Moshe’s Week of Dreams

Posted on:

Modified on:

  1. Previous statements of my views
  2. How did Moses know?
    1. Evening and morning
    2. A hypothesis
    3. A speculative scenario
      1. Day 1
      2. Day 2
      3. Day 3
      4. Day 4
      5. Day 5
      6. Day 6
  3. Appendices
    1. Adaptation vs evolution
    2. Birth as analogy

My last published article was Prophetic Visions: Through a Glass Darkly, released on August 25, 2025. Because of the length of that post, I left out a few things that I still want to discuss in more detail, so I have saved outtakes that I will elaborate on in much shorter articles as time permits.

This, the first, is a discussion of Genesis 1 as a prophetic (preterist) snapshot of creation.

Previous statements of my views

As you know if you have followed my series on Creation, I am an Old Earth Creationist and believe that God planned the design of the universe the way He wanted it to exist and develop over all future times.

Obviously, Old Earth Creationists don’t interpret Genesis 1 in a conventional, hyper-literal sense. I see it as prophetic poetry. Conservative Evangelical scholars generally use a hermeneutic (principles for interpreting Scripture) that gives latitude for interpreting some poetry and some prophecy as symbolic. By that I mean symbolic of something that is true and important!

My 2024 post, Genesis 1:1–5, Day 1 is a lengthy article in which:

  1. I discussed the concept of hermeneutics and the hermeneutical principles which I and many other interpreters use to understand Biblical text.
  2. I presented my views on the values and limitations of the scientific process.
  3. I introduced Moses as a prophet and speculated on how he might have received his knowledge of prehistory. This is the subject of the current post.
  4. I then began the interpretation process with a discussion of the first two verses of Genesis 1, and whether they are a summary of the rest of the chapter, or alternatively the first event before the creation of light. Young Earth Creationist are split on this issue.
  5. Next, I explained what “light” is and is not, and why, given the way God created it and it in fact exists, it is paradoxical to think that it was created either before the creation of matter (the summary view of verse 1) or after the creation of matter (the first event view of verse 1). By theological definition, God’s omnipotence excludes the possibility of paradoxical absurdities.
  6. Finally, under the heading, A better idea, I presented my current views on how Genesis 1 should be interpreted. This is a fairly short section, so I suggest reading it now.

I don’t believe I stated it quite this way, but the viewpoint expressed in that post treats Genesis 1, not as a description of how God made the universe, but rather as an organizational description of what He made.

What I did state, however, is that its primary purpose was as a polemic against the pagan cultures of the day. God saying, “Everything you see was created by me, including the gods (elohim, the spirits that rule the world) that you worship.”

I stated it this way earlier in The Implication of Genre in Job, Ezekiel and Genesis:

Every ancient civilization had a pantheon of pagan “gods”, and with each of those came a “creation myth.” In Genesis 1:1, the one true God said, “I did it—not them! Period!”

Theologically, that is really all we need to know about creation. God had no obligation to tell us exactly how he did it, or in what order, and if He had done so, nobody in the ancient world could have possibly understood it. …

To me, the “Plain sense” of Genesis 1:1 makes perfect “common sense” in a book about God: He created the entire universe, which is everything that exists other than Himself, and He had the sovereign right and ability to do it however He chose to.

The plain sense of Genesis 1:3–31 does not make common sense to me, if indeed it describes creation at all. To me, it is strongly reminiscent of visions recorded by a number of prophets, including John. The age of man on earth starts with a vision and ends with a vision!

How did Moses know?

The better idea that I’ve now adopted, I owe primarily to the conservative scholar John H. Walton from Moody Bible Institute and later with Wheaton College, who I greatly admire, but who of course is anathema to Young Earth Creationists.

Attribution of Moses’ knowledge to preterist prophecy is my own slant on the subject. Having now completed a more in-depth study of prophetic dreams and visions, I am ready to go a little deeper here with a theoretical proposal of the form in which Moses may have received his Genesis 1 insights.

Evening and morning

Consider Moses’ demarcation of creation days: “And there was evening and there was morning, the [nth] day.” Exactly what that means has been disputed for centuries.

The phrasing is important within Judaism because it sets the pattern, followed through most of the Bible and apparently most of Jewish history, of the Jewish calendar day beginning and ending in the evenings. As such, it seems to imply that literal calendar days are in view.

But verse 5a raises another issue: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” That means that “day” doesn’t by default mean a calendar day!

In fact, Biblically, the term “day”, by itself means specifically the 12-hour period between sunrise and sunset. You say, “But there aren’t ever exactly 12 hours between sunrise and sunset!” For halachic Judaism (think, “for ceremonial purposes”), one would divide the number of standard minutes between sunrise and sunset by 12. As I am writing today, near the Autumnal Equinox, a “proportional hour” (sha’ah zemanit) is 58.78 minutes long. Near the solstices, the discrepancy is much bigger. And of course, that number is dependent on my latitude and my altitude.

By contrast, “night”, the period between sunset and sunrise, is divided into 4 “watches”, not hours.

In practice, the term “day” can mean a number of different things to a Jew: the daylight hours; a calendar day; a recurring day, as the “Day of Atonement”; an extended period in the past, as “in Jesus’ day”; a prophetic period to come, as “the Day of the Lord.”

Many of those usages are obvious from the context, but sometimes, not so much. I can’t document this, but I assume that a need to distinguish calendar days from the others probably led to the development of an idiom that is well known to Jews but denied by some Christians: The term “days and nights” refers to calendar days, in whole or in part. For example, when Jesus’ said, “As Jonah was in the belly of the fish 3 days and 3 nights…”, none of His hearers would have taken this as meaning 72 full hours. It simply meant, “a period spanning parts of three calendar days.

Young Earth Creationists will generally take one of two approaches to understanding the implication of “evening and morning.” Either it is the calendar day idiom, or it is simply stating that God finished His creation act of the day by evening and didn’t start work again until the next morning.

But it isn’t as easy as it sounds. Yes, Genesis 1 records the creation of light on Day 1, and immediately then He “called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” But it wasn’t until Day 4 that He created the sun, moon and stars, which, first of all, were to “divide the day from the night.” Which implies that there were no evenings or mornings before Day 4.

As an Old Earth Creationist, the only part of Genesis 1 that I insist is literal is the first one or two verses. But if the rest is symbolic, that does not mean that it is useless, or a lie! Almost all conservative Bible scholars would agree that Biblical symbolism is absolutely allowed, and though the symbolism may be obscure for a time, it will eventually become clear. In God’s own time!

A hypothesis

Now please don’t take the following hypothesis as gospel truth. It makes sense to me, but it is only a suggestion, prompted by my recent concentration on how to interpret prophetic dreams and visions. The “evenings and mornings” formula of Genesis 1 may serve some entirely different symbolic purpose, but what if it sheds some light on how Moses received this information from God?

I firmly believe that Genesis 1 is preterist prophecy, reporting either something that God showed him in one or more dreams or visions, or words that God verbally told him to write. My experience with the Bible leads me to favor the former, rather than the latter.

I’m wondering if perhaps “evenings and mornings” might be a hint that God sent dreams to Moses at night?

Consider then the following scenario, which is perhaps 98% speculative.

A speculative scenario

I’m going to suggest here a pattern to the way God chooses to inform Moses. It should be no surprise; God doesn’t do anything randomly! Here is the pattern I see, arranged only roughly chronologically:

  1. On day 1, God showed Moses very tersely how He built the universe, from nothing down to the foundations of Earth, the home He designed for man, His climactic achievement.
  2. On day 2, God began showing Moses (and us!) His provision of the first environmental factor necessary for our survival, a breathable atmosphere. This is first in mention, not necessarily the first to develop.
  3. On day 3, we see Earth divided into two domains, land and sea. Into both, He then introduced plant life, which was to become the base of the food chain, the ultimate source of nutrition, and the carbon/oxygen cycle, necessary for respiration.
  4. On day 4, He brings our attention back to the “second heaven”, the cosmos beyond the atmosphere. We need to see the source of energy and to have a better idea of the flow of time before the sentient creatures are introduced.
  5. On day 5, we see that introduction of sentience on Earth. Starting with sea creatures and birds.
  6. On day 6, we get to the climax, sentient life on earth, starting with the animals, and then with primitive man.
Day 1

One night while encamped in the Wilderness, during the 40 years of wandering prior to his people crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land, while either dozing by the campfire or asleep in his tent, God sends Moses a dream of what came before. In the dream…

The prophet is floating in empty space, with nothing in sight—just an unlimited, silent, dark, cold void in all directions. There is no sound to be heard in the vacuum other than a sudden command from God. Unseen by Moses, as if a tiny hole had opened in a gigantic dike, vast quantities of invisible energy began pouring into the region in front of him and expanding to immense size.

