be reduced to the principle of physical life, because God does not have a physical body.

When 'nephesh' is used of God, it obviously transcends the mere life principle of animals who do not have self-awareness. In the same way, 'nephesh' is used to describe that part of man which transcends the life principle."

[Henry Morris, op. cit., p. 85]:

"However, this does not exhaust the meaning [of man being in the likeness of God]. We must also deal with the fact that man was 'made' in God's image as well. That component of man which was 'made' was his body and soul. In some sense, therefore, even man's body is in God's image in a way not true of animals.

God in His omnipresence is not corporeal, however, but is Spirit (John 4:24); so how could man's body be made in God's image?

We can only say that, although God Himself may have no physical body, He designed and formed man's body to enable it to function physically in ways in which He Himself could function even without a body. God can see (Genesis 16:13), hear (Psalm 94:9), smell (Genesis 8:21), touch (Genesis 32:32), and speak (II Peter 1:18), whether or not He has actual physical eyes, ears, nose, hands, and mouth. Furthermore, whenever He has designed to appear visibly to men, He has done so in the form of a human body (Genesis 18:1,2); and the same is true of angels (Acts 1:10). There is something about the human body, therefore, which is uniquely appropriate to God's manifestation of Himself, and (since God knows all His works from the beginning of the world - Acts 15:18), He must have designed man's body with this in mind. Accordingly, He designed it, not like the animals, but with an erect posture, with an upward gazing countenance, capable of articulate, symbolic speech...

...The word 'man' is actually 'adam', and is related to 'earth' (Hebrew 'adamah'), since man's body was formed from the elements of the earth (Genesis 2:7). ["adam" = from out of the earth] It may be noted that man was to have dominion not only over all animals but also over the earth (verse 26) from which he had been formed.

Finally, it is made clear that 'man' is also a generic term, including both male and female. Both man and woman were 'created' (the details of their physical formation being given in Genesis 2) in God's image, and thus both possess equally an eternal spirit capable of personal fellowship with their Creator."

2) [Compare. Gen 5:2]:

"He [God] created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man [lit., "Adam"] in the day when they were created."

3) [Compare. Gen 2:23]:

"And the man said,

This [the woman] is now bone of my bones,

And flesh of my flesh'

She shall be called Woman, [lit., "isshah" = out of man]

Because she [lit., "this one"] was taken out of Man."

[Gen 1:26-27 cont.]:

(Gen 1:26 NKJV) "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'

(Gen 1:27 NKJV) So God created [Heb "bArA"] man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

C) EVERY INDIVIDUAL MAN CONSISTS OF BODY, SOUL & SPIRIT, PERSONALLY AND UNIQUELY CREATED BY GOD

1) [Compare Gen 2:7]:

(Gen 2:7 NAS) "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of lives, [Hebrew "hayyîm," masculine, plural: two lives in one living being existing together: man's soul and his human spirit] and man became a living being,"

So God breathed into man the breath of lives, (Hebrew "hayyîm," masculine, plural: two lives in one living being existing together: man's soul and his human spirit. Hence man alone of the creatures God created on earth has two lives: a physical/mortal life and a spiritual/immortal life which lives on after physical death. This was an act of creation of never before existing entities - the unique soul and spirit of a man - in the image of God, (Gen 1:26).

[Henry Morris states, op. cit., p.85]:

"The narrative... [of chapter 2] ...skips the work of the fourth and fifth days of creation [as already delineated in chapter 1] and proceeds immediately [to the sixth day] to man himself. This verse tells not of the creation of man (as in Genesis 1:27), but of the formation and energizing of his body.

"formed man of dust from the ground..." = Gen 1:27 states that God "created" = "bara" = created out of nothing. Gen 2:7 here states that God "formed" = "yatsar" man of the dust of the ground. So man's essence, his soul and spirit were created out of nothing and then God added to that a body which He formed from the elements and compounds already made - described as "dust of the ground"

"and breathed into His nostrils the breath of [lives] ..."

2) [Gen 2:7]:

(Gen 2:7 NKJV) "And the LORD GOD formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of [lives]; and man became a living being.

Originally, this verse tells us that God formed man's physical body from the ground like a potter shaping a vessel from clay. This produced a lifeless shell without capacity for anything. There are several names in the Bible for this shell: Second Corinthians chapter 5 verses 1 and 4 refer to it as a tent. Second Corinthians 5:6 refers to this shell as a home. First Thessalonians 4:4...[refers] ...to the human body as a vessel. Then this verse tells us that God Himself breathed into this earth body that He had formed - into this shell - and He breathed into it the breath of lives... ...notice that the Hebrew is plural... ...because there were two kinds of lives that were breathed into man. First of all there was soul life... ...which constitutes his mentality, his emotions and his will for relating to people. There was also breathed into man a spirit life which gave him a human spirit and capacity for fellowship with God. The earth shell at that moment became a living being... ...it had full capacity for fellowship with God. Now since the sin of Adam in Eden, all are born spiritually dead and they must be made alive spiritually to God by the inbreathing of the Holy Spirit at the point of salvation when faith is placed in Christ as Savior. [Eph 1:13-14 + Ro 8:10] So again, for our spiritual contact with God, as for Adam, there had to be an inbreathing of God, for us there has to be an inbreathing of the Holy Spirit for us to come alive spiritually.

...Does God create then a new life with each baby. The answer is yes...

3) [Compare Job 33:4]:

(v. 4) "The Spirit ["ruach"] of God has made me,

And the breath ["nishma"] of the Almighty gives me life."

[So the Spirit of God created Job, (cp. Gen 1:27), and the breath of God quickens him to life, (cp. Gen 2:7)]

...Job said, 'I came into life - I came into being a living being as a result of an act of God which gave me that life."

4) [Compare Eccl 12:7]:

"Then the dust [i.e., the physical body] will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit ["'ruach'] will return to God Who gave it."

The child is given the breath of lives - the spirit and the soul at the point of conception. Albeit, after the Fall, all men are physically born with a dead (inactive) spirit, (i.e., one which is separated from communion with God). Ref. Eph 2:1; Ro 8:5-11.

5) [Compare. Isa 42:5]:

"Thus says God the LORD,

Who created the heavens and stretched them out,

Who spread out the earth and its offspring

[i.e., plant life]

Who gives breath ["nishma"] to the people on it,

And spirit ["ruach"] to those who walk in it,"

6) [Zech 12:1]:

"The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD Who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit ["ruach"] of man within him:"

7) [Heb 12:9]:

"Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of our spirits ["pneuma"], and live?"

All of these verses say that God creates human life. And He does this not by some automatic life implanting mechanism evolving one human life into another. He breathes in a soul and spirit into each individual human being such that each is in His image in his unique way.

[Henry Morris, cont., op. cit., p. 85]:

"God used the 'dust of the ground' to make man's body, a remarkable phrase conveying the thought that the smallest particles of which the earth was composed (in modern terminology, the basic chemical elements: nitrogen, oxygen, calcium, etc.) were also to be the basic physical elements of the human body. 'The first man is of the earth, earthy' (I Corinthians 15:47). This fact is not at all obvious to superficial examination (rocks seem to all appearances to be composed of totally different substances than human flesh), but it has nevertheless been verified by modern science.

Then God 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of lives. [plural]' This statement may seem at first to be 'anthropomorphic,' picturing God as puffing up His cheeks and blowing air into the inert figure He had just molded. Such a notion is quite inadequate, however. Man's body had been completely formed, equipped with nostrils, lungs, and the entire breathing apparatus, as well as bones and organs and other appurtenances, but was lifeless. It must be energized. The breathing mechanism must be activated, the heart must start to pump and circulate the blood, and all the metabolic functions must begin their operations.

