How Many Persons Created the Heavens and the Earth?

It is commonly believed that the One who speaks as the Creator of all things in Isaiah chapters 44 and 45 is the triune God consisting of three Persons. The language of Isaiah 44:24 cannot possibly be reconciled with the popular idea:

“Thus says the Lord (Yahweh) your Redeemer who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the Lord who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth. Who was with me?’” (RV)

The implied answer is, of course, that no one was present with the one Lord in the act of creation. Yahweh stretched out the heavens alone. The Hebrew word rendered “alone” means “in a state of separation, by one’s self” (Brown, Driver and Briggs, Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 94). No one assisted God, the Father at the creation. Moreover, the Creator is one Person, not three:

“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10).

Nowhere does the Old Testament speak of a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead.

Elsewhere in the Old Testament it is said:

“You, God, even You alone, You have made the heaven…the earth and all things” (2 Kings 19:15).

“You are the Lord, even You alone; You have made the heaven, the earth and all things” (Nehemia 9:6).

The Lord God is always distinguished from the promised Messiah. They are never said to be members of one Godhead.

English: a Venn diagram-like symbol for the Ch...
Venn diagram-like symbol for the Christian Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit) a so called monotheism but having a triune god (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This simple information should prevent us from ever believing that Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God, was present with the Father when the latter created the heavens and the earth. The idea that Jesus actually created the heavens and earth of Genesis 1:1 has been promoted by the Worldwide Church of God. Their teaching was that there are two members in the one “God-family.” Isaiah 44:24 (cited above) clearly states that ONE person alone created the heavens and the earth. Language has no way of expressing this more distinctly.

Trinitarians hold that the second member of the triune God was instrumental in the creation of Genesis 1:1. This, however, contradicts the statement that the one Creator was the Father (Malachi 2:10, cited above).

When Jesus came into being at his birth he enjoyed a unique communion with his Father. Thus he says,

“I am not alone, because the Father is with me” (John 16:32).

Jesus always speaks as a person distinct from his Father, exactly as every son is an individual separate from his father. The personal “I” of the New Testament never refers to the Father and Son together. So also in the Old Testament the personal “I” refers to one Person, not three.

Jesus prays that the disciples may be

“one even as we [the Father and I] are one” (John 17:11).

This is a unity of purpose and will. Jesus prays also:

“May they [the disciples] all be one as You, Father, are in me and I in You, so that they may also be in us” (John 17:21).

It is obvious from these texts that the Father and Son use the ordinary personal pronouns to distinguish themselves as any father and son would. It is thus beyond question that Jesus was not with the Father when the latter described His act of creation:

“Thus says the Lord [Yahweh], your Redeemer…I am the Lord who made all things, who stretched out the heavens by myself…Who was with me?” (Isaiah 44:24).

Jesus did not exist as a person when the Lord God created all things. God, the Father, was alone responsible for the creation of the universe. (The “us” of Genesis 1:26, in connection with the creation of man, probably refers to attendant angels, cp. Job 38:7.) Most believers in the Trinity no longer use Genesis 1:26 as a proof of the triune God.

Jesus came into being as the Son of God when Mary conceived him supernaturally. Luke is careful to tell us that it was because of the miraculous conception in Mary’s womb, not because of any so-called “eternal generation,” that Jesus was the Son of God:

“Holy Spirit will come upon you [Mary] and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for that reason the child conceived will be holy, the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).

If God, the Father (the Lord, Yahweh of the Old Testament) was alone the author of the creation, why does the belief that Jesus was an active agent in the creation persist?

The answer is that two creations have become confused in the minds of Bible readers. Jesus is indeed the mediator of the New Creation (Colossians 1:15-18). But he is not the creator of the universe. That creation is the work of the One God, the Father who acted alone when He stretched forth the heavens and the earth (Isaiah 44:24).