Very quickly then, with still with no sound whatsoever, but following rules of physics laid down by the Almighty, there is a bright glow as hot, subatomic particles begin condensing out of the energy and radiating light into the surroundings.

“Let there be light!”, ©Vecteezy

Though Moses can’t see much, beyond a blur of motion, and understands very little of what he sees, the gigantic ball of energy rapidly cools, and as it does, more particles are formed. With further cooling, those particles begin to combine to form hydrogen and helium ions, which then pick up electrons and take on the properties of atoms and diatomic molecules.

Still later, electromagnetic and gravitational forces begin collecting the hydrogen and helium into clouds that become denser and denser, until the pressure becomes great enough in many clumps to ignite nuclear fusion—stars are born. The products of fusion are heavier elements, and those also undergo fusion to form still heavier elements. The heaviest that can form this way is iron, but once the larger stars have burned up most of their fuel, they collapse and supernova. The enormous power generated by these colossal implosions forms still heavier elements, and both the heavier and the lighter elements alike are scattered throughout space, forming clouds of dust, and congealing into planets.

After billions of years and still following the instructions build into the universe by God’s design and at His command, the universe is populated by billions of billions of stars, organized into galaxies and clusters of galaxies, with planets and other solid objects orbiting most of the stars.

Because God trusts His design and loves the idea of allowing spontaneity in His universe, He has included quantum mechanical randomness in the blueprints. Randomness means that occasional adjustments have had to be made in order to prepare for the beloved human family He plans to install on one planet. For this He created a race of angelic beings to subdue the Cosmos, as He will task His humans to do on earth.

All of this has been shown to Moses like a movie run at incredible speed, so that before he wakes up in the morning, all but the last few billion years has been viewed. More than ten billion years have been compressed into a single night, so all Moses has is memory of the flood of light followed by a vague impression of expansion and differentiation. God now directs Moses’ to look down. He does so, and right below him is a cold, dark sea with little if anything breaking the surface. He’s too close now to see the curvature of the surface, but he does sense God’s Spirit hovering over the water.

Moses awakes…

This scenario views Genesis 1 from a “first event” perspective (see the 6-point summary of Genesis 1:1–5, Day 1, above. I envision Moses waking up from his dream and musing on the last thing he saw,

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was unformed and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water.
—Genesis 1:1-2 (CJB)

Then recalling the bright light that he saw at the beginning of the dream, before the replay of billions of years of cosmic history, he wrote

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. So there was evening, and there was morning, one day.
—Genesis 1:3-5 (CJB)

Some research suggests that some 3.2 billion years ago the temperatures in the earth’s mantle transition zone must have precluded retention of the vast quantities of water stored there now. Much like the days of Noah’s flood, this water can only have resided at the surface, resulting in the planet existing as a “water world,” completely inundated.

Day 2

On another night, Moses falls asleep again to find himself in the same place, looking down at the sea and God’s Spirit.

Ancient philosophers and wise men all over the earth looked around them in those early days, and what they all agreed on was that the world they observed is an island submerged in a vast sea and protected from the water above by a gigantic dome, the “firmament” of KJV. The stars moved from east to west through grooves below the dome. The sun and moon, below the stars, were either carried along beneath the stars by gods or were themselves gods.

As for the sea, it was the ultimate source of all water on earth. The “water above” was connected outside the periphery of the dome to the “water below” (the rav tehom, or “great deep“) and spring water also flowed from the sea through underground passageways. Rain fell when gods or angels opened windows, or floodgates, in the dome. The underground passages, “fountains of the deep“, were, like the sea itself, inhabited by demons, and the source of much fear, especially by sailors and fishermen who owed their livelihood to it.

What the ancient world believed.

All of these things were assumed to have been created by one or more of the gods, who themselves were created by a superior god or were magically born from the primordial chaos.

Of course, this ancient model of the cosmos was completely wrong, but it was sufficient for the day, and more detail would only have confused them even more than they were. Even today, thousands of years later, the more we discover about the cosmos, the more we know that we are still missing key details.

So why would our God care if the ancients knew all truth about such a complex structure? It was way too early to ask humanity to grasp the incredible complexity of the universe.

The important thing was that they be taught that He is the true creator and He preexisted all else that exists.

So, God has summoned Moses back to his vantage point above the sea. He tells him to look up this time. When he does, he sees nothing but dark clouds. As he watches, God sends the wind to blow away the lower clouds. Layer after layer, the clouds part until nothing is left but what appears to be the dome, perhaps obscured by high, dark altostratus clouds that allow only a general glow to penetrate.

6 God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the water; let it divide the water from the water.” 7 God made the dome and divided the water under the dome from the water above the dome; that is how it was, 8 and God called the dome Sky. So there was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
—Genesis 1:6-8 (CJB)

Day 3

For a third time, Moses falls asleep and is carried in his dream to a vantage point above the primordial sea. Again, God speaks, and another long expanse of years rolls by in the course of the night, as on Day 1.

Moses observes during this dream another compressed passage of a great deal of time. The sea level falls as excess ocean water returns to the earth’s mantle. Land masses emerge and constantly deform and move under the influence of numerous processes, including plate tectonics, vulcanism, tidal forces, weathering, erosion, deposition, and many more, all decreed by God to assure a healthy and dynamic planet.

9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let dry land appear,” and that is how it was. 10 God called the dry land Earth, the gathering together of the water he called Seas, and God saw that it was good.
—Genesis 1:9-10 (CJB)

Now that God has shown Moses the magnitude of His glory in creation of the greater cosmos and earth, as understood by the ancients, He is ready to begin demonstrating that it was also at His hand that earth was filled with life.

God speaks once again and Moses sees many species of plant life that have begun to develop, spread, and differentiate to fill vast areas of the land and sea, adapting to environmental changes over many generations. From time to time, God or His angels intervene to bridge wider gaps and fill niches that adaptation alone can’t cross. I discuss “adaptation” vs. “evolution” in an appendix below.

11 God said, “Let the earth put forth grass, seed-producing plants, and fruit trees, each yielding its own kind of seed-bearing fruit, on the earth”; and that is how it was. 12 The earth brought forth grass, plants each yielding its own kind of seed, and trees each producing its own kind of seed-bearing fruit; and God saw that it was good. 13 So there was evening, and there was morning, a third day.
—Genesis 1:11-13 (CJB)

Day 4

I don’t believe that God is showing Moses anything new on this night. The sun, moon and stars were in their place in the sky at the close of the first night’s dream, though Moses probably was unaware of them until now. The way I presented this scenario above, billions of years of history scrolled by Moses in one night, which he couldn’t possibly have taken in. Perhaps he was only shown the beginning and end of the process—from the flash of light to the surface of water-world Earth. And perhaps during dreams 2 and 3 the sky has been obscured by clouds. In any case, now God wants to draw his attention to the cosmos above, so we have a clear sky.

Just what did Noah see? Just exactly what he expected to see, and what he had seen every day of his long life, which from his limited perspective was stars rolling by in grooves at the bottom surface of the sky dome, and the sun and moon being carried from east to west by, as he now would have seen it, God’s angels. Once again, the emphasis is on, “I, Yahweh, did it all, Moses!”

14 God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to divide the day from the night; let them be for signs, seasons, days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth”; and that is how it was. 16 God made the two great lights — the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night — and the stars. 17 God put them in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 So there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.
—Genesis 1:14-19 (CJB)

Day 5

This is where God begins showing Noah the climactic introduction of sentient life (conscious creatures, with sensations and perceptions). Beginning with denizens of the seas and the air.

As with the plants, God has created numerous species, to fill many habitats. They are designed for adaptation to changing conditions, but, like the plants, they need an occasional nudge. Once again, I discuss “adaptation” vs. “evolution” below.

20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open dome of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that creeps, so that the water swarmed with all kinds of them, and there was every kind of winged bird; and God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, multiply and fill the water of the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
—Genesis 1:20-23 (CJB)

Day 6

On day six, God is approaching the climax of the dream series with Moses. Sentient animal species other than sea creatures and birds. Animals first, and then pre-Adamic mankind. Evidence for mankind goes back for some three million years. Evidence for Homo sapiens for 300,000 years. See “adaptation” vs. “evolution” below.

In my opinion, Adam and Eve were not part of general creation as revealed in Genesis 1!

As discussed in Exploring the Garden of Eden, I believe that both scripture and theological logic raise a pretty good case that they were created separately, about 6,000 years ago.

24 God said, “Let the earth bring forth each kind of living creature — each kind of livestock, crawling animal and wild beast”; and that is how it was. 25 God made each kind of wild beast, each kind of livestock and every kind of animal that crawls along the ground; and God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth.”
27 So God created humankind in his own image;
in the image of God he created him:
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them: God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and every living creature that crawls on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Here! Throughout the whole earth I am giving you as food every seed-bearing plant and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. 30 And to every wild animal, bird in the air and creature crawling on the earth, in which there is a living soul, I am giving as food every kind of green plant.” And that is how it was. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good. So there was evening, and there was morning, a sixth day.
—Genesis 1:24-31 (CJB)

Appendices

Adaptation vs evolution

For my whole life until lately, I’ve avoided taking a stance on evolution, because biology and genetics aren’t my scientific strong suits. I’ve always been extremely skeptical of biological evolution, but I figured if that’s the way God chose to design life, He is entirely free to have done it. With a little help, I’ve finally decided on the stance I will take going forward.