But life can come only from life, and the living God is the only self-existent Being, so it must ultimately come from Him. Especially to stress the unique relationship of human life to the divine life, this Scripture verse tells us that God directly imparted life and breath to man...

There is an incidental refutation of the assumption of human evolution in this verse, which tells us that man became a living soul when God gave him the breath of life. However, if he had arrived at this stage by a long process of animal evolution, he already was a living soul! As I Corinthians 15:45 says;: 'The first man Adam was made a living soul..." Not only did man receive his soul directly from God rather than from an animal ancestry, but Adam was the first man. There was no 'pre-Adamite man,' as some have suggested."

[Gen 1:26-27 cont.]:

(v. 26) "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

(v. 27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

D) THE LAST ACT OF CREATION WAS THAT OF WOMAN

1) [Compare Gen 2:18-23]:

(v. 18) "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for [lit., corresponding to] him.

a) IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE MAN TO BE ALONE

[Henry Morris, op. cit., p. 95]:

"At the end of the six days of creation, God saw that everything He had made was 'very good' (Genesis 1:31). The last act of creation, however, was that of woman; hence, prior to this final work, the creation was yet incomplete. Man, especially, was incomplete without woman; and this was not good (this does not mean it was evil, but only that it was unfinished and therefore imperfect). God Himself, therefore, said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone.'

All the animals had been made both male and female (Genesis 6:19) and had been instructed to bring forth after their kinds and to multiply on the earth (Genesis 1:22, 24). Man alone, of all God's creatures, had no such companion.

Therefore, God set about to make 'an help meet for man' (literally, 'a helper like man'). As He had personally formed man's body, so He would set about personally to form woman's body. Furthermore, He would do this by a remarkable method rich in symbolic meaning which neither the man nor the woman would ever forget."

[Gen 2:18-23 cont.]

(v. 19) And out of the ground the LORD God [had] formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky [lit., "heavens"**], and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

(v. 20) And the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky[**], and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

b) GOD ARRANGED FOR ADAM TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH MANY OF THE ANIMALS AND TO NAME THEM

[Henry Morris, op. cit., pp. 96-98]:

"First, however, God arranged for Adam to become familiar with many of the animals by personal inspection. This was apparently for the two fold purpose of acquainting him with his responsibilities relative to the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:28) and also of emphasizing to him that, though he could exercise rulership over them, he could not have fellowship with them. There was not one among them qualified to be a helper suitable for his own needs. He was yet incomplete without such a helper, but this would require another act of creation on God's part.

c) OBJECTORS' CLAIM OF A CONTRADICTION IN SEQUENCE OF CREATION REFUTED: ADAM WAS NAMING THE CREATURES THAT WERE ALREADY CREATED

Many people quibble at verse 19, professing to find a contradiction between this account of the formation of the animals and the account in the first chapter of Genesis. According to the latter, the birds were made on the fifth day and the land animals on the sixth day, all prior to Adam's creation. The second chapter, however, seems to say in this verse that these animals were only created at this time, after Adam's creation.

Such an interpretation, however, is alien to the context. It would in effect, charge God with first trying to find a helper for Adam by making a lot of animals and then, when this failed, finally deciding to make woman. God had just expressed His purpose to make a 'help meet for man,' and it is absurd to think He would set about to carry out this purpose by first making animals.

Actually, all these animals were already in existence, exactly as the first chapter of Genesis says. All this had already been recorded in chapter 1; so there was no need to go through the entire chronological record again in chapter 2. There was no need even to mention the animals, since the account was concentrating on giving details of the later part of the sixth day, until the point at which the animals were actually to encounter man.

...Verse 19... calls attention to the fact that God was the one who formed the animals and that their bodies had been formed out of the 'ground,' even as Adam's body had been formed from the dust of the ground. However, though the physical elements were the same in the bodies of both man and beast, there was still no real fellowship possible between them, as Adam would soon learn when he examined them. He had been created 'in the image of God' and would require a being of like nature to himself.

As a matter of fact, it would be quite legitimate to translate verse 19 as follows: 'Also out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air; and had brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.' The Hebrew conjunction 'waw' can just as well be translated 'also' as 'and.' Furthermore, the word 'formed' as in the King James (Hebrew 'yatsar') can, in the context, legitimately be translated 'had formed.' In any case, the obvious intent of the passage is to tell us that certain of the animals, already in existence, were now brought at this time to be inspected by Adam. There is no contradiction, either real or apparent, with the 'official' order of creation in Genesis 1.

d) OBJECTORS CLAIM THAT ADAM COULD NOT HAVE NAMED EVERY LIVING CREATURE IS ANSWERED: THE BIBLE INDICATES THAT ONLY CERTAIN ANIMALS WERE BROUGHT TO ADAM, NOT EVERY CREATURE

It was only those animals in closest proximity and most likely as theoretical candidates for companionship to man that were actually brought to him. These included the birds of the air, the cattle (verse 20 - probably the domesticable animals), and the beasts of the field, which were evidently the smaller wild animals that would live near human habitations. Those not included were the fish of the sea, the creeping things, and the beasts of the earth (Genesis 1:24), which presumably were those wild animals living at considerable distance from man and his cultivated fields.

It is not likely that all these animals actually lived in the garden of Eden, though they may have had access to it. Therefore, God must have directed them to come to Adam in some unknown fashion, so that both master and animal might learn to know each other. We have no way of knowing exactly how many kinds' of animals appeared before Adam, but it was clearly not such a large number as to be incapable of examination within a few hours at most. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Adam could note and name about ten kinds each minute, so that in, say five hours, about three thousand kinds could be identified. Clearly, this number seems more than adequate to meet the needs of the case.

As the animals passed in review, Adam gave each a quick appraisal and an appropriate name. What language he used, and on what basis he selected names for them, there seems no way of knowing. The fact that he named them, however, indicates (as we would expect, in view of his recent creation in human perfection by the omniscient God) that he was a man of high intelligence and quick discernment. There seems to have been no need for second thoughts and later changes in those names. 'Whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.'

e) AS ADAM GAVE NAMES TO THE ANIMALS IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT THERE WAS NO MATE FOR HIM

As one after another of the animals passed before him (no doubt in pairs, male and female) Adam could not help but be impressed with his own uniqueness - not only in intelligence and spirituality, but also in 'aloneness.' Each animal had its mate, 'but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.'

There was clearly no kinship in any manner between man and the animals. None was like him; none could provide fellowship or companionship for him. It is abundantly clear and certain that he had not recently evolved from them! If the latter were true, and his body were still essentially an ape's body (or the body of whatever 'hominid' form may have been his immediate progenitor), it seems strange that he could have found nothing in common with either parents or siblings. On this point, as on many others, the notion of human evolution confronts and contradicts the plain statements of Scripture.

In all the animal kingdom, there could not be found a 'helper like him.' He alone, of all creatures, was really alone. And that was not good! Before God could declare His creation 'finished' and 'very good,' this all-important deficiency must be eliminated. God would provide such a helper and companion for Adam, one 'like' him, and yet different, perfectly complementing him and completing God's work."

[Gen 2:18-23 cont.]:

(v. 18) "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for [lit., corresponding to] him.

(v. 19) And out of the ground the LORD God [had] formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky [lit., "heavens"**], and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. (v. 20) And the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky[**], and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him."

f) EVE'S FORMATION (CREATION) AFTER AND OUT OF ADAM'S SIDE REFUTES THE EVOLUTIONARY MODEL AND ESTABLISHES MARRIAGE, THE FIRST HUMAN INSTITUTION, TO SERVE GOD

[Henry Morris states, op. cit., pp. 98-99]:

"The account of the creation and formation of Eve is the despair of theistic evolutionists. Even if one can bring himself to believe that man evolved from and apelike ancestor and that this is what Scripture means when it says Adam was formed from the dust of the ground, there seems to be no way at all in which the account of Eve's unique mode of origin can be interpreted in an evolutionary context.