Unfortunately, one or two verses in the New Testament have been translated to give the impression that all things were made “by” Jesus. In fact the original states that all things were made “through” Jesus (see the margin of Colossians 1:16: “in him,” “through him” and “for him,” not “by him”).

Jesus was indeed the reason for God’s creation. The Father “foreknew” him from the beginning (1 Peter 1:20). In God’s great purpose Jesus was “slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). But he came into existence as the Son of God at his conception (Luke 1:35). There is no biblical text to support the idea that the Son of God was alive before his conception (though a few verses in John’s gospel have been used to support the idea).

When Jesus prayed to receive the glory which he had with the Father before the foundation of the world, he was asking for the glory which had been reserved for him and which he would receive after his resurrection (John 17:5). Peter speaks of an inheritance which is “reserved in heaven for you” (1 Peter 1:4). That inheritance is, of course, the earth which Jesus has promised to the meek (Matthew 5:5) and which he will give them when he returns to establish the Kingdom of God. The same glory which was planned for Jesus from the beginning had also been given already (John 17:22) to the disciples, even those not yet born! (John 17:20). This glory is a glory which all disciples “have” even though they have not yet received it. Similarly Jesus “had” glory laid up for him with the Father long before his birth. In John 17 he prays to receive it.

Isaiah 44:24 should settle forever the question about who created the universe, and Hebrews 1:10 should be read with careful attention to the fact that the writer says he is speaking there of the inhabited earth to come (i.e., of the future):

“God did not subject to angels the world to come of which we are speaking” (Hebrews 2:5).

There is no contradiction between the two Testaments on this issue. Jesus will indeed be instrumental in laying the foundations of the coming new heavens and earth (Isiah 51:16). But the original creation is the work of the One God, the Father, alone (Isaiah 44:24).

+

Preceding articles:

The very very beginning 1 Creating Gods

Genesis 1:26 God said “Let us make”

++

Additional reading:

  1. Pluralis Majestatis in the Holy Scriptures
  2. The Trinity – The truth (Video)
  3. God of gods
  4. Only One God
  5. God is one
  6. Sayings around God
  7. Attributes to God
  8. Use of /Gebruik van Jehovah or/of Yahweh in Bible Translations/Bijbel vertalingen
  9. The Divine name of the Creator
  10. The NIV and the Name of God
  11. 2001 Translation an American English Bible
  12. Reasons that Jesus was not God
  13. Jesus begotten Son of God #9 Two millennia ago conceived or begotten

+++

  • For once, AmChurchSpeak makes an important point: Lent is a journey to Calvary… (denvercatholic.org)
    For two weeks, the Letter to the Hebrews draws on images from the Old Testament to introduce us to that “great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God:” a mediator between God and humanity who “has been tempted as we are” and with whom we can “with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” [Heb 4: 14-16]. Here, the biblical author writes, we find that “great cloud of witnesses” in whose company we are enabled to “run with perseverance the race that is set before us” [Heb 12: 1] Here is “Mt. Zion … the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” to which we are brought through the mediation of Jesus, and where we join “innumerable angels in festive gathering” [Heb 12: 22].
  • The Liberation of the Triune God (derekzrishmawy.com)
    One of the helpful emphases of the Reformed tradition is its acknowledgment of the continuity as well as discontinuity of Old and New Testaments. This comes through very strongly in Turretin’s Institutes and even makes an appearance in his doctrine of the Trinity. After a couple of clarifying questions, as well as a lengthy question devoted to proving the doctrine of the Trinity from New Testament Scripture, he moves on to try and demonstrate the revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament. For while it is admittedly true that God reveals himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with greater clarity in New Testament, that does not at all mean that we cannot see him revealed as such in the Old as well.
    +
    There are a number of features worth noting in this treatment. The first is Turretin’s view of the Angel of the LORD, or the Angel of YHWH. As he makes clear in a number of places, Turretin views this as an appearance of the pre-incarnate Son. It is an appearance in angelic/human form that is, nonetheless, distinct from his incarnation in that there is no hypostatic union, but only concrete manifestation. Still, this is a thesis that Christian theologians have long appealed to in order to explain the way the Angel is both identified as a distinct agent who nonetheless is identified as the LORD somehow.
  • Learn From Christ (birdchirp.wordpress.com)
    To prove that He was the Son of God by turning stones to bread was not necessary for Jesus or for Satan. Satan already knows all about Jesus Christ.
  • The Beauty of John’s Prologue (christianity201.wordpress.com)
    The first 18 verses of John’s gospel (commonly known as the Prologue) represent a literary masterpiece of inspired Scripture. On the one hand, John’s introduction is so simple a child can understand it, yet it is also so theologically deep, the most intellectual scholars could never mine every detail held within its verses.