First, let me point out that, despite usage of the term in both religious and secular circles, “evolution” in this context applies only to the development of living things. In its generic sense, the word simply means change over time, so yes, everything evolves. But “biological evolution” is a specific set of processes that change the ontological properties of living things. The non-living universe does not experience “survival of the fittest”, and it does not rely on mutation and genetic transmission. It simply follows the physical laws that God built into it, including quantum uncertainty, and takes an orderly path of cause and effect. I don’t call this evolution!

As for biological evolution, there are still two things that prevent me from considering myself an evolutionist:

The first is that, though many proposals have been made and many experiments have been conducted, nobody has ever come up with a workable explanation for how non-life becomes life! The latest theory is that life originates at deep-ocean geothermal vents, white or black “smokers.” But there has never been a test conducted or an equation written that can explain a mechanism for going from non-living to living even here. The closest thing is that there is generally a huge abundance of life around these vents. But does a huge crowd at a Kansas City Chiefs Superbowl rally prove that life originated inside Union Station? Probably not.

A competing theory that has been around for ages and has been getting a lot of attention lately is called Panspermia. Life was “seeded” on earth by aliens (other than God) or an impact event—a comet or an asteroid. This idea just shoves the problem off of this planet onto another.

The second problem with biological evolution, “irreducible complexity“, was introduced to the Christian community by Lehigh biochemist Michael Behe in his well-articulated book, Darwin’s Black Box (1966) and two subsequent books, The Edge of Evolution (2007) and Darwin Devolves (2019).

Behe is best known popularly for his support of Intelligent Design, but he is not a Young Earth Creationist. Like me, he believes that God created the universe billions of years ago. He believes that God created life, that He gave it the ability to adapt, and that the new science of genomics proves “line of descent.”

That latter means that the Darwinian Tree of Life is more or less accurate—but irreducible complexity means that God’s intervention is necessary for adaptation to cross certain boundaries.

Creationists in general agree that adaption occurs within species. Behe only disagrees to the extent of saying that it occurs within biological Orders, or perhaps Families.

I find that I can agree with Behe’s approach. It makes logical sense to me and leaves God in control!

I just go one step farther and claim that Adam and Eve were a separate creation, approximately 6,000 years ago. Nowhere does Scripture state that Genesis 2 is a restatement of Day 6. That assumption is Judeo-Christian tradition, and in fact there are discrepancies in the two accounts if they are taken literally.

Birth as analogy

Many of you will still say that creation 13.8 billion years ago at the Big Bang is not as elegant as creation 6,000 years ago as recorded in a literal translation of Genesis 1.

I don’t see it that way at all! Perhaps it is because from an early age I have been fascinated by both the Creator and His creation. Creation is His art, His medium and His signature accomplishment.

Consider the following well-known verse:

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb
—Psalm 139:13 (ESV)

If you read this in the exact same way as you read Genesis 1, you can interpret it as saying that God Himself personally assembled all of your component parts in your mother’s womb during those nine months, or even (why not) on the day you were born.

You say, “It couldn’t be on the one day, because she saw me on an ultrasound, and she felt me kick, and besides, we all know how gestation works.”

But wait, did you really see any of that, or are you believing doctors, researchers, and medical equipment. Maybe that kick was actually a gas bubble! You believe them just as I believe my telescope and my astrophysics training in college. My bachelor’s studies were in math and physics, preparing (alas, it didn’t happen) for astrophysics as my graduate field.

Let me now approach this from a different direction. My wife gave birth to both of our children. Not all smooth sailing, but at least she can smell popcorn now without getting sick. Would she trade those 18 difficult and uncomfortable months of pregnancy for an easy adoption? No. Adoption is a good thing, but gestation and birth are transcendent.


Genesis 1:1–5, Day 1

Posted on:

Last modified on:

  1. Before I begin…
  2. Moving on…
  3. Hermeneutics and the Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation
  4. Limitations of Science
  5. Proving the Bible
  6. Moses was a prophet!
  7. Previous posts in this series on the topic of creation
  8. Revisiting Genesis 1
  9. Prologue: Gen 1:1–5
  10. The overwhelming problem with Light on Day 1:
    1. The definition of light
    2. The source of light
    3. sh’kinah
    4. “Let there be light…”
  11. Interpreting verses 1:3–2:3
  12. A better idea
    1. What was the cultural background?
    2. So, what are my views?
    3. What point was God then making?
  13. Bibliography

Before I begin…

Before getting into this, I’ve been asked why I keep alienating my friends by harping on a version of Creationism that most of them consider to be unbiblical. I can respond to that in several ways:

  • First, I’m not really “harping” on it at all. This is a multipart series that I’ve planned for quite a while, to replace something I did years ago. I’ve still got two or three chapters to write before I’m finished with it. I did the same thing with my series on The Jewish Feasts.
  • I’ve been vitally interested in both theology and astrophysics since, literally, my pre-teen years. I write about what interests me most.
  • I don’t consider that one’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is a “fundamental of the faith“, but many of my friends do, and I am convinced that the currently mandatory “Genesis Flood Theory” is an unnecessary stumbling block for many lost souls.
  • Although many wonderful Christians would refuse to fellowship with me because I’m not a Young Earth Creationist, I don’t feel the same about them; but I suppose I’d like to convince them that I’m “righter than they are.”

As stated below, “With respect to the question of Creation, the central, foundational Truth of all Scripture is that the One, True, Eternal, Triune God, by His own power, created and sustains all else that exists in the cosmos.

Moving on…

My views are driven by several axioms:

  • God is both omnipotent and sovereign, so He can do whatever He wants to do, however He wants to do it!
  • The Bible, as originally written, is the inerrant, irrevocable, Word of God.
  • The Bible we now possess (at least insofar as the accepted canonical books are concerned) is substantially the same holy Word as the originals, but subject to a very limited extent to human error in translation and interpretation.
  • Correct interpretation (exegesis) of Scripture requires a consistent hermeneutic, which among other factors, includes recognition that some scripture is not meant to be taken literally, as discussed in the next section in relation to The Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation.
  • A consistent hermeneutic also must require recognition of the cultural background of both the writer and the ancient reader.
  • Though Holy Scripture is as valid and vital today as it ever was, correct interpretation demands unequivocally that modern culture and tradition not be anachronistically imposed on the writers and readers of the day in which they were written.
  • Because God is not a liar or an author of confusion, we must recognize that the testimony of God’s Word cannot conflict with the testimony of His Created World when both are rightly understood.

Hermeneutics and the Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”–Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965),
founder of The Biblical Research Society

The above quote is known by many expositors as “The Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation.” I read somewhere that this has often been shortened to “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.”

Implicit in the above is the assumption that the “plain sense of Scripture” sometimes does not seem to make sense. Certainly, when that is the case, you must first question your own common sense, but that doesn’t always solve the problem.

Few conservative Bible scholars believe that every word of Scripture is meant to be understood literally.

That is troubling to many, because the alternative opens the door to subjectivism and arbitrary conclusions. Yet almost all the great conservative Bible commentators practice a hermeneutic (a set of formal principles for Biblical interpretation) that allow for non-literal text, including parables, figures of speech, anthropomorphism, poetic exaggeration, and a host of other confusing factors. Not to mention translational difficulties.

None of that subtracts from the central truth that “all Scripture is God-breathed.” It is axiomatic to me that the Bible is inerrant in its original language and the original manuscripts. Yet some folks read my opinions, especially respecting emotional themes like creation, and make snide comments like, “So you believe it’s inerrant except when it isn’t!”

So, to clarify, I don’t think there are any substantive problems with corruption of our Scriptures over the millennia. There are, however, problems with translation, but few of those are impossible to unravel, with sufficient attention to the linguistic and cultural background of the inspired humans who penned the words, and those to whom the words were written.

There are also “mysteries.” Most Evangelicals are happy to admit that Paul revealed things hidden within Scripture that were mysteries with respect to the New Testament Church. The Church itself being one of the chief mysteries! The dual advents of Messiah are another mystery now revealed. Yet many seem unwilling to consider that some things are still mysterious.

What I consider to be the biggest factor of all that contributes to doctrinal confusion and infighting in the Church is that some misinterpretations are imbedded into a nearly impenetrable wall of tradition.