To make matters worse for the evolutionist, the New Testament explicitly confirms the historicity of this record. 'For Adam was first formed, then Eve' (I Timothy 2:13). 'For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man' (I Corinthians 11:8). All other men have been born of woman, but the first woman was made from man.

It is significant that the first human institution established by God was that of marriage. The long period of human infancy and helplessness requires careful protection and training of the children by their parents. In His wisdom, God ordained that the home, built on the mutual love and respect of husband and wife, should be the basic human unit of authority and instruction.

From the authority of the father in the home there would develop, as populations grew, the patriarchal and tribal systems, and, later, still more elaborate governmental structures. Similarly, from the fundamental activity of the parents in teaching and training their children, schools and other educational institutions would eventually be established. The church also, which has the function of teaching and authority in the spiritual realm, is likewise patterned in many respects after the home.

The way in which God made the first woman is certainly not what one would naturally expect. It would seem rather that He would form her body in the same way He did Adam's - directly out of the earth itself. But instead He 'built' her out of the body of Adam! Adam's life would become her life.

God must have had a good reason for 'building up' Eve in this peculiar way. From the New Testament we infer that there were certain great spiritual truths which were being pictured in this symbolic action, as well as the more immediately meaningful truth that Adam and Eve were truly 'one flesh' and should thus serve their Creator together in unity and singleness of heart."

[Gen 2:18-23 cont.]:

(v. 18) "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for[lit., corresponding to] him.

(v. 19) And out of the ground the LORD God [had] formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky [lit., "heavens"**], and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

(v. 20) And the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky[**], and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

(v. 21) So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, [lit., "tsela" = "side" i.e., "a part of his side"] and closed up the flesh at that place.

(v. 22) And the LORD God fashioned [lit., "built"] into a woman the rib [lit., a part of Adam's side] which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

[Henry Morris op. cit., pp. 99-101]:

"Having completed His presentation of the animals to Adam, God quite probably explained to Adam what He was about to do (Adam seemed later to have understood clearly how God had formed Eve)."

1) [Compare Gen 2:23]:

(v. 23) "And the man said,

'This is now bone of my bones,

And flesh of my flesh;

She shall be called Woman, [lit., "isshah" = out of man]

Because she [lit., "this one"] was taken out of Man."

[Compare Genesis 5:2 which indicates that God calls both Adam and Eve by the name "Adam" indicating that they are both of the same kind]:

2) [Gen 5:2]:

"He [God] created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man ["Adham" = "Man" = "Adam"] in the day when they were created."

[Henry Morris, op. cit., p.101]:

"When God brought Eve to Adam, the man exclaimed: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman [Hebrew = "ish"]." Earlier the Hebrew word "adham" had been used exclusively for "man."

In any case, God put Adam into a 'deep sleep' and, while Adam slept, performed a marvelous surgical operation. Since this sleep was not necessary to prevent pain (as yet, there was no knowledge of pain or suffering in the world), there must have been some profound spiritual picture in the action...

...It is likely that the word 'rib' is a poor translation. The Hebrew word 'tsela' appears thirty-five times in the Old Testament and this is the only time it has been rendered 'rib.' Most of the time (in at least twenty of its occurrences) it means simply 'side.' The thought evidently is to stress that woman was made neither from Adam's head (suggesting superiority to him) nor from his feet (suggesting inferiority), but from his side, indicating equality and companionship. Probably the verse should be translated somewhat as follows: 'And He took one of his sides, and closed up the [remaining] flesh in the stead of [that which he had taken]; And the side, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

Instead of what some have regarded as a childish and unscientific myth (pointing out that man does not have one less rib than woman, and ignoring the fact that, even if this were an actual rib, such 'acquired characteristics' are never inherited!), this narrative is beautifully realistic and meaningful.

In what sense did the LORD God take one of Adam's sides? A 'side' would include both flesh and bone, as well as blood, released from the opened side. Adam could later say, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh."

Physiologically, it is significant that both bone and flesh, in the human body, are sustained by blood and the marvelous blood-pumping and circulatory network designed by God. The blood carries the necessary oxygen and other chemicals from the air and the food taken in by man to maintain all the substance and functions of the body. In fact, the very 'life of the flesh [literally 'soul' of the flesh] is in the blood' (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:11)...

...From the 'life' of Adam (the blood sustaining his bones and his flesh) God made Eve, his bride. In like manner, we who constitute the 'bride of Christ' (II Corinthians 11:2) have received life by His blood (John 6:54-56). Thereby we become 'members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones' (Ephesians 5:30).

Eve was thus made from Adam's side, to work alongside him in carrying out the divine commission to 'fill the earth' and to 'subdue' it. She not only had the same 'flesh' (that is, body) and 'life' (that is, soul) as did Adam, but she also had an eternal spirit, as he did; but the spirit (or, better, the 'image of God') was directly from God, not mediated through Adam as was her physical life. This we know from Genesis 1:27: 'So God created man in His own image...male and female created He him.' The 'image of "God,' directly created by God, was given to both man and woman. As 'joined unto the LORD,' however, even in this dimension of life, they would become 'one spirit' (I Corinthians 6:17).

g) ALTHOUGH ALL THE DESCENDANTS OF ADAM AND EVE HAVE INHERITED THEIR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CHARACTERISTICS BY GENETIC TRANSMISSION, EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS AN ETERNAL SPIRIT DIRECTLY FROM GOD AND IS THUS CAPABLE OF FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD

Similarly, although all the descendants of Adam and Eve have inherited their physical and mental characteristics by genetic transmission, yet each individual has an eternal spirit directly from God, and thus himself is capable of personal fellowship with God. It is God Who 'formeth the spirit of man within him' (Zechariah 12:1) and to whose disposal each man's spirit 'returns' (Ecclesiastes 12:7) when his body returns to dust.

h) EVE'S RELATIONSHIP WITH ADAM PARALLELS THAT OF THE CHURCH AS THE BRIDE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST

When Adam awoke from his deep sleep, and when God had finished forming Eve, He 'brought her unto the man,' to be with him from that time forth. In like manner, God is now forming a bride for Christ (Acts 15:14), as it were 'building up the body' (Ephesians 4:11-16). When this work is finished, God will bring His bride to the Lord Jesus and He will go to meet her, and she will be evermore joined to the Lord (John 14:2, 3; I Thessalonians 4:16, 17; Revelation 19:7-9; 21: 1-4)."

[Gen 1:27-31]:

(v. 27) "So God created man in His own image,

in the image of God He created him;

male and female He created them.

(v. 28) God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'

(v. 29) Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

(v. 30) And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food.' And it was so.

(v. 31) And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

XXII) MAN WAS COMMANDED TO BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY AND FILL THE EARTH WITH HIS KIND WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE

[Henry Morris, op. cit., p.75-78]:

Having created man and woman, God pronounced a blessing on them and then gave them their basic instructions and commission. Whether He had created more than one pair of each of the animal kinds is not stated, although the seeming inference ... might be that many pairs of each kind were made. In any case, only one man and one woman were made, a fact made clear in Genesis 2, when the details of the formation of Adam and Eve are described.

The first command given to this first man and woman was to 'be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.' The King James translation used the term 'replenish,' but this does not suggest the idea of 'refilling,' either the Old English term itself or the Hebrew word from which it is translated. The Hebrew word is 'male', and means simply 'fill', 'fulfill,' or 'be filled.' Of the more than three hundred times it is used, it is translated (in KJV) by 'replenish' only seven times; and even these could as well have been rendered 'fill.' It is certainly erroneous to use this one verse as a proof text for the gap theory, as many have done.