    incarnationThere have been many debates regarding the structure of John’s prologue. The most convincing in my opinion is that the first 18 verses are a narrative which summarize not only the entirety of John’s gospel but make a broad sweep of salvation history. The prologue begins in eternity before creation, declaring that in the beginning the Word already existed. It proceeds through the creation (all things were made by Him) and He is the source of all life and light. Then John skips over the majority of Israel’s salvation history and shows that a final prophet, John the Baptist, came to testify to the light. This light is the revelation of God Himself. He came into the world and was rejected by the world. Yet, those who received Him became the sons of God.

    The prologue finishes by showing the culmination of Israel’s salvation in Jesus. The law (which was itself a grace given to men) came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Jesus has completely explained the Father. Jesus is the Father’s final word to man. – This culminates salvation history. So, we see that the prologue begins in eternity past and concludes with God’s final word of salvation and redemption.

  • The Day Son of God Jesus Preaches (brentkuhlman.wordpress.com)
    Now is the perfect time for Jesus to flex His Son of God muscles. Pull out all His divine Son of God stops. Unload the whole enchilada of His almighty Son of God power to break the bonds of systemic oppression, bust Locusts and Wild Honey out of jail, overthrow the wicked Roman oppressors and establish a Son of God millennial utopian reign that would make all community organizers of the world jealous!
    +
    You’re in charge of your own life. You’re in full control. The master of your universe.

    That’s precisely why Son of God Jesus preaches. With Him the promised and long awaited kingdom of God has come! God reigns on the earth in Jesus. God is at hand! It’s Messiah Time!  And it’s perfectly obvious then that you need a preacher – Against Your Wishes! Against Your Desires! Against Your Idolatry! Otherwise, … well, let’s just say it will all end hellaciously for you. You’d be held captive eternally – kept under lock and key — in Satan’s gloomy prison!

  • Names, Titles, and Characters of Jesus Christ (goodnewsnow.wordpress.com)
    The Blue Letter Bible has published a page with information taken from the whole Bible about the God we worship, Jesus Christ.   Seeing all the names, titles and other attributes with which he is labeled in both the Old and New Testaments and contemplating those titles and their meaning to me personally is a wonderful way to worship Him.  Worshiping Him is what we are made for.  Worshiping Him is what those who know Him will do for all eternity.  These Name, Titles and Attributes allow practice in this life.

Genesis 1 story does not take away an evolution

When looking at Genesis some Christians do want to take it literally, being one day of 24 hours, and as such forgetting that one day for God is as thousand years for man.

évolution humaine simplifiée
Simplified human evolution (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Lots of Christians do not see that it is talking about swarming and creeping creatures and does not specify how they looked like. big problem of many conservative Christians is that they do want to see the 1° Adam and the 2° Adam to be copies of the Caucasian human being of today. They resist to accept that the first creature being called man was full of hair, running on his four limbs and not talking proper English but making audible noises not comparable to the languages we do know today. Such an ‘animal like’ human being is for them unacceptable, but  it is not a contradiction with the writings of the Bible.