Unfortunately, the reason there are so many Christian denominations in the world, and the reason they often have so much trouble getting along, is that each has its own particular list of what constitutes “axiomatic and fundamental truths.” For example, I was brought up in a “fundamentalist” sub-denomination of Baptists that teaches there is no such thing as a universal Church of all believers; only local churches are Biblical. To them this is an axiomatic and non-negotiable Truth, based in part on the simple fact that the Greek word translated “church” is ecclesia, which literally means “assembly.” After all, how can people scattered across the world and across many ages possibly assemble together?

With respect to the question of Creation, the central, foundational Truth of all Scripture is that the One, True, Eternal, Triune God, by His own power, created and sustains all else that exists in the cosmos.

That fact is stated clearly and concisely in just one verse: Genesis 1:1.

As for what that process looked like and how we should interpret Genesis 1:2–2:3, I regard that as still a mystery.

A 6,000-year-old universe and the Genesis Flood Theory of today’s Young Earth Creationists does not meet the commonsense test, not because God can’t do whatever He wants, but because the clear evidence of centuries of careful observation and analysis by very smart and dedicated professionals, both Christians and otherwise, can’t be ignored. God is not the Author of Confusion. He doesn’t plant lies in front of our face to test our faith.

Moreover, the universe is demonstrably dynamic, changing over time even as we observe. That isn’t “evolution”, it’s simply the application of forces and interactions decreed by God. We understand the physics of supernovae (the implosion of giant stars) and we observe them happening. We understand the process of star formation, and we see examples of every stage of that process. We can’t see the movement of stars and galaxies, but we can measure their movements using Doppler shift, similar to the clocking of a speeding car.

Limitations of Science

When I was young, scientific method was viewed as a simple, 3-step process:

  1. State a hypothesis.
  2. Form a tentative theory.
  3. “Prove” the theory, which then becomes a law.

But so many of the “laws” found under that paradigm have been subsequently found to be limited in scope (for example, Newton’s laws of motion are now known to be invalid for very large and very small masses), that the paradigm has changed:

Now, hypotheses still become tentative theories, but once a theory has become so well proved that it is accepted as true by most authorities on the subject, it still doesn’t get promoted to “law”. That is why it is utterly meaningless to say that “The Big Bang Theory” is just a theory!

Scientists now look for certain characteristics of a theory to judge how “well established” it is:

  • Obviously, the more evidence supports a theory, and the less that appears to contradict it, the stronger it becomes. This evidence may be experimental, or it may be observational. If it is statistical in nature, then the results must be well within a recognized margin of error.
  • To be considered a truly “scientific“, a theory must be judged to be “falsifiable.” That means that for all practical purposes, if there is no conceivable way that a theory can ever be proven false, then it must remain speculative in the minds of those who are not predisposed to take it on faith. This principle is the tool of choice for those who wish to exclude all discussion of religion, or “Intelligent Design“, as an alternative explanation.
  • For a theory to become intrenched as factual, it is also necessary for it to successfully produce demonstrably true predictions, by means either of observation, logical arguments, or mathematics.
  • The strongest theories are those that can be expressed by mathematics, because mathematics is the only truly “exact science“. Two plus two always equals four in our base 10 number system. The circumference of a circle divided by its diameter always equals pi (3.1415926…) in a Euclidean frame of reference.

Proving the Bible

Something I see online over and over again online is well-meaning Christians exclaiming over interesting archaeological finds that, “They prove that the Bible is correct.” No, they don’t! Science will never prove Scripture, and that is by God’s design, because He wants us to live by faith, not by sight. The most that science can do for us is to confirm the faith that God has already supplied to us.

At the same time, if we are worried that science will contradict our faith, then our faith is weak to begin with!

God has written of Himself in both Scripture and creation. The purpose of science is to help us understand creation. Embrace it!

Moses was a prophet!

According to Scripture, Moses was the greatest prophet of all times, other than Jesus. He didn’t personally see any of the events of Genesis, so how did he know what to write? Both the Old and New Testament contain numerous references to non-canonical source writings. Moses himself references The Book of the Wars of the Lord (no longer extant) in Numbers 21:14, which recorded some contemporary events, but I know of no sources that he could have used for events prior to the invention of writing. He could have gotten his information only from God. After-the-fact prophecy, so to speak.

How was that information communicated to him? Perhaps verbally, because we know that he and God talked to each other directly. Having nothing concrete to go by, I personally assume that from Genesis 11:10 forward, Moses’ inspiration was primarily verbal.

Verses 10–32 of chapter 11 constitute one of eleven so-called toledoth in Genesis. These primarily genealogical blocks of Scripture were included by Moses and are believed to be intended as section dividers.

Because the first 11+ chapters of Genesis consist of abbreviated, flowery accounts of earthshaking historical events, I see them as poetic discourse, a different genre from what follows. For that reason, I suspect that these chapters were conveyed, at least in part, via visions or dreams. There is a theological label for prophetic visions of past events: Preterism. A “full preterist” believes that all prophecy describes the past, in effect dismissing the possibility that prophets could foretell the future. I am far, far from that position! I am a “partial preterist” in that I refuse to dismiss the possibility that God can also reveal the unseen past to his prophets.

Typically, prophets preached and reported the content of visions and dreams, but not necessarily their interpretations.

Previous posts in this series on the topic of creation

In The Hijacking of Creationism, I laid out several of the views that Evangelical scholars have historically held in order to account for the apparent ancient age (13.8 billion years) of the universe. In particular, I focused on The Genesis Flood Theory, and its popularizer, Henry M. Morris. Today, 1/10/2024, I expanded on my bio of Dr. Morris. Yes, I am a little bit brutal with him, but his writings were frequently brutal towards those who disagreed with him.

In Does Science Trump Theology? I explore the intellectual domains covered by the two disciplines, similarities in the two, and how they should work together in Bible interpretation.

In Fountains of the Deep I draw on my own geological engineering background to present what I believe to be the most likely mechanism of the Genesis Flood. This mechanism is unlikely to have caused the distortion of the earth’s surface that followers of Morris demand. Incidentally, the 13.8-billion-year age of the universe is as firmly rooted in astrophysics and cosmology as the 4.54-billion-year age of earth is in geology. One of these days I’d like to hear a Young Earth Creationist explain how the Genesis Flood accounts for the cosmologic appearance of age.

In Geology a Flood Cannot Explain I randomly describe, from my own professional knowledge, a number of well-known geological features on earth that absolutely could not have been affected by a flood of any magnitude.

Fluid Mechanics courses for civil engineers are mostly irrelevant to understanding of the Genesis Flood, because they focus primarily on hydrostatics (forces exerted by water pressure on fixed structures like dams and canal locks), and laminar flow in engineered open channels and pipes. To the extent that they cover turbulent flow in natural channels like riverbeds, the primary interest is erosion of friable soils, sands and gravels. Before erosion can occur in solid rock, weathering must first break the rock down into smaller pieces, which is a process which usually takes years, if not centuries or longer. [I explore this fact in a post, Geology and the Saudi Sinai, part of a series on false evidence for believing that “the real Mt. Sinai” is in Saudi Arabia.]

Revisiting Genesis 1

I would like to take another look at the first few verses of Genesis 1 to present some ideas that you may not have considered before.

Prologue: Gen 1:1–5

Below, I present three very legitimate translations. The first is from an Evangelical favorite, the English Standard Version (ESV). The second is from the Jewish Publication Society (JPS). The third is from a new work, The Hebrew Bible, translated by Robert Alter over a 30-year period. Alter is a modernist, and not someone I would look to for dogma or Christian commentary, but from reading his books, I am convinced that he is, to his core, a top authority on Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern literature. I don’t believe that his translations are colored by any sectarian presuppositions, and that makes him my top comparator while trying to separate what the Hebrew Bible says from what tradition claims that it says.

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
— Genesis 1:1-5 (ESV)

1 When God began to create heaven and earth— 2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water— 3 God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.
— Genesis 1:1-5 (JPS)

1 When God began to create heaven and earth,
2 and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and
God’s breath hovering over the waters, 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And
there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided
the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness
He Called Night. And it was evening and it was morning, first day.
— Genesis 1:1-5 (Alter)

Before considering the difficulties posed by creation of light on “Day 1” (verses 3–5), we first need to consider verses 1 and 2.

Verse 1: I think that the ESV Study Bible, with a couple amendments, states the interpretive problem in verse 1 fairly well:

[Verse 1] can be taken as a summary, introducing the whole passage; or it can be read as the first event, the origin of the heavens and the earth (sometime [on or] before the first day), including the creation of matter[, energy], space, and time. This second view (the origin of the heavens and the earth) is confirmed by the NT writers’ affirmation that creation was from nothing (Heb. 11:3; Rev. 4:11).

Heavens and the earth here means “everything.” This means, then, that “In the beginning” refers to the beginning of everything. The text indicates that God created everything in the universe, which thus affirms that he did in fact create it ex nihilo (Latin “out of nothing”). The effect of the opening words of the Bible is to establish that God, in his inscrutable wisdom, sovereign power, and majesty, is the Creator of all things that exist.
— Dennis, Lane T. and Wayne Grudem, eds., The ESV Study Bible. Accordance electronic edition, version 2.0. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2008 (emphasis added, my additions are in brackets).