Man has not yet filled the earth, in accordance with God's command; nevertheless, many people today are unduly alarmed over the so-called population explosion, urging government controls of various sorts to slow down population growth. We can be sure that God's command (repeated, incidentally, after the Flood) was made in full knowledge of the earth's ability to support a large population (note Genesis 9:1), and it has never been rescinded. Even at the present level of man's technological knowledge, the earth could support a much larger population than it now holds. Obviously, it could not continue to grow indefinitely, without limit, but God no doubt has made adequate provision for such an eventuality.

For one thing, the Scriptures promise that Christ will return before man has completely destroyed his world - a prospect which, humanly speaking, seems more of an imminent danger than overpopulation. Further, there is quite a bit of evidence in the studies of animal populations that, when a given group increases in numbers to the optimum number for its own ecological niche, the population stabilizes - not because of a struggle-for-existence conflict, but by virtue of built-in psychological or physiological mechanisms which somehow slow down the reproductive activity of the population. It is possible that God would do the same with the human population.

Another possibility is that, had man not failed his probation in Eden, he would have eventually been allowed to colonize other planets as his population grew. Such ideas are speculation only, since human populations have not yet reached the optimum level even for our present decaying planet.

In addition to the command for procreation (and Genesis 2 makes it plain that this was to be within the framework of monogamous marriage), God instructed man to 'subdue' the earth, and to 'have dominion over...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.' These are military terms - first conquer, and then rule. In context, however, there is no actual conflict suggested, since everything God had made was pronounced 'good.' The 'cultural mandate,' as some have called it, is clearly a very expressive figure of speech for, first, intense study of the earth (with all of its intricate processes and complex systems) and, then, utilization of this knowledge for the benefit of the earth's inhabitants, both animal and human. Here is the primeval commission to man authorizing both science and technology as man's basic enterprises relative to the earth. 'Science' is man's disciplined study and understanding of the phenomena of his world. 'Technology' is the implementation of this knowledge in the effective ordering and development of the earth and its resources, for the greater good of all earth's inhabitants (including such fields of human service as engineering, agriculture, medicine, and a host of other practical technologies). This two fold commission to subdue and have dominion, to conquer and rule, embraces all productive human activities. Science and technology, research and development, theory and application, study and practice, and so forth, are various ways of expressing these two concepts.

This command, therefore, established man as God's steward over the created world and all things therein. 'Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas' (Psalm 8:6-8). However, as the writer of Hebrews says, commenting on this passage: 'But now we see not yet all things put under him' (Hebrews 2:8). The problem is, of course, that man has failed in his stewardship. Instead of using the earth for good, under God, he has denied God and abused his stewardship. This primeval commission has never been abrogated - man is still under its obligations. The scientific and technological enterprises still comprise God's mandate to man relative to the earth and its inhabitants, and man would find himself immeasurably more productive and effective in such pursuits if he would only approach them in the reverent and believing attitude of an honest and good servant of his Maker.

After giving man his commission, God told him of the provision for his most essential need - that of food. Man had work to do, and would need a repeated renewal of energy to continue the work. This was to be provided through the marvelous digestive system and internal energy conversion apparatus designed by God as a part of man's body (as well as those of the animals). This energy supply was to be perpetually available through the fruits and herbs of the biosphere established by God on the third day of creation. The supply could not be exhausted, since these plants were designed to replicate themselves via the bearing and yielding of seed. Furthermore, as man spread out and filled the earth, his food would be available everywhere, 'upon the face of all the earth.' There were (primevally) no deserts or other uninhabitable regions.

The animals, too, were to obtain their food from 'every green herb,' a term evidently meaning all green plants, including grasses. They also had a work to do, under man's direction, even though at this late date (after millennia of fearing and dreading man in a cursed world - note Genesis 9:2) it may be difficult or impossible to determine exactly the original nature or intended functions of the different kinds of animals.

It is clear from this passage that, in the original creation, it was not intended that either man or animals should eat animal food. As far as man was concerned, this was changed at the time of the Flood (Genesis 9:3), as will be discussed later. Whether some of the antediluvians ventured to do this against God's command, we are not told, although it is a possibility (Jabal introduced cattle raising, Genesis 4:20).

As far as carnivorous animals are concerned, their desire for meat must also have been a later development, either at the time of the Curse or after the Flood. Even today, of course, such animals can and will (if they have to) live on a vegetarian diet. Whether such structures as fangs and claws were part of their original equipment, or were recessive features which only became dominant due to selection processes later, or were mutational features following the Curse, or exactly what, must await further research. the same uncertainty must prevail at this point as to how the present 'balance-of-nature' arrangements developed in various environments, whereby predators keep in check the large numbers of lower animals that would otherwise take over. It is at least possible that the primeval 'balances' in every environment, including the fecundity of each kind, were quite different than at present, so that predation [act of preying for food] was neither needed nor desired. The Scriptures do predict that, in the world of the future, after Christ has returned and restored the earth in part to its primeval perfection, there will be once again no predation or struggle between animals or between animals and man (note Isaiah 11:6-9; Hosea 2:18, etc.).

[Dr. Baugh, op. cit., p.56-61]:

On day number six, the final animal life was created, and in order to keep the vegetation in balance, such huge plant eating creatures were required. After the Flood, the decline in the size and abundance of plant life would not have supported the dinosaurs for very long. Even elephants today in Africa are threatened by the lack of needed vegetation to support them. Reduced partial pressure in the atmosphere played an even greater role in the demise of the dinosaur.

In the world before the Flood, the light would be at its lowest pink hue at high noon because of the angle of the light passing through the firmament. But, just as important, envision the firmament - this double bubble of crystalline water - and the effect it would have upon the atmospheric pressure. The atmosphere would be pressurized to a greater degree than we now have. Researchers, like Dr. Henry Voss, at the University of Illinois, have been able to approximate the atomic weight of such a canopy. This crystalline canopy would put a cap on the atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure today at sea level is 14.7 pounds per square inch. Before the Flood, the air pressure would have been about two times what it is today....

...The ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere would have been about thirty percent, compared to twenty-one percent today. Some researchers have concluded that due to the pre-Flood atmospheric conditions which had greater amounts of oxygen, man could have run up to two hundred miles without suffering fatigue. It has been discovered in hyperbaric medical chamber experiments that under these circumstances, an open wound would heal overnight. It is therefore understandable how man could have lived to be several hundred years old, even after the fall, in this pre-Flood world, Heavier air pressure and more oxygen in the atmosphere were conducive to longer life.

Another factor in the pre-Flood environment which was in man's favor was less radiation from the sun. The canopy above the earth acted as a filter to trap most of the short-wave radiation. It is the short-wave radiation that is causing man many problems today....

...before the Flood, almost all of the harmful radiation would have been filtered out by the water canopy.

Today, because of harmful short-wave radiation man suffers genetic damage, cancer, and other health damage factors that shorten the lifespan. Also, there are certain microbes and disease germs that could not live in the pre-Flood atmosphere; but they can live in an oxygen-depleted atmosphere. In addition, there was a mist each morning that aided the oxygenation of the entire water table. More oxygen in the water would account for great whales, great sharks, and the chambered nautilus marine life forms that were gargantuan [in]...size. The fossil record bears evidence that such creatures existed; but, without more oxygen in the waters today, they could not live in contemporary oceans, seas, or rivers. The theory of evolution does not provide an answer as to how such enormous marine monsters lived, but the creation model does provide an answer...