Several conservative Christians by making the heart of Christian and/or Christadelphian  theology contingent on evolution being false is setting people who uncritically accept such wholesale rejection of most of modern science up for failure. When they discover that the Earth is indeed ancient, and that humans and apes do share a common ancestor, the tragedy is that they will think that this falsifies Christianity, and reject belief altogether.

John Thomas, the founding figure of the Christadelphian movement was somewhat inconsistent in his position on this subject, but in the article ‘The Bible Doctrine Concerning the Tempter Considered. No. II.’, he unambiguously states that both Adam and Eve would have eventually died in time:

‘Adam’s nature was animal. Very good of its kind, as was the nature of all the other creatures. These did not sin, yet they returned to dust whence they came. So probably would Adam, if he had been left to the ordinary course of things as they were. But he would not have returned to dust if he had continued obedient.

He would doubtless have been “changed in the twinkling of an eye” on eating of the Tree of Life. But, being disobedient, his sin determined his fate, and that of the creatures. It doomed them all to death according to law, and “nature” unchanged was permitted to take its course.’ {Thomas J. ‘The Bible Doctrine Concerning the Tempter Considered. No. II.’, The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come (1852) 2:181}

Christians should look at the Bereshith as a book of Beginnings telling in a short way what happened in the past, not telling in detail what went on from day 1 to day 7 as 24 hours periods but as periods in the development of things, Having first chaos and darkness, than light. From dryness to humidity getting waters which started to depart and showing up dry land. Next having water creatures moving around looking for different ways and also finding dry land. Going on land changing form by time, we can see land-creatures coming into existence.

Such an evolution of those animals changing in form does not at all have to contradict what is written in the Holy Scriptures. Problem by lots of people is their superior thinking, not willing to accept that the human being would not be at once a very intellectual being, looking very nicely shaved and manicured, speaking a very complex language.

Human beings have received brains from God which they should use. God gave us His Word in the Book of books and provided evidence in nature to be found by research. We may not neglect such evidence, for the fact of evolution comes from many disciplines ranging from comparative anatomy to the biogeographical distribution of species.

An other mistake of many Christians when they here of a Christian who believes in a sort of evolution is that they think that that Christian agrees with the evolution theory of Darwin, which should not be the case. We can disagree with Darwin’s theories but accept a sort of evolution. We can not be blind that our ancestors looked totally different than we. Look for example at the length of the people in the 16th century, the length and constitution of the people around the two World Wars and the present generation of youngsters who are much greater than our world war and  boom generation. We can not deny man has changed a lot the last 50 years.

We also do have to accept we still do not know a lot about different sorts of animals, of which there are many still species discovered and undiscovered of which we did not know of their existence.

In the 154 years since Darwin published the first edition of The Origin of Species, the fossil evidence for evolution has increased considerably. In particular, we can demonstrate the evolution of tetrapods from lobe-finned fish, whales from terrestrial mammals, birds from dinosaurs, and humans from primates to a degree that would have astonished earlier palaeontologists. While the nature of speciation and the sheer improbabilities involved in dead animals being fossilised and then found mean that the fossil record will always be an imperfect record, what we have demonstrates the reality of large-scale evolutionary change beyond reasonable doubt.  {The Fossil Evidence for Common Descent 1: Missing Links and other Special Creationist Fallacies}
Despite this, special creationists still continue in their desperate attempts to wave away the evidence. Given that practically no special creationists (and certainly no Christadelphian science denialists) are palaeontologists, their arguments invariably hinge on quote mining mainstream scientists, peddling out-of-date arguments which betray a lack of familiarity with the contemporary scientific literature, or advancing ideas about ‘missing links’ that indicate a failure to recognise that evolution is a tree, not a ladder. {The Fossil Evidence for Common Descent 1: Missing Links and other Special Creationist Fallacies}
The fundamental special creationist misconception is the belief in evolution as a ladder, with single celled life at the bottom rung, with all other life arranged progressively on higher rungs from worms to fish to amphibians and so on with mammals on the top rungs and humans at the top. Coupled with their quote mining of Darwin’s remarks that as “innumerable transitional forms” are not found “embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth”, this forms the basis of the special creationist claim that evolution cannot be true because of the alleged lack of transitional fossils. {The Fossil Evidence for Common Descent 1: Missing Links and other Special Creationist Fallacies}