Probably half of the sources I use assume that verse 1 is a summary for what follows, ignoring the fact that none of what follows explicitly mentions the origins of the earth as a rocky planet covered by water. This view necessarily assumes that God created the individual building blocks (sub-atomic particles, atoms and molecules, and the forces that bind them) concurrently with forming them into the finished product. This is not outrageous but leads to a crucial contradiction which I will discuss below—namely that light is produced by matter, and is a manifestation of electromagnetism, which is an essential binding force.

The other half of my sources take the “first event” approach. Most of those place verse 1 on day 1. If you take it prior to day 1, then you more or less put yourself potentially in the “Gap Theory” camp, which I have occupied, but which is anathema to Young Earth Creationists because it can imply death before The Fall. I’ll save my comments on that objection for another post in this series. Unfortunately, this view is subject to the same contradiction regarding electromagnetic binding.

The ESVSB contention that “[the] Heavens and the earth … means ‘everything’” assumes that the wording of the Scripture is a merism, a figure of speech that encompasses the first element, the last element, and everything in between. This assumption is not provable, but rather can only be taken on faith—which I do. It is a figure of speech used frequently in the Bible.

The term “the heavens” is hashamayim in Hebrew. It is a plural form and is usually rendered as such in translations. Up to seven heavens were recognized in ancient literature, but most scholars today differentiate between just three heavens:

  1. The atmosphere around and above us.
  2. The cosmos beyond earth’s atmosphere.
  3. The heavenly realm inhabited by God and his host.

I would rather prefer a more general statement that the term “heavens” means everything above the surface of earth: As explained below, Moses and his readers would have envisioned several elements:

  1. The sky of air and birds.
  2. A solid dome (the “firmament“) from which hang the suspended sun, moon and stars.
  3. An ocean above, connected at the edges to the ocean below, and held up by the dome, (KJV, “firmament”).
  4. The home of God and His Divine Host.

The first event view is supported in particular by the JPS and Alter translations above (“began to create”), which place verse 1 at the beginning of what might be interpreted as a string of creation events, those described in the remainder of the chapter, and anything subsequent.

Verse 2: In verse 2, there are actually four separate interpretive issues, which I will gloss over here:

  1. Without form (or formless) and void” and other translations, such as Alter’s “welter and waste.” The Hebrew, tohu wabohu, is linguistically of limited use to our understanding, because its usage in literary history is insufficient to allow a definite interpretation. Guesses range from “total chaos” to “undeveloped and unpopulated.” Halter deliberately chose his alliterative nouns to emulate the poetic language of the Hebrew rather than to take a position on precise meaning. Whatever the meaning here, I have generally pictured the state of the planet as an earth totally covered by water and shrouded in mist, which works very well with a Gap Theory and a flooded earth. However, I’ll mention another (better?) view below.
  2. Darkness.” The Hebrew choshek can mean things like darkness (perhaps because light is absent), or obscurity because light has been masked or reflected away. Again, obscurity works best with Gap Theories, but see below.
  3. The Deep.” The Hebrew tehom means either the deep sea, or the deep source waters of terrestrial springs which were viewed as interconnected with each other and with the sea (see Fountains of the Deep, where I discuss this in some detail).
  4. The Spirit of God“, “a wind from God”, or “God’s breath.” The Hebrew ruach, can mean any of these things, and probably means all of them here. See God with the Wind for an in-depth discussion.

The overwhelming problem with Light on Day 1:

The definition of light

Just what is “light”, anyway? If you think of it as simply, “the absence of dark”, then you are way off base—it’s the other way around. As a noun, “dark” denotes a concept (the absence of light), rather than a tangible thing. “Light” is something very real and specific. I suspect that all of my readers have had enough education to realize that light is electromagnetic energy. All of you will no doubt have seen some version of a spectrum diagram:

The problem is that most folks have a tendency to think of visible light as something that is fundamentally different from the rest of the spectrum, because our vision only detects wavelengths in a narrow band between about 400 and 700 nanometers. But the wavelength of electromagnetic energy is really an expression of how energetic the wave is. X-rays and gamma rays are fundamentally the same thing as visible light, just more energetic. Radio waves, radar, and microwaves are fundamentally the same thing as visible light, just less energetic. All of these things are emitted by matter, travel at roughly 186,000 mps as waves, and are detected in the form of massless particles called photons.

So, if God literally created light on a literal Day 1, did He create just visible light, or the entire spectrum? If He just created visible light, then I have to ask, “visible to whom?” Humans all differ slightly in their light sensitivity. Bats, most amphibians, and many fish and insects see well into the infrared. Many species of insects, fish, and even mammals (including dogs and cats) can see into the ultraviolet. Using instrumentation, humans can now “see” all wavelengths of electromagnetism.

And what do we even count as visible to a normal human? Sunlight reaching Earth’s surface on a sunny day is around 52 to 55 percent infrared, 42 to 43 percent visible light, and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet. A biologist might say that “visible” means detectable using only our eyes, but we also detect longer and shorter wavelengths with other organs.

On the long-wave side of the spectrum, infrared (“below red”) is felt as heat on our skin; microwaves can penetrate skin, and if powerful enough, could even boil the water in blood and cells near the surface; and even longer UHF and VHF radio waves have been documented to set up resonant vibrations in structures like teeth with metallic fillings.

On the short-wave side of the spectrum, ultraviolet (“above violet”), which can cause sunburn and later melanoma; x-rays penetrate completely through our bodies and can cause damage to inner organs over time or can cause or kill cancers; unshielded gamma rays can cause catastrophic damage to human bodies.

Contrary to the diagram above, cosmic rays are not primarily light or even electromagnetic energy in any sense, but rather are characterized by alpha and beta particles (helium nuclei and protons) traveling at close to the speed of light, and thus possessing some of the same quantum properties as light.

The source of light

Light that reaches us from the sun is largely in the range of visible and near-visible light, but it starts out in the sun’s reactive core as gamma rays, high energy (short wavelength) byproducts of nuclear fusion. These gamma rays begin a “random walk” out of the sun’s core and through its conduction zone, repeatedly colliding with particles in the dense surrounding soup of hydrogen and helium ions, changing directions randomly, over and over again, and gradually losing energy (thus shifting to more benign longer wavelengths). Eventually, after something like 100,000 to a million years, they reach the sun’s surface and fly off in all directions at the speed of light, 186,282 miles per second.

Structure of the sun, from theuniverse-michael-lawson.weebly.com

An even more important consideration (mentioned above) is that, in the universe God created, electromagnetic energy (let me just call it “light” here, for brevity) is always associated with matter. There are a number of ways that light can be generated, but it always begins with matter. I’ll mention a possible exception below, under the heading “sh’kinah“, but for now, I’m talking about the light that all of us experience.

It is worth mentioning that all light is invisible until it strikes a detector. If you are in an empty, dark place and someone shines a flashlight past you, you may see the glowing source, but you will not see any trace of the beam, which consists only of a jiggling electromagnetic field, unless it strikes an air or dust molecule and reflects into your eye.

Most light in the universe is generated by stars like our sun, but all matter generates light, usually much less energetic than stellar gamma rays but still light, even if it is well below our range of sight. The human retina is populated by several types of light receptor: “cones” for detecting color when the light intensity is strong enough, and “rods” for detecting black and white in low light situations. My cat, Anna, can see me very well in a darkened (but not totally dark) room, because her retinas are mostly populated by “rods”.

Matter that is not heated to a glow, still generates heat, and that heat energy is radiated as light in the infrared region. If raised to a high enough temperature, the energy of the radiated light will eventually climb into the visible region, first red, and when hot enough, all the way to the blue side of the spectrum.

[Note: This is why the red and blue markings on faucets and automobile heater controls are so confusing and counterintuitive to me. To any scientist and most engineers, it should be red for cold and blue for hot, in spectral order.]

I took the photo of Anna, below, using an infrared sensor. The color isn’t real. The sensor’s pixels map the wavelengths of the infrared light in the scene and use an algorithm to determine the temperature that the pixel is “seeing”. False color is then added to encode it, as per the scale on the left. The warmest parts of the photo are her eyes, about 96°F. Next warmest is her face, followed by her tummy and legs. Her cold nose and the thick fur on her back and tail matches the cooler temperatures of the table she’s lounging on and the room to the right. The blue areas, our front door and glazed side panels, are quite cold. It was winter, and the windows here are single-glazed and very poor insulators.


In this photo, the small amount of heat registered from the window is a combination of heat from Anna and the room itself, being reflected back towards my sensor, heat generated by the window glass itself, and heat from outside conducted (see below) through the glass and woodwork.