...An additional beneficial characteristic would be the extra oxygen in the atmosphere, and with the great assimilation of oxygen in the air, man was possibly twenty percent larger than he is today. Adam and Noah were probably about seven feet tall, and there were others who were even taller.

In the sixth chapter of Genesis, we read that there were giants on the earth before the Flood.

A) [Compare Gen 6:4 KJV]:

"There were giants in the earth in those days..."

"giants" = "nephilim" ]

At Glen Rose, Texas, we have excavated some of the footprints of those giants. Their footprints were preserved as they walked over the muddy sediment in the early phases of the Noahic Flood.

The environmental context before the Flood would exercise the full genetic viability for all life forms...

[Full genetic viability = the full capacity of a species to produce an enormous variety of characteristics within its own species - without changing into another species]

...For example, today the dragonfly - which is a superior helicopter - has a wingspan not exceeding six inches. But in the fossil record, dragonflies have been found with wingspans of up to thirty-six inches. There has to be an explanation as to how at some point in time dragonflies grew to such gigantic dimensions. It would certainly require a greater concentration of oxygen. Conditions that would support such monstrous life forms, even in the insect world, scientifically dictate that there had to be such a canopy above the earth. In order to provide that much oxygen would have to approach the level of toxicity, unless the atmospheric pressure was greater. Again, such an atmospheric condition can only be explained in terms of a firmament. Therefore, we have to follow the Biblical record of creation specifically or the environmental chain breaks into unconnected parts.

The greater atmospheric pressure, with approximately thirty percent oxygen, would have created optimal conditions. Thus, dragonflies could have grown to a size supporting a thirty-six inch wingspan.

Consider another illustration. In West Texas, there has been found a fossilized pterodactyl, a flying reptile, with a wingspan of fifty-two feet. There is no way this flying dinosaur (as it has been called) could have flown with the current atmospheric pressure. It would have been utterly impossible. But, with an atmospheric pressure of approximately thirty-two pounds per square inch, this flying pterodactyl would have had a field day. Scientific investigation mandates a time in the past when life forms required greater atmospheric pressure and filtration of the ultraviolet radiation, such as the Biblical record very clearly presents. In all the annals of investigative research, only the Biblical record gives the required mechanism to make this possible. Just a canopy [of] water vapor would not satisfy a complete and needed explanation. Water vapor collapses into vortices, eddies, and spiral circles of energy; but, with a world energized by a firmament of compressed hydrogen held in place by a layer of crystalline water which would keep the temperature at a consistent level, the necessary requirements would be the result.

NASA had discovered in the examination of superconductive materials that when held near a magnet, the lines of force generated in the free flow of electromagnetic energy hold the materials in place, either above it or below it. In other words, researchers have not been able to find a mechanism for holding up a water canopy unless that water canopy has exactly what the Biblical record clearly describes: a superconductive solid metallic base. Hydrogen would be such a base under these circumstances, and with a free flow of electrons, it would support itself above the dipole magnet of the earth. All the laws of physics known in current research show that this would simply support itself above the earth, and it would be held there until warmer temperatures would moderate its enclosure...

...A superconductive canopy of compressed hydrogen in near-metallic form was encased above and below in crystalline water.

[And the stars were magnified through this canopy as if they were set in it like jewels]:

[Dr. Baugh cont.]:

"The stars were shining at a distance, a startling characteristic of the pre-Flood world. In Genesis 1:14-18, the stellar heavens are described....

B) [Gen 1:14-19]:

(v. 14) "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

(v. 15) and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.'

(v. 16) God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

(v. 17) God set [= "nathan"] them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,

(v. 18) to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.]

[Dr. Baugh, cont.]

...The stars are in color, and the Biblical record states that God set the stars in the firmament. The ancients described the firmament as a vault above the earth, and the stars were placed in this vault.

[These ancient myths speak of stars in a vault-like sky which appear much closer than they appear now. This supports the concept of the preflood model with a crystalline water-metallic hydrogen composite canopy]

The Biblical record states very clearly that God 'set' the stars in the firmament much as a jeweler would enhance a diamond by placing it on a background of black velvet. The word 'set' [Gen 1:17 above] is taken from the Hebrew word 'nathan'; it means 'to add and yield.' In other words, the stars are not physically placed in the firmament, because they are great distances away. But, as light from the stars penetrates the firmament, there is a very strong magnetic field in the middle; it is superconductive without any resistance to the flow of electrons. On each side is an electromagnetic field charged to a lesser degree in the crystalline water formation. What is then presented in a pressurized form on each side is a photomultiplier. Each photon of light which strikes the configuration is multiplied by ten because of the interaction in the atoms. On the earth side of the canopy, the stars were seen with ten times the photons that the light brought to the outer surface of the canopy. Before the Flood, the stars were seen by man as being about three times brighter than they are seen today. In other words, in the firmament, God set the stars, or added and yielded their dimensions in full color.

NASA has found that when a red filter is used in space, the stars appear in beautiful color. This is exciting because God put the stellar bodies in space for signs, for days, for months, and for years. We understand that by observing the rotation of the earth in relation to the movement of the sun and the moon, and other heavenly bodies, we can tell times. But now we can perceive that with the enhancement of the light, those before the Flood could, by the configuration of the stars, tell time at any moment. They would not need a Rolex watch; they would have something far better.

Before the Flood, Earth's inhabitants never saw total darkness. Research has indicated that the temperature would have been about seventy-eight degrees Fahrenheit during the day. Imagine superior man with a perfect environment, perfect food with complete nutrients, no harmful radiation from space, and disease microbes held in check. The pre-Flood world was, in our understanding today, paradise."

In the book of Job is revealed further information about God's awesome plan of orchestrated creation.

C) [Job 38:4-9]:

(v. 4) " 'Where were you [God is asking Job] when I laid the earth's foundation?

Tell Me, if you understand.

(v. 5) Who marked off its dimensions?

Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

(v. 6) On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone -

(v. 7) while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?' "

"while the morning stars sang together" =

[Dr. Carl E. Baugh, op. cit., p.65-67]:

"According to the observation of radioastrophysicists, stars, by radio wave context, are 'singing' to us....

...Stars throughout the universe are emitting radio wave energy. Some entire galaxies are emitting almost nothing but radio wave energy. NASA discovered to their amazement that not only are these stars emitting radio wave energy, but that there is music on those radio waves of energy.... not only is music emitted, but the music being emitted is in a major key. The music being emitted from these stars is harmonious. NASA compared the music being emitted from these star sources to the instruments of an orchestral creation. It seems that everywhere we look, creation is orchestrated. Recently, with some special plasma ionized research units, NASA found that Neptune and some of the other planets in our solar system emit a signal which sounds like whistling, as if it were whistling a tune...

First of all, there was a firmament of water above the earth in crystalline form. Crystals take on very special characteristics. When energized with a current of electromagnetic energy, crystals amplify long radio waves. Each morning before the Flood, as the earth turned toward the sun, when the angle was just right, the energized radio waves reaching the earth through the universe were amplified by the crystalline firmament canopy. Each morning before the Flood the radio wave signals from these stars, or 'music,' could be heard on Earth.

Light energy does something to the human body and to all life forms, even if it cannot be seen. In the early hours of the morning, as the fiber optic nature of this crystalline canopy above the earth was transferring light from the sunny side of the globe, it would have very gently enhanced that light. If an individual were asleep, and could not see the light, as the light were enhanced that individual would begin to stir, for the light would be received in the biologic mechanism of his body. Light would gently induce the individual awake.

The crystalline water in the firmament canopy before the Flood would filter out the harmful shortwave radiation. The canopy would permit the long waves of energy to go right through it. In fact, the long waves of energy would not only be able to pass through the canopy, but would be enhanced, or amplified by it. While the individual sleeping before the Flood was gently induced awake by the light, about dawn he would also have been greeted by the amplified sound of the radio wave energy being emitted by the stars.