The evolution of life is modelled not as a ladder, but as a tree, something that is obvious when we think of the pattern that develops when the process of descent with modification from an original ancestral population is mapped out. We start with an ancestral population that diverges into more than one group, with each successor group in turn likewise diverging, and so on:

The diagram of divergence of taxa presented by Charles Darwin in On the origin of species (1859)

{The Fossil Evidence for Common Descent 1: Missing Links and other Special Creationist Fallacies}

+
Preceding articles:

  1. Genesis – Story of creation 1 Genesis 1:1-25 Creation of things
  2. The very very beginning 1 Creating Gods
  3. The Origin of Life on Earth: Creation or Evolution?
  4. Science, 2013 word of the year, and Scepticism
  5. Science, belief, denial and visibility 1
  6. The mythical conflict of science and Scripture (1)
  7. Science and the Bible—Do They Really Contradict Each Other?
  8. Reconciling Science and Religion
  9. “Before” and “after” the Big Bang
  10. Nothingness
  11. Debating Darwin
  12. Living on the Edge
  13. Race, Skin color and differences
  14. The professor, God, Faith and the student
  15. Why Think There Is a God? (3): Why Is It Wrong?
  16. Book Review: Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe & Casey Luskin, Science & Human Origins. Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2012.124pp.
  17. The Immeasurable Grace bestowed on humanity
  18. An anarchistic reading of the Bible—(1) Approaching the Bible
  19. An anarchistic reading of the Bible (2)—Creation and what follows

+++

  • Concept: Artificial Intelligence (gradypbrown.wordpress.com)
    Human beings, plants, and animals undeniably have souls, but whether or not a construct that was made by mortal hands has a soul is still an ongoing mystery.  Some of my characters in my upcoming third volume will be an example of this age-old puzzle.
  • Another Catholic defends the historicity of Adam and Eve (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
    When I was in Mississippi last week, I was once again given Catholicism as an example of a faith that has no problem with evolution. I politely disagreed, noting that the Church’s official doctrine accepts Adam and Eve as humanty’s literal ancestors, that Catholicism sees humans as evolutionarily special since God vouchsafed us a soul, and that the Church accepts the existence of demons afflicting us and has an Official Vatican Exorcist (and many other exorcists elsewhere) to expel them.  Further, even though the Church sort-of-accepts evolution, 27% of American Catholics are still young-Earth creationists. At the very least, one must describe the Church’s stand on evolution as “mixed.”

    And even reputable Catholic theologians take an anti-evolution stand. One of them is Dennis Bonnette, whose ludicrous essay “Did Adam and Eve really exist?” (answer: “YES!”) appeared in November’s Crisis magazine.

  • Where is Light (divinedirection.typepad.com)
    If God called down the presence of the glory of the Lord, then what happened since that time? Why isn’t it being manifested on the earth today? After all, if we are truly filled with the divine light of God, then wouldn’t we be like human, electric bug zappers? This isn’t just any light we’re talking about here; it’s the light of Almighty God! Think about it for a moment: If any darkness or any evil even gets close to the light of God, shouldn’t it supernaturally disintegrate, kind of like getting too close to the sun?
  • Adam and Eve are Ancient “Archetypes” (jacksonwu.org)
    “Adam” is not actually a proper name for a single individual. It is a collective noun, which refers to humanity. On rare occasions, it points to an individual, but people in the neighborhood wouldn’t have called him “Adam” if they wanted to invite him over for a steak and salad.