All matter generates heat provided that its temperature is above absolute zero (−459.67°F). In the presence of any heat at all, the sub-atomic particles in atoms and molecules vibrate. The quantum mechanical mechanism causing this is beyond my scope here, but that vibration causes a release of energy in the form of heat. Heat energy is propagated in one or more of three ways:

  • Conduction – If two objects are touching each other, then the heat stored in the hotter will flow to the cooler (that’s the “first law of thermodynamics”).
  • Convection – In a gas or liquid, heat energy from a hot container will flow to the fluid by conduction and then the heated fluid will rise, setting up a convection current in the liquid.
  • Radiation – Whether or not either of the above occur, there will always be some heat flow in the form of electromagnetic radiation. To me, that is light, whether I can see it or not!

Absolute zero is theoretically unobtainable, because an object at absolute zero would cease all motion, including vibrations within the nucleus and movement of the electrons. All liquids and gasses (including the atmosphere) at this temperature would immediately solidify and collapse to a dense, inert lump, which I don’t believe describes the condition of earth in Genesis 1:2.

This is why I think that it would make no sense for light to have been created subsequent to the creation of matter in Genesis 1:1, whether you interpret that as a summary or a first event.

Since light is so intimately connected with matter, it is unthinkable to me that light would have come first.

Verses 4 and 5 are also difficult for me to accept in a literal sense. “Day and night” are conceptual nouns, and night simply refers to the shadow caused on one side of earth as it rotates away from the sun. But the sun isn’t created until Day 4. Some would say that this verse is where God created time. But time, as now understood by physicists, is part of the fabric of the universe itself (see Implications of God’s Omnipresence and Eternity in Space-Time).

sh’kinah

God’s own sh’kinah is also a light source, and one not connected with matter. It is the light source that led the Israelites out of Egypt, that lit up the top of Mt. Sinai, that resided in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and later the Temple, and that was described in the visions of several of the prophets.

Some commentators have suggested that God’s sh’kinah is the source of the light that God “created” on Day 1. This is absolutely a possibility, but if true, even if it functioned in exactly the same way as the light that we are familiar with, is it meaningful to say that God “created light” on Day 1 if the light he created was fundamentally different from the light that we know? On Day 4, God assigned the responsibility for light-bearing to the sun, moon and stars. In any case, I think the sh’kinah is one of God’s native characteristics, not a later creation.

“Let there be light…”

The Hebrew for this phase is yehi or. With its many linguistic modifiers, Yehi appears 3,561 times in scripture, so it is well understood. To my knowledge, there is complete agreement on the translation here, “let there be“. I am not aware of any context in which it clearly denotes a creative act. It is like saying, “Hey bub, flip on the light, will ya’?”

Interpreting verses 1:3–2:3

As for me, I don’t think that Genesis 1:3–2:3 can be a literal description of how God created the cosmos, because these verses do not describe the immensely complex universe in which we live!

In The Hijacking of Creationism, I mentioned a number of alternative theories proposed by conservatives to explain this passage, as listed in Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology. Another such list is presented below:

Concordist and Non-Concordist Interpretations of Genesis 1, from an article at biologos.com, “Comparing Interpretations of Genesis 1“, by Deborah Haarsma and Loren Haarsma

The authors of the above table define “concordism” as follows:

In concordist interpretations, God made the earth using the sequence of events described in Genesis 1. In non-concordist interpretations, God created the earth using a different timing and order of events than those described Genesis 1.

According to 19th century theologian, minister and writer, C.I. Schofield, Genesis 1 describes God’s miraculous 6-day rebuilding of an ancient earth after a previous judgement (of earlier humans and/or angelic beings) by inundation. This is a Gap interpretation, from the left side of the table.

What has long intrigued me about Schofield’s Gap Theory is that in the sequence listed, Genesis 1 describes precisely how earth would most likely have recovered from a general flood like that of Noah’s day. If that is true, then both floods were miraculous inundations of the entire planet, and the unnaturally rapid recovery in both cases was also miraculous. This is why I have for years called myself a “gap guy“, or more recently, a “two-flood” guy.

Still, I am no longer adamant about Gap Theory, because it can’t be proven one way or the other, and I don’t share Schofield’s opinion that the judgement leading to the earlier flood was connected to angelic corruption on earth. There is no Biblical evidence of angelic rebellion before Satan appears in the Garden of Eden.

More importantly, after doing extensive study during the last several years in the course of thinking about this series on Creation and another post on Gods and Demons, I feel drawn to a different interpretation that would be much more comprehensible to the people in Moses’ day and well beyond.

A better idea

What was the cultural background?

Regarding the culture of Moses’ day, it is inconceivable that he or his readers would have had the intellectual tools needed to process concepts like mass, energy, the nature of light, or even cosmically vast distances and time scales or a spherical earth.

We tend to think of ancient civilization as a scattering of isolated small city states like Sumer, Akkad, Elam, and even Egypt on the far end of the Fertile Crescent, but they all had a common heritage going back to Babel and even to the Flood.

And even in the distant past there were frequent interactions among peoples. Both war and peace brought people together, either in conquest or in trade. Consequently, there were many similarities between regions, in culture and religion. Though the names and functions of the pagan gods differed somewhat from region to region, there was general agreement about the nature of the world and the duties of the godhead in maintaining its order.

Ancient Near East before Moses. http://www.hyperhistory.com 2016

The region that became Israel was part of this milieu. The Israelites were descended from Abraham, who was Mesopotamian. Their later heritage was Canaanite and then Egyptian. The Torah (“Teachings“, the “Five Books of Moses”) that God delivered to His people, had the singular purpose of revealing Himself and His Divine Will to humankind.

In Moses’ day, as in Noah’s and even Jesus’ and beyond, the Israelites shared the beliefs of their Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) neighbors about cosmology (the nature of the heavens and the earth). Though their concept was, of course, deeply flawed, it was functionally adequate for millennia, and it diminished God’s role only in that it ascribed His creation to false creators. The following diagram shows the essence of what was universally accepted as true cosmology in the ANE.

Note that this is also clearly the cosmology described in Genesis 1!

Composite artist’s conception of the Ancient Near Eastern view of cosmology. Source unlisted.

The earth was a roughly disk-shaped island floating on the sea (possibly supported on “the pillars of earth”) and covered with a dome, the “firmament” of KJV. The sea was not only below the earth and feeding its springs (the “fountains of the deep”), but also covered the dome above (the “waters above the firmament”). In some versions the dome was supported at its rim by a ring of mountains (the “pillars of heaven”). The sun and moon traveled across the sky below the dome, sinking into the sea or through doors in the west, and traveling back east through the underworld to rise again. The stars and planets followed fixed grooves beneath the dome. Rain occurred when windows in the dome (the “windows of heaven”) were opened by the gods.

No matter how one interprets Genesis 1, the central issue that had to be addressed by God was that each element in the above diagram was believed to either be a god or goddess, or to be governed by one. And, of course, it was believed that all owed its existence to one or more chief creator gods. Rather than “nothingness” before creation, the cosmos existed, but was in a state of chaos (formlessness, or tohu wabohu, as defined above); thus, creation amounted to bringing order out of disorder.

So, what are my views?

A Genesis 1 alternative that makes total sense to me now is related to historical observations that the Israelites shared the culture and cosmology of the surrounding peoples. The Genesis account and the Bible as a whole condemns the pagan polytheistic connection, but does nothing to dispel the cosmological misconceptions, which were still believed by most cultures, including Israel’s, well into the Christian era.

The chart below displays relationships recognized by many conservative theologians who hold to a literal, Concordist, interpretation of Genesis 1; however, rather than interpreting the chart as an account of literally how God created the physical cosmos, I think it is better understood as a very abbreviated poetic description of the finished product.

From Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design,
by Deborah B. Haarsma and Loren D. Haarsma 

Understood in that way, it becomes one version of a Creation Poem Interpretation of Genesis 1. As such, it is essentially a polemic (a statement argumentatively refuting an opinion or doctrine held by others) against the creation myths of pagan cultures who credit their false gods, who most certainly did not create or rule the cosmos!

The ANE held no conception of infinite time or eternity. They thought no farther back than the initial chaos (compare Genesis 1:2), out of which arose the creator god, who then began to assemble the cosmos from the chaos. Only Yahweh claimed to be eternal and uncreated, and to create ex nihilo.

Whereas modern man sees existence as material in nature, with tangible substance and physical properties, it wasn’t enough for the ancients that something was visible and occupied space—as stated by John H. Walton in Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, it had to first “come into existence” metaphysically by being “separated out as a distinct entity, given a function, and given a name.”

A key insight that I have gleaned from Walton and others who have professionally studied the ANE is that the ancients viewed the ontological nature of the cosmos, i.e., “the nature of that which exists” in terms of function, whereas moderns view it in terms of substance. In other words, when a Big Bang Creationist like me thinks of God’s handiwork, I see mass and energy, bosons and fermions, stars and planets, rocks and trees, etc. A Young Earth Creationist similarly sees a universe of substance. To the ancients, in contrast, the substance of things is only incidental to their functions.