NASA had found that there are bursts of energy from these sources, but there would also be sustains, crescendos, diminishes, and terminations. There would be new music every day.

In the orchestral creation model as described in part in Job 38, God said there were foundations to the earth, and that there were elements in perfect balance. Inside the earth there existed the radioisotopes in perfect balance with moderators, such as iridium, strontium, rubidium, radioisotopic lead, and uranium in perfect balance with maganese, water, sulpher, magnesium, and other elemental moderators. Under those circumstances, inside the earth there would have existed a perfectly controlled nuclear reaction. Not only would there have been a nuclear reactor, but with the elements placed in perfect balance, there would have been what physicists now call a breeder reactor. You would have ended up with as many elements as you started with, as long as there was a constant energy input into the system. The constant energy input was generated throughout the celestial heavens, and received into the crystalline firmament canopy; and the primary electromagnetic field of the canopy transferred this energy supply would have been continuously restructured and replaced. Under those circumstances, with the radioisotopes inside the earth in a long-term decay rate, there would have existed a perfectly balanced nuclear reactor inside the earth.

You would need such a perfectly balanced reactor in the orchestral model. It is primarily the shortwave energy which heats up the atmosphere around us every day. However, that shortwave energy would have been filtered out by the firmament canopy before the Flood. The heating of the environment did not come from above; instead, there would have been a gentle thermal blanket within the earth, probably surrounded by a layer of asphalt inside the earth called the 'swaddlingband' [lit., baby clothing strips] in Job 38:9....

[Job 38:4-9 cont.]:

(v. 4) "Where were you [Job] when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

(v. 5) Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

(v. 6) On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone -

(v. 7) while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

(v. 8) Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,

(v. 9) when I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band..."

This would moderate and sustain the temperature which would then be radiated to the earth's surface. Possibly it would be returned to the surface of the earth through water fountains and recycling reservoirs. This energy would be returned to the earth so that at night the energy transferred into the earth would cause the environment to be slightly cooler. During the daytime, because of this perfectly balanced thermonuclear reaction inside the earth, it would have heated up slightly, to approximately seventy-eight degrees Fahrenheit.

With Job 38 as a context, and with all of the natural elements in perfect balance, let us emphasize the element that is the most common worldwide. This element is silicon, or sand. Inside the earth, there would have existed a perfectly balanced nuclear reactor designed with radioisotopes and moderators. Above that rested a solid crust of granite around the earth; then above that, there would have existed a layer of sand or silicon. Above this silicon layer would have been the vegetation. This would also give a slightly warmer ambient temperature context for the root systems. Amazingly, botanists have found that when plants are grown hydroponically, they grow to be superior plants. When a plant is grown under pink light, it is superior. When the roots are slightly warmed, the plant grows and produces in a superior fashion. When the amount of carbon dioxide is slightly increased, the plant grows better still.

A Japanese physicist, Dr. Kei Mori, took only two of these gradient elements (he filtered the ultraviolet rays and increased the carbon dioxide) and exposed plant life to these conditions. In two years, under his supervision, a tomato plant grew to be sixteen feet tall with nine hundred and three tomatoes on it. The tomato plant has continued to grow to this day. Our last report shows that it is over five years old, over twenty feet tall, and has produced over four thousand tomatoes. All Dr. Mori did was filter out the ultraviolet rays and allow the plant to take in more carbon dioxide.

The United States Department of Agriculture simply added some carbon dioxide to cotton plants, and they found that it resulted in a thirty to fifty percent increase in growth rate. Before the Flood, however, the following conditions existed that would have helped plants to grow better

1) There existed increased atmospheric pressure.

2) Carbon dioxide was increased to an efficient degree.

3) Hydroponic growing conditions existed, in which plant roots penetrated into the water table in the sand, thus the nutrients were better supplied.

4) There was a variation of flow within the water table.

5) There was a slightly warmer temperature gradient in the root systems and the water table.

6) There was efficient use of pink light.

7) There was an elimination of ultraviolet radiation."

[Dr. Carl E. Baugh continues, op cit, p.72]:

"...the description of the restored earth found in Isaiah 35 shows that the forests will again sing.

Around an individual before the Flood in this canopy context, the radio waves from the stars were enhanced by this canopy in the morning hours. The crystalline structure of the sand would pick up and amplify these radio waves. Finally, there are qualities in the cellular structures of plants which would cause the reeds to vibrate, so the forest began to sing. Anyone who knew his Creator could not help but respond.....

...Only now have we been able to put together this orchestral creation model, balancing out all of these elements in an articulated form. The Biblical records explain reality far better than the evolutionary concept does."

[Gen 1:31-2:4 NAS]:

(v. 1:31) "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

(v. 1) Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.[stars]

(v. 2) And by the seventh day God [= "Elohim"] completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

(v. 3) Then God [= "Elohim"] blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God [= "Elohim"] had created and made.

(v. 4) "This is the account ["toledoths" = literally "generations"] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God [= "Jehovah Elohim"] made earth and heaven."

XXIII) THE STAGES OF CREATION OF THE HEAVENS & THE EARTH WERE COMPLETED IN SIX DAYS - THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT TO BE DONE, NO EVOLUTION REQUIRED - AND IT ALL WAS VERY GOOD

[Henry Morris, op. cit., p.79-81]:

"God had now completed His work but, before settling down to 'rest' in contemplation of what He had produced, as it were, He first surveyed it all and pronounced the whole creation to be 'very good,' Six times before, He had seen that what He had made was 'good'; but now that it was complete, with every part in perfect harmony with every other part, all perfectly formed and with an abundance of inhabitants, He saw with great joy that it was all (literally) 'exceedingly good.' On each previous day, the account had concluded by saying (literally) 'the evening and the morning were a fifth day.' and so on; but now it says, 'the evening and the morning were the sixth day' (the definite article occurring for the first time in this formula), thus also stressing completion of the work.

This one verse is itself sufficient to refute any theory which tries to accommodate the geological ages concept in the Genesis record of creation. Everything in the universe (the next verse specifically includes all the host of heaven in its scope) was still at this time exceedingly good, in God's own omniscient judgment. There could have been nothing that was not good in all creation: no struggle for existence, no disease, no pollution, no physical calamities (earthquakes, floods, etc.), no imbalance or lack of harmony, no disorder, no sin and, above all, no death! Even Satan was still good at this point; his rebellion and fall must have come later.

Fossils, of course, speak of death - often of violent and sudden death. They also speak of disease and injuries, of storms and convulsions - in short, of a world like the present world, 'the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together' (Romans 8:22). Since death only 'entered into the world' when sin came in through man (Romans 5:12), and since the whole creation was very good before man sinned, it is as obvious as anything could be that the fossil record now found in the sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust could only have been formed sometime after man sinned. The fossils could not have been deposited either before the six days of creation (as in the gap theory) or during the six days of creation (as according to the progressive creation day-age type of theory). How could God have possibly looked upon a world of struggle and travail, and looked into the rocks to see the remains of billions of dead animals (as well as humanlike creatures), and then described it all as exceedingly good? Such a suggestion in effect makes God out to be a monster - not the 'God of all grace' ([Who] cares for every sparrow), not the God of love and mercy (therefore too kind to create a world by such a process as suggested in the geological age concept), the God of perfect wisdom (therefore certainly able to devise a better way than that), the God of omnipotence (thus fully able to create by such a better way), and the God of infinite order (not the 'author of confusion' and of wasteful inefficiency which is implied if the fossil record is indeed a record of prehuman earth history), as revealed in the Bible...