    Adam bears this representative status as the “image of God” (language found in other ancient documents besides the Bible). This imagery indicates that Adam has royal authority to govern over God’s creation.
    +

    Adam and Eve are “archetypes.” For Walton, this means Adam was “a representative of a group in whom all others in the group are embodied” (240). A person is an archetype if what is true of the one is also true for all those who are represented by in him. Adam and Eve are historical, not fictitious. In some sense, Christ, Abraham, and Melchizedek are also archetypes.

    By the way, Walton suggests that Genesis 2 is a “sequel” of Gen 1. Chapter two does not go back and elaborate further on Day Six (from Gen 1). So, we shouldn’t confuse the “Adam” (or “man”) in Gen 1:26–28 with the “Adam” of Gen 2–3.

  • An anarchistic reading of the Bible (2) – Creation and what follows (thinkingpacifism.net)
    The very beginning of the Bible provides much important information about the Bible as a whole, about the cosmology of the whole, about the character of the God seen to be central to the entire story, and about the relationships between humankind and this God.

    Though the creation account in Genesis one portrays God as the power behind what is, the actual exercise of that power is muted. God speaks and what is is made. The dynamic is quite peaceable—in contrast to some other ancient creation myths (especially the Babylonian) that portray violence at the heart of things.

    Remarkably, this creator God speaks of human beings (male and female) being created in God’s own image. There humanity is commissioned to care for the rest of creation as God’s stewards. This picture connects with both of our key anarchistic factors. The relationship between God and humanity is not one of domination, command-and-obedience. It is rather a relationship of like with like. God is not Other; rather, humans are created to be like God. And, perhaps even more importantly, the picture here is that all humanity shares in this divine image—kingly, perhaps, but in a strongly egalitarian sense. As well, human beings are given power and responsibility.

  • An anarchistic reading of the Bible (1) – Creation and what follows (thinkingpacifism.net)
    On the one hand, the Christian Bible is a collection of widely disparate writings—spanning close to 1,000 years from the earliest to the latest books, numerous social and political settings, various genres of literature, and two main languages. It is clearly a human book, its separate pieces written as occasional statements that address specific issues and settings.

    On the other hand, the Bible as a collection of writings is the master story for Christians. It is assumed to have, on some level, a meaningful coherence that allows it to be used as sacred scripture. Some parts are seen as more clear and definitive than others, but as a rule Christians think of the authority of the Bible involving all of its parts.

    How the Bible works as an authority is a complicated and contested issue. One general approach, that stands in profound tension with an anarchistic sensibility, it to approach the Bible as the source of absolute truths that simply need to be heard and followed (“the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it”). In this view, though, the Bible never actually stands alone as an authority. Theologian Edward Farley has developed a critique of what he calls “the house of authority” which requires three authoritative presences: the Bible as the revealed truth from God, official doctrinal statements (creeds, confessions, etc.) that provide definitive interpretations of the Bible, and institutions of authority that enforce the official interpretations (See his book Ecclesial Reflections. In light of this analysis, we can see why biblical authority is a problem for an anarchistic sensibility—it is tied in with centralized human authority (often centralized human authoritarianism).

  • A Unification of Creation and Evolution (robertjrgraham.com)
    When people say that “god created the heavans and the earth in six days and on the seventh he rested”, who can say how long one of god’s days is. Why are we so egotistical as to believe that his day is the same as our’s. We don’t know god (Most of us who believe in god do so because we want to not because we have proof.) but if there is a god why can’t his, her or it’s day be a thousand or a million or even several billion of our years.

    Chapter 2, verse 7 of the book of Genises states “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” It does not state how long this took or what form the being we call man originally took. God’s image can be many things. We have no way of knowing. Additionally, although the bible is supposed to be the word of god, it was written by humans and therefore subject to human interpretation.