Consequently, I’m beginning to understand that God’s purpose in Genesis 1 was to ignore the misconceptions of the ANE regarding the physical nature of the cosmos, since that was a triviality to pretty much 100% of the population, and to say, in ways they would understand, “I, Yahweh, brought it into being [verse 1] and gave it function [the rest of Genesis 1].”

In this way of thinking,

  • Days 1 and 4 were about time, seasons, and the cosmic objects that differentiate them;
  • Days 2 and 5 were about the waters below and above, and about their denizens; and
  • Days 3 and 6 were about the land and its fecundity.

What point was God then making?

According to Walton, “The records of events in the ancient world were not given so that the reader could reconstruct the event. They were given so that the reader could understand the significance of the past for the present. In that sense, outcomes were more important than the events themselves.”

The pagan creation myth most familiar to modern scholars today is the Enuma Elish, from the Assyrian Library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. I’ll close this post with a comparison of Genesis 1 with this pagan document, which I think clearly illustrates God’s point:

From Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design,
by Deborah B. Haarsma and Loren D. Haarsma 

Bibliography

Haarsma, Deborah B., Loren D. Haarsma, Origens: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design,2011, Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources.

Walton, John H., Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, 2nd ed., 2018, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Zuck, Roy B., Basic Bible Interpretation, 1991, Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries

Next in series: Quantum Freewill


The Language of Creation

Posted on:

Modified on:


  1. Introduction
  2. Four words for “Create”
    1. The verb bara’
    2. The verb ‘asah
    3. The verb yatsar
    4. The verb kun
  3. “Let there be light!”
  4. Food for thought

As most of my friends know, I am a fervent Creationist, though not a “Young Earth” creationist. I am totally convinced that the universe we live in was created ex nihilo (out of nothing, whatsoever) by the one, true, almighty and utterly magnificent Creator, the God of Israel.

I’ve stated it elsewhere, and I’ll state it again below: Genesis 1:1 tells me all I need to know about the origin of the universe. I can drive a car without understanding how an internal combustion engine or a lithium-ion battery is built. But I’m an academic at heart… so I seek.

The five books of Moses were written during Israel’s 40 years of wandering. He didn’t write for 21st century readers, he wrote for the Israelites, leaving behind one pagan culture and preparing to invade another with similar technologies and traditions.

The first several chapters of Genesis are where God sets the perspective for them: “Your beliefs about the form and function of the cosmos is unimportant—but it’s absolutely vital that you understand that I made everything that exists, it belongs to me, and it is me alone that keeps it running.”

My purpose in writing this particular post is fairly one-dimensional: To discuss the language used by Moses (and other OT writers) to describe God’s actions in the creation process.

One of my favorite Bible dictionaries.

Introduction

To paraphrase Merriam-Webster, to “create” is to “bring something new into existence” or to “design and/or produce something new through imagination and skill.” If, as a woodworker, I build a chair, I’m not doing something earthshattering, though I may earn kudos for my craftsmanship. If I “create” a new chair design, I could become famous. If I create an antigravity chair, I’m more than a designer and craftsman, I’m also an inventor, which is a much bigger deal. If I somehow manage to do any of those things without any raw materials—i.e., if I pop a chair into existence out of complete nothingness—then I have “created ex nihilo“, and I am God. To do so (assuming no trickery) requires a violation of the “conservation of energy”, which only God can do! He can do things like that because He is the creator of the laws of physics that govern the universe and because His existence transcends the universe.

Perhaps I should define the term “universe”. By longstanding convention, that means everything that exists. I would modify that to specify “everything created that exists”. Possibly not the “third heaven”, the divine realm, above the atmosphere (the “first heaven”) and outside the celestial realm (the “second heaven”). Some modern cosmologists are now talking about a “multiverse”, but that is just a theoretical device to explain away the existence of God. A topic for the future, maybe. There is one, and only one, universe!

In this post, I am going to focus on the language of creation, as I personally see it reflected in Hebrew references to the created universe.

I am not a linguist, though I have a working knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, but at this moment, I have at my disposal, either on shelves or on software, 22 commentaries, 7 study Bibles, 5 Hebrew grammars, and 5 other miscellaneous books that are relevant for this discussion. Most of this material is relatively recent; that is, less than 100 or so years. Some older, from as long ago as the Reformation or even the Patristic Age (the age of the “Church Fathers”). Typically, before I post opinions on my blog, I review them against everything I have or can find on the Internet. What is ultimately posted is my own opinion, based as much as possible on research.

The bookshelves in my home office, as of May 6, 2023. Most of these are either theologies or are related to Bible history. ©Ron Thompson

Four words for “Create”

Where the verb “create” appears in the Old Testament, it is almost always one of four Hebrew words:

  • bara’, to create or make. Only this verb includes ex nihilo.
  • ‘asah, to make, build, accomplish, achieve, or simply to do.
  • yatsar, to form or fashion with the hands, as a potter.
  • kun, to establish, appoint, or prepare.

When used in a narrative sense, as in Genesis 1 and 2, I think it is important to view these verbs strictly in accordance with their primary meanings. However, when used in poetic writings where the language is designed to be more flowery and embellished, shades of meaning are not so clear-cut. For that reason, I don’t think it is wise to base any theology solely on poetic passages.

In Isaiah 41 and 43 we see examples of poetic mixing of terms.

In 41:17–20, God is promising through the Prophet that eventually, in the latter days, He will show compassion on His people, who have been scattered across desert regions and who are thirsty, poor and needy. He will gather them back into their land, and that land, even the parched Arabah in the south, will become a garden.

Verse 20, below, consists of a pair of classic Hebrew poetic doublets, where a first line makes a statement, and a second line restates it in alternative and usually exaggerated terms: the people will “see and know”, that is, they will “observe and understand” that God “has done this”, that is, He has “created it.”

Then the people will see and know,
together observe and understand
that the hand of ADONAI has done [asah] this,
that the Holy One of Isra’el created [bara’] it.
— Isaiah 41:20 (CJB)

The creative act in view here may have been ex nihilo, but the poetic usage of bara’ doesn’t require that interpretation. In fact, the process of Israel’s regathering is well underway as I write. It appears that God’s mechanism so far has been in blessing the labor of His people since their regathering began in 1948. In his 1869 travel book, Innocents Abroad, Mark Twain wrote, “Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes…. desolate and unlovely.” It’s certainly not that way today!

In 43:1b and 7, God is speaking of His creation, Israel. Did God create Israel, the people, ex nihilo? I don’t think so. When I say that “God is my Creator”, I mean that He created the first human beings, and at that time He endowed them with the ability to procreate. Each act of procreation by any creature, human or otherwise, is a biological process that certainly allows, but probably does not require, any further intervention by Him. That doesn’t negate the fact that our creation, ultimately, was at His hand.

But now this is what ADONAI says,
he who created [bara’] you, Ya‘akov,
he who formed [asah] you, Isra’el:

everyone who bears my name,
whom I created [asah] for my glory —
I formed [asah] him, yes, I made him.’”
— Isaiah 43:1b,7 (CJB)

In the following poetic verse all four verbs are used in a single sentence. It happens that in this case the KJV translators realized that Isaiah’s intention was to emphasize how all-encompassing God’s creative act was, and they did an excellent job of parsing the intended meanings of each verb instance.

For thus saith the Lord that created [bara’] the heavens; God himself that formed [yatsar] the earth and made [‘asah] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bara’] it not in vain [i.e., not to be in chaos], he formed [yatsar] it to be inhabited:
—Isaiah 45:18 (KJV)

The verb bara’

In the beginning God created [bara’] the heavens and the earth.
—Genesis 1:1 CJB

According to Vine,

bara’ (בָּרָא, 1254), “to create, make.” This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can “create” in the sense implied by bara’. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for “creating” allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects … and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.
—Vine’s Expository Dictionary (emphasis added)

According to the above, only God can “create” (bara’). The New Testament clarifies that in this case the term, “God” (Elohim), refers to the triune God. For example,

[15] He [Jesus] is the visible image of the invisible God. He is supreme over all creation, [16] because in connection with him were created all things—in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, lordships, rulers or authorities—they have all been created through him and for him. [17] He existed before all things, and he holds everything together.
—Colossians 1:15–17 (CJB) (emphasis added)

(Note what Paul is stressing: The “invisible” here (thrones, lordships, rulers and authorities) refers to the pagan gods, which were themselves created entities. See Gods and Demons.)