...the cataclysmic events of the great Flood in the days of Noah are quite sufficient to account for all the phenomena of the sedimentary rocks and the fossil record. At the time of man's creation, however, the whole universe was a beautiful, perfect creation, the finest that the mind and heart of God Himself could devise for man..."

[Gen 1:31-2:4 NAS cont]:

(v. 1:31) "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

(v. 1) Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.[stars]

(v. 2) And by the seventh day God [= "Elohim"] completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

(v. 3) Then God [= "Elohim"] blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God [= "Elohim"] had created and made.

(v. 4) "This is the account ["toledoths" = literally "generations"] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God [= "Jehovah Elohim"] made earth and heaven."

XXIV) ONCE COMPLETELY CREATED AND PERFECT IN GOD'S EYES BUT THEN CONTAMINATED BY THE FALL, THE HEAVENS & THE EARTH ARE NOW DEVOLVING AND DETERIORATING

A) PRESENT PROCESSES ARE OF CONSERVATION & DISINTEGRATION NOT THE CREATIVE PROCESSES OF INNOVATION AND INTEGRATION

[Henry Morris, p. 79-81, cont.]

"...The passage in Genesis 2:1-3 is, of course, a marvelous assertive summary that God had now completed His work of creating and making all things. Four times it is emphasized that God had finished His work, and three times it is emphasized that this included all His work.

These points are stressed because it is vitally important for man to realize that the present processes of the cosmos are not processes of creating and making, and therefore it would forever be impossible for him to understand about the origin of things apart from divine revelation. Both the ancient pagan evolutionists and the modern 'scientific' evolutionists continue over and over to repeat this same folly, trying to explain the origin and basic meaning of things in terms of a self-contained, closed universe, an attempt which is absurdly impossible.

B) THE TWO UNIVERSAL LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS REFLECT CREATION'S DEVOLUTION & DETERIORATION

The present processes of the universe are, without exception, processes of conservation and disintegration, as formulated in the two universal Laws of Thermodynamics.

[The first law of thermodynamics is one of energy conservation: "Energy is neither created nor destroyed"

The second law of thermodynamics can basically be stated that in spite of this conservation (First Law), the energy available for useful work does decrease so that the universe can be said to be "running down". Example: The sun's energy is dissipating via heat into the universe. So EVERYTHING IS DE-EVOLVING AND NOT EVOLVING!!]

C) SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION OF TODAY'S PROCESSES, INCLUDING CONSERVATION AND DISINTEGRATION INDICATES THAT SUCH PROCESSES COULD NEVER HAVE PRODUCED LIFE, THE EARTH AND THE UNIVERSE

The processes of the creation period, on the other hand, were processes of innovation and integration 'creating' and 'making'), which are exactly opposite. Science can deal only with present processes, to which alone it has access. It should be completely clear to all who are not willfully ignorant that universal processes of conservation and disintegration could never produce a universe requiring almost infinite processes of innovation and integration for its production.

D) SINCE WE CANNOT OBSERVE WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE WE ARE LEFT WITH GOD'S REVELATION TO MANKIND IN THE BIBLE OF WHAT HAPPENED

Therefore, if we really want to know anything about this creation period (other than the fact that there must have been such a period, to produce the universe, a fact certainly required by the implications of the two Laws of Thermodynamics), then such knowledge can be acquired only by divine revelation. And that is exactly what we have here in this marvelous first chapter of Genesis, the divinely revealed record of the creation and formation of all things: how long it took, what the various events and divisions were, what the order of development was, the relations of the various components, and all the other data which man could never be able to determine for himself through his own scientific observations. This completion of God's work of creation is also stressed in the New Testament (Hebrews 4:3, 4, 10; 11:3; Ephesians 3:9; etc.).

XXV) THE SEVENTH DAY OF CREATION WAS A 24 HR DAY JUST LIKE THE OTHER 6 DAYS, A DAY IN WHICH GOD RESTED FROM HIS WORK OF CREATION

The fact that the seventh day is not formally summarized as are the other six days at the end of each day certainly does not mean that the seventh day is still continuing, as some day-age advocates have suggested. The Scripture does not say, 'He is resting on the seventh day.' but rather, 'He rested on the seventh day.' Exodus 31:17 even says that 'on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed.' Though His work of creation was finished, He very soon had to undertake the great work of redemption (John 4:34; 5:17 etc.)."

[Gen 1:31-2:4 NAS cont]:

(v. 1:31) "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

(v. 1) Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.[stars]

(v. 2) And by the seventh day God [= "Elohim"] completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

(v. 3) Then God [= "Elohim"] blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God [= "Elohim"] had created and made.

(v. 4) This is the account ["toledoths" = literally "generations"] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God [= "Jehovah Elohim"] made earth and heaven."

XXVI) "THIS IS THE ACCOUNT [TOLEDOTHS = GENERATIONS = STAGES] OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH WHEN THEY WERE CREATED" REFERS BACK TO THE STAGES OF THE 6 SUCCESSIVE DAYS OF CREATION WHICH WERE JUST DETAILED FOR THE READER IN GENESIS CHAPTER ONE AND NOT FORWARD TO GENERATIONS OF HUMANKIND IN LATER CHAPTERS OF GENESIS

This is the account ["toledoths" = literally "generations" = stages] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God [= "Jehovah Elohim"] made earth and heaven." =

"Generations"= TWOT, vol 1, op. cit., p. 380, states:

"toledoths. Generations, birth... ...derivative of yalad 'to bring forth'... ...[toledoths] occurs only in the plural...

...As used in the OT, toledoths refers to what is produced or brought into being by someone, or follows therefrom. In no case in Gen does the word include the birth of the individual whose toledoths it introduces (except in Gen 25:19, where the story of Isaac's life is introduced by reference to the fact that he was the son of Abraham). After the conclusion of the account in which Jacob was the principal actor, Gen 37:2 says, 'These are the toledoths of Jacob' and proceeds to tell about his children and the events with which they were connected."

So, in Gen 2:4, "toledoths" refers back to what was 'produced or brought into being' by God - namely the heavens and the earth in the 6 days of creation, (Gen 1:1-2:1).

[Marvin Lubenow states in 'Bones of Contention', Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, p. 216]:

"The lexicon defines toledoth as 'history, especially family history' or something associated with origins. This would mean that the term is concerned with ancestors rather than descendants. It also suggests that that phrase looks back to the narrative rather than looking ahead to what follows.

The first use of toledoth in Genesis 2:4 ('these are the generations of the heavens and the earth') clearly establishes that this reference at 2:4 is back rather than ahead. There is simply nothing following Genesis 2:4 that deals with 'the heavens and the earth.'...

...In 1936, P. J. Wiseman wrote a book entitled New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis... Wiseman asked the question, How was information recorded and how were documents formulated in ancient Mesopotamia, which was the geographical context of much of the book of Genesis? The heart of Wiseman's contribution to the problem of the formulation of Genesis was his insight in identifying the toledoth phrases in Genesis with ancient Mesopotamian colophons. A colophon is a scribal device placed at the conclusion of a literary work written on a clay tablet giving - among other things - the title or description of the narrative, the date or occasion of the writing, and the name of the owner or writer of the tablet.

It is not surprising to the student of ancient eastern customs that many of their literary habits were precisely the opposite of our own. For instance, the Hebrews commenced their writing on what to us is the last page of the book and wrote from right to left. In ancient Mesopotasmia (Iraq) it was the end and not the beginning of the tablet which contained the vital information regarding date, contents, and ownership or authorship. This custom was widespread and persisted for thousands of years."

[Henry Morris, op. cit. p. 80]:

"[The] first chapter should have been marked... ...in the middle of verse 4 of Genesis 2. It is there that the first 'toledoth' [= "generations"] ...appears...