  • Big Brother has a lot to offer (georgehach.wordpress.com)
    We all have a big brother who would like to help us have a better quality of life.  His name is Jesus.  He inspired 4 books in the Bible: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  They will give you great insight into how to live better.

Genesis – Story of creation 1 Genesis 1:1-25 Creation of things

Gen 1:1-25 NHEBJE  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  (2)  Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.

(3)  God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.  (4)  God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness.  (5)  God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. There was evening and there was morning, one day.

(6)  God said, “Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”  (7)  God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.  (8)  God called the expanse sky. There was evening and there was morning, a second day.

(9)  God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together in one gathering, and let the dry land appear;” and it was so.  (10)  God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.  (11)  God said, “Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with its seed in it, on the earth;” and it was so.
(12)  The earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.  (13)  There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

(14)  God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;  (15)  and let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth;” and it was so.  (16)  God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars.  (17)  God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth,  (18)  and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good.  (19)  There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

(20)  God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of sky.”  (21)  God created the large sea creatures, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind. God saw that it was good.  (22)  God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”  (23)  There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

(24)  God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind;” and it was so.  (25)  God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.

*

 

+

Preceding articles:

The very very beginning 1 Creating Gods

The very very beginning 2 The Word and words

Next chapters:

Readings from Scriptures: Story of creation 2 Genesis 1:26-31 Creation of man

Readings from Scriptures: Genesis – Story of creation 3 Genesis 2:1-15 Story of Adam and Eve

Readings from Scriptures: Genesis – Story of creation 4 Genesis 2:16-25 Warning for Adam and Eve

The very very beginning 3 Messiah’s total point of origination

Readings from Scriptures: Genesis – Story of creation 4 Genesis 3:1-13 The fall

Readings from Scriptures: Genesis – Story of creation 4 Genesis 3:14-24 consequneces of the fall and solution

+++

  • Where is Light (divinedirection.typepad.com)
    If God called down the presence of the glory of the Lord, then what happened since that time? Why isn’t it being manifested on the earth today? After all, if we are truly filled with the divine light of God, then wouldn’t we be like human, electric bug zappers? This isn’t just any light we’re talking about here; it’s the light of Almighty God! Think about it for a moment: If any darkness or any evil even gets close to the light of God, shouldn’t it supernaturally disintegrate, kind of like getting too close to the sun?
  • The Lost World of Adam and Eve (jacksonwu.org)
    For a long time, non-believers have tried to use the theory of evolution to usurp biblical authority. They attempt to show how science contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 1.
    +
    If we misread Genesis 1–3, we will miss out on what the text actually intends to say. Perhaps our view is not entirely wrong; yet, it leads us to overlook the passage’s main ideas.
    +
    The creation vs. evolution question is a major stumbling block for many people. By misinterpreting Gen 1–3, we potentially create obstacles that hinder them from believing the gospel or from maturing in their faith.
  • William Lane Craig goes after me about Adam and Eve (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
    Back-calculating from the genetic diversity seen in modern humans, and making conservative assumptions, evolutionary geneticists have shown that the human population could not have been smaller than about 12,250 individuals: 10,000 in Africa and 2,250 in the group of individuals that left Africa and whose descendants colonized the rest of the world.  There was a population “bottleneck,” but it was nowhere near two or eight people.

    This shows that Adam and Eve were not the historical ancestors of all humanity. And of course that gives theology a problem: if the Primal Couple didn’t give rise to everyone, then whence our affliction with Adam and Eve’s Original Sin? That sin, which the pair incurred by disobeying God, is supposed to have been passed on to the descendants of Adam and Eve, i.e., all of us. And it’s that sin that Jesus supposedly came to Earth to expiate. But if Original Sin didn’t exist, and Adam and Eve were simply fictional metaphors, then Jesus died for a metaphor. That’s not good!

    That doesn’t sit well with theologians, of course, who, if they accept the science (and most of the smarter ones have), must then explain the significance of Adam and Eve, and whether they really existed.

  • An anarchistic reading of the Bible (2) – Creation and what follows (thinkingpacifism.net)
    The very beginning of the Bible provides much important information about the Bible as a whole, about the cosmology of the whole, about the character of the God seen to be central to the entire story, and about the relationships between humankind and this God.

    Though the creation account in Genesis one portrays God as the power behind what is, the actual exercise of that power is muted. God speaks and what is is made. The dynamic is quite peaceable—in contrast to some other ancient creation myths (especially the Babylonian) that portray violence at the heart of things.

    Remarkably, this creator God speaks of human beings (male and female) being created in God’s own image. There humanity is commissioned to care for the rest of creation as God’s stewards. This picture connects with both of our key anarchistic factors. The relationship between God and humanity is not one of domination, command-and-obedience. It is rather a relationship of like with like. God is not Other; rather, humans are created to be like God. And, perhaps even more importantly, the picture here is that all humanity shares in this divine image—kingly, perhaps, but in a strongly egalitarian sense. As well, human beings are given power and responsibility.

  • Constance Caraway P.I. ~ Episode 42 (writingisfun-damental.com)
    In a nutshell, Miss Caraway, the theory of evolution, as it applies to man, amounts to hogwash. That is the very reason that Pacelli fellow was at the meeting, expressing The Vatican’s concern about erosion of common sense, not that I subscribe to all of Catholic doctrine. But I do agree that our children are being lead down the wrong path.
  • So That’s What Happened on the Sixth Day of Creation… (patheos.com)
    after Dr. Bruce Gordon, an Old Earth Creationist who doesn’t take the Book of Genesis literally, said there’s no way God could’ve created so many things on the Sixth Day, here’s how Young Earth Creationist Ashby L. Camp responded, referencing an older paper
  • The Truth of Genesis: The Sad Truth of Christianity and Judaism – The Three-Quarter End. (theglobaldispatch.com)
    In the beginning, God created this universe, starting with the planet Earth. Most, if not about all Christians and Jews fail to understand what all this entails, and generally run away from Genesis chapter one, because they haven’t taken the time to understand it, and are in a position of gross ignorance when trying to defend it.
    +
    In terms of Earth years, how old is Yehovah?

    If you say that He is both infinite and eternal, how far back does infinity go? If and when you finally settle on a numeric value to represent infinity, ask yourself this question: What was God doing to occupy Himself from infinity, until He finally
    got around to creating our universe, 4.6 billion years ago?

    Christians, creationists, and every Hebrew I’ve talked to has failed grasp this reality. Young Earth creationists, as foolish as they are, don’t even comprehend this. They are too busy denying reality.

  • The Daily Gospel and Readings 10 February 2015 (prayersandmeditations.com)
    And so it happened:
    God created
  • Tuesday, 10 February 2015 : 5th Week of Ordinary Time, Memorial of St. Scholastica, Virgin (First Reading) (petercanisiusmichaeldavidkang.com)
    God saw that it was good. God blessed them saying, “Be fruitful and increase in number
  • Pope Francis vs. Joseph Francis Farah (wnd.com)

    Way back around Thanksgiving I challenged Pope Francis’ assertion that “evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

    I was intrigued to find out that column, titled “The pope’s fallible on evolution,” is still generating controversy months later.

    It seems the entire Jan. 22 edition of a Catholic publication called First Teachers, edited by the esteemed James K. Fitzpatrick, was devoted to a respectful critique of my commentary.

    “It was a surprise to me when I came across an angry column by Joseph Farah attacking Pope Francis for his position,” wrote Fitzpatrick. “I expected any attack against the pope to come from secular humanists who refuse to permit even the role for God in the evolutionary process that Francis describes. Farah does not take that stance. Instead, he attacks the pope for discounting ‘the biblical account of the Creation,’ of telling ‘his story’ of creation, ‘not HIS story.’”