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created."...

...this statement represents the subscript, or signature as it were, of the author of the section that has gone before... ...since there was no human author, no man having been present to observe the creation, no human name is attached as in the case of the other ten "toledoths" that occur later in Genesis. [Only the 'Lord God's' name is 'attached'] The account tells about, not the genealogical and historical records of some patriarch, but about the "genealogy" of the universe itself [of which God is Progenitor]."

XXVII) THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION IS NOT MYTHOLOGICAL

After all the critics' points of contention are done away with one by one, there still remains one major contention of the critics:

A) NEITHER POPULAR OPINION NOR PRIOR EXISTENCE OF SIMILAR ACCOUNTS INVALIDATES THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OR ANY ACCOUNT

They say that the creation 'story' in the Bible was derived from mythological sources. As a matter of fact most of the world maintains that the Genesis creation account is mythological - symbolic or otherwise. They support this conclusion by pointing to the prior existence of actual myths which have the same or similar elements of content as the Genesis account of creation. However, this is false logic. An historical account is not proved to be a myth just because an actual myth has similar elements of content and/or predates it. There are all kinds of false stories which predate true accounts.

This would be similar to a scenario in which an officer of the law takes a statement about the occurrence of a crime. This story then proves by examination of the evidence to have some false elements in it. It is therefore wrongly concluded that a statement which is taken LATER about the same crime is false only on the basis that the account of this second story was received later, (i.e., an accurate written account of an actual historical event does not have to be the earliest written account of that event). It is also wrong to conclude that the second story is false because it contains similar or identical elements to the first. Police files and journals of investigative crime reporting are filled with this type of scenario proving that the details of each story must be thoroughly checked out in order that the truth of each story be correctly determined.

There is not a single element in the creation account in Scripture (the Bible) which is disproved on the basis of proper analysis. False presuppositions must be disallowed such as the ones already mentioned (similar elements & predating) and such as Mr. Doane's own words in the introduction to his book "BIBLE MYTHS":

"Many able writers have shown our so-called Sacred Scriptures to be unhistorical, and have pronounced them largely legendary,..."

"'How these narratives ...unhistorical as they have been shown to be, came into existence, it is not our business to explain...'"

"The work naturally begins with the Eden myth...showing ...universality, origin and meaning."

Universality, however, is not proof that a particular account is mythological; nor can origin be established on the basis that other accounts predate and contain similar elements, (an accurate written account of an actual historical event does not have to be the earliest written account of that event); and the meaning cannot be determined by assuming that the account is a myth and then proceeding to piece together one's own scenario based on mythologies which are similar and older.

B) PROPER APPROACH TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTENTS OF AN ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT

1) RULE #1: IN ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT INTERPRETATION:

LET THE WORDS SAY WHAT THEY MEAN (WHICH MEANS PROPER TRANSLATION). THEN CHECK OUT WHETHER OR NOT THE INTERPRETATION IS TRUTH ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE & TESTIMONY.

2) RULE #2: IF NO EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY IS AVAILABLE TO FAIRLY PROVE OR DISPROVE THE ACCOUNT THEN THE CONCLUSION IS INCONCLUSIVE!].

The real crux of the matter however is not the proper interpretation of facts vs fiction, but it is one of the human will. For example,

Mr. Doane continues to make prejudicial statements in his introduction as follows:

"Before showing the origin and meaning of the myth......"

"..because I would not and could not allow myself to surrender ... what I hold to be the truth.."

Notice that author Doane has predetermined what the truth of creation cannot be and before examining what God says in His Word, Mr. Doane states, 'I would not and could not allow myself to surrender...what I hold to be the truth...' This shows lack of open-mindedness and an unwillingness to have his own belief system questioned. Mr. Doane goes on to say, 'But little beyond the arrangement of this work is claimed as original'

The statements made by Mr. Doane in his book show a decided mentality to accept the work of those writers he personally selected who maintain that the Bible is a book of myths without referring to other studies which properly analyze Scripture as it is: namely 66 ancient manuscripts written in one of several ancient languages by 40 authors over a period of hundreds of years to a readership of antiquity. There is no indication that the author recognizes that translations are not always precise in relaying the true meaning of Scripture because they are translations.... another presumption which leads to false conclusions. The author does not make a legitimate effort to properly analyze the particular Scriptural passages himself to verify that the presuppposition of mythology is true. The author also repeatedly assumes true many false and improper interpretations of Scripture and he utilizes pagan myths about Scripture such as the birth of Christ on December 25 , (Where is this date to be found in the Bible???). He is in these cases not critiquing actual accounts in Scripture but false accounts of Scripture as if they were Scripture! Therefore the author's approach eliminates the possibility of showing that the accounts are true.

C) CONCLUSION

Josh McDowell states, ('Answers to Tough Questions', pp. 176, 190):

"The critical school contends that the beginnings of the human race reach much further back than any written recollections we might possess. There was such a time span between the events and the recording of them that it is not feasible to expect the information to be trustworthy.

They contend that there is not any sufficient reason to suppose that the Hebrews had more trustworthy information concerning the life and condition of the first humans than other nations of the ancient world.

In their point of view, the Hebrew writers offer a picture of primitive times derived from the folklore of other nations. Therefore, it is hardly credible to press for historical details since we are not dealing with recorded history..."

[The astounding record of the preservation of every jot and tittle of the Hebrew Old Testament books down through the ages refutes the critics' assumption that there is no accurate record of the creation of the heavens and the earth. The critics also insist that Moses needed to rely on the accounts of previous men to glean the information he wrote down about creation. As a matter of fact, no man was there to report how the heavens were created. It is therefore evident that Moses' source of information was God - for who else was there? In the final analysis, the proof is that the creation account in the Bible lines up with reality and is without contradiction and is affirmed by TRUE science at every turn]

[McDowell, cont., p. 190]:

...the final major contention of the critical school [is] that the creation accounts were derived from mythological sources...

[However, McDowell goes on to say]

...'The [Genesis account] is unique for its dignified monotheism and non-mythological nature.'... 'The common assumption that the Hebrew account is simply a purged and simplified version of the Babylonian legend...is fallacious on methodological grounds.... ...the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa.

'In the Ancient Orient, legends were not simplified or turned into pseudo-history (historicized) as has been assumed for early Genesis.'..

..it was commonly assumed that the original material underlying Genesis 1 as a whole was the Babylonian Creation Epic known as Enuma Elish..

..'The aims of Genesis 1 and 2 and of the so-called 'Babylonian Creation' (Enuma Elish) are quite distinct. Genesis aims to portray the sole God as sovereign creator, whereas the primary purpose of Enuma Elish is to exalt the chief god of the Babylonian pantheon...[i.e., polytheism]

'The contrast between the monotheism and simplicity of the Hebrew account and the polytheism and elaboration of the Mesopotamian epic is obvious to any reader.'... ...logic shows it to be more likely that myth was born or developed from Genesis than the other way around."

Henry Morris states, op. cit., p. 103:

"We may note in passing that the Lord Jesus Christ based His own teaching on marriage on this primeval account in Genesis (Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12). He obviously regarded it as historical, not allegorical. Furthermore, He quoted in the same context from both of the first two chapters of Genesis. 'Have ye not read,' He said, 'that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female [quoting Genesis 1:27], And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" [quoting Genesis 2:23, 24]. It seems as though the Lord Jesus was not aware of the results of modern critical analysis, which has assured us that these two chapters 'contradict' each other! Those modern theologians (and there are many such today, even in certain 'evangelical' circles) who regard these accounts as contradictory, and who regard Adam and Eve as merely allegorical, are thus in rebellion against these inspired testimonies of the apostle Paul and the Lord Jesus. This is no light matter."