Other Hebrew grammars suggest that bara’ does not always mean ex nihilo creation; however, where it refers to original creation, logic dictates that it must. God preexisted all else that exists, including all the mass and energy building blocks from which everything in the universe was assembled. This is clear from the Colossians quotation above, and

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
—John 1:1–3 (KJV) (emphasis added)

The Bible, Old Testament and New, is God’s description of Himself and of how He chooses to interact with Adam’s race. The sacred writings of every other religion attempt at length to explain the origins of the gods, the universe, and humanity. The God of Israel is eternal and therefore has no need to explain His own existence.

Photo ©Ron Thompson

As expressed by a leading Jewish commentary:

The traditional English translation reads: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” This rendering construes the verse as an independent sentence complete in itself [that] makes a momentous assertion about the nature of God: that He is wholly outside of time, just as He is outside of space, both of which He proceeds to create. In other words, for the first time in the religious history of the Near East, God is conceived as being entirely free of temporal and spatial dimensions.

Unlike the pagan cosmologies, Genesis exhibits no interest in the question of God’s origins. His existence prior to the world is taken as axiomatic and does not even require assertion, let alone proof.

The use here of a merism [“heaven and earth”], the combination of opposites, expresses the totality of cosmic phenomena, for which there is no single word in biblical Hebrew.
—The JPS Torah Commentary (emphasis added)

Bara appears in Genesis 1, in verses:

  • 1, where it describes the creation of “the heavens and the earth”;
  • 21, regarding the creation of “sea creatures”, “creeping things” and “winged birds”; and
  • 27, regarding the creation of “humankind”.

In my view, Genesis 1:1 is the defining statement of the origin of the universe and all that it contains. Any other mention of that origin in the Bible is merely a reference back to that single, powerful verse.

The verb ‘asah

6 God said, “Let there be [yə·hî, see below] a dome in the middle of the water; let it divide the water from the water.” 7 God made [‘asah] the dome and divided the water under the dome from the water above the dome; that is how it was, 8 and God called the dome Sky. So there was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
— Genesis 1:6-8 (CJB)

The quote here is from The Complete Jewish Bible (CJB), a Messianic Jewish translation by David H. Stern. His use of the term “dome” may seem strange to you. The Hebrew is  רָקִיעַ (raqia), which Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) defines as “an extended, solid surface” or a flat “expanse”, both of which certainly suggest the concept of a dome. Furthermore, raqia is a derivative of the Hebrew verb, רָקַע (raqa), a root which means “to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out” (BDB) or “to expand (by hammering) … to overlay (with thin sheets of metal” (Strong’s).

KJV, of course, uses the term “firmament” here, which is derived from the Vulgate’s Latin, firmāmentum, which indicates a “prop, or support.” The Latin was a direct translation of the Septuagint’s Greek, στερέωμα (stereóma), meaning “a solid body, or support structure” (Strong’s), or “that which furnishes a foundation; on which a thing rests firmly” (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon).

A number of the commentaries in my library, written by thoughtful and devout Christian scholars, define “firmament” as simply a space between the waters below (ocean) and the waters above (vapor). In other words, the sky or atmosphere. There is absolutely no Biblical or linguistic support for this!

The job of a Bible scholar is exegesis. Exegesis is defined as critical analysis and explanation of Scriptural text. What these obviously well-intentioned scholars have done is to look at the passage and say, “Well, I don’t see anywhere else in Scripture or in extrabiblical sources that raqia can mean atmosphere between oceans and clouds, or a space between any two solid or liquid collections, but I know what God created, so that must just be Moses’ odd way of describing it.”

That is absolutely not allowed! That sort of “analysis” has a name: eisegesis. Eisegesis means reading your own ideas, traditions, or prejudices back into Scripture. In other words, instead of letting Scripture inform you, you are informing Scripture! Eisegesis accounts for a ton of bad theology, sectarian error, and downright heresy.

I point out all of the linguistic information on the “dome” in verse 7 to demonstrate that the language of Genesis 1 supports the diagram below, which is a schematic diagram of what in ancient times was universally believed to be the structure of the cosmos. The Babylonians saw it this way, as did the Persians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Hebrews, and yes, the 1st Century Christians. And that’s the way Moses described it!

Ancient cosmological beliefs

We know that picture is not right, but it does conform with Genesis 1. So, either God is using the description for His own purposes without explicitly endorsing the details, or Genesis 1 is talking about something completely different—for example, Schofield’s famous gap cataclysm. I used to think the latter; now I think the former.

Back on topic…

Though the Hebrew ‘asah in Genesis 1:7 does mean a type of creation, that term, by itself, doesn’t imply ex nihilo creation. Having described how the ancients understood the “dome”, or “firmament”, it makes sense that they would have thought of it not so much as a “creation” as a “construction“, like a dam or a roof. I don’t believe that this picture of the cosmos is even vaguely correct, but generations of belief made it an unbreakable tradition. In Genesis 1:1, God took full credit for creating the entire cosmos. In the rest of the chapter, He said, “this is the way you understand it to be made—that’s fine for now, but give the credit to me, not to Marduk, or Amun, or Baal, or Zeus, or any other regional creator-god.”

Also in Genesis 1, God made (‘asah) the sun and moon in verse 16 and the land-dwelling animals in verse 25. In verse 26 He proposed “make[ing] [‘asah] man in our image”—the image of God, Himself, and the angelic Divine Council, who I believe He was conversing with—which He then did (“So God created [bara’] man in His own image”) in verse 27. In verse 31, He looked on “all that He had made (‘asah)“.

The same term, ‘asah, is used for another form of creation in verses 11 and 12:

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing [‘asah] fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind…
— Genesis 1:11-12 (ESV)

This makes reproduction a type of “making“. Of the Hebrew terms the Bible uses for creating, only ‘bara is restricted to God alone.

The verb yatsar

The term yatsar is used in chapter 2:

Then ADONAI, God, formed [yatsar] a person [Hebrew: adam] from the dust of the ground [Hebrew: adamah] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, so that he became a living being.
—Genesis 2:7 CJB

Adam was evidently not created ex nihilo like the “humankind” of Genesis 1:27, but rather was formed from dust, like a potter’s earthenware, and then endowed with life by God’s breathing into his nostrils. I’ll speak more about this in a future post.

Though it is poetry, and thus a genre that often obscures the precise meanings of some Hebrew terms, Amos 4:13 seems to me to do a good job of illustrating the differences between bara’, ‘asah, and yatsar:

For behold, he who forms [yatsar] the mountains
and creates [bara’] the wind,
and declares to man what is his thought,
who makes [‘asah] the morning darkness,
and treads on the heights of the earth—
the LORD, the God of hosts, is his name!
— Amos 4:13 (ESV)

The verb kun

Kun is not used in the creation account of Genesis, but it occurs elsewhere in Genesis:

Why was the dream doubled for Pharaoh? Because the matter has been fixed [kun, established or assured] by God, and God will shortly cause it to happen.
— Genesis 41:32 (CJB)

God has taken something unsure and made it inevitable.

When Yosef saw Binyamin with them, he said to his household manager, “Take the men inside the house, kill the animals and prepare [kun] the meat. These men will dine with me at noon.”
— Genesis 43:16 (CJB)

Joseph commanded the steward to make ready the meat. I know, that’s a fairly weak form of making something.

“Let there be light!”

The terms “Let there be (yə·hî)”: light, in verse 3, expanse, dome, or firmament in verse 6, and lights in the expanse in verse 14; and “Let it (wî·hî)”: the firmament in verse 6, are forms of “creative command.”

The concept here is a grammatical feature of Hebrew. It’s a device called a Hiphil Stem, and becommingjewish.org expresses it this way: “The Hiphil Stem can be used to express a causative type of action with an active voice.” That’s kind of technical, but what it amounts to is that a prefix “stem” is added to a Hebrew word to change it from a simple active verb form like “he loved” to a causative active form like “he caused to love“.

To make that even simpler by example, in Genesis 1:3, the Hiphil changes “the light is on” to “turn on the light”. It becomes a command, and when God commands, the universe obeys!

Food for thought

Genesis 1 and 2 were written for Moses’ Israelite followers, but there is wisdom in there for us in the 21st century.

The following passage is Wisdom anthropomorphized. All the rules for interpretation of poetry must be observed. It isn’t a real person speaking, but it could surely have been spoken by Solomon himself. For that matter, I can easily read myself into the poem!

I am there. I am speaking. God made me among the “first of his ancient works.” God planned all of it, including me, before He programmed the physical laws of the universe so that they would make it happen, and before He created from nothing the primordial singularity. Before He allowed it to expand and coalesce first into undifferentiated energy, then into forces, then particles, then ions, atoms, stars and galaxies. The atheist Carl Sagan was fond of saying that we are made of “star-stuff.” He thought he was second-guessing God!

22 “ADONAI made me as the beginning of his way,
the first of his ancient works.
23 I was appointed before the world,
before the start, before the earth’s beginnings.
24 When I was brought forth, there were no ocean depths,
no springs brimming with water.
25 I was brought forth before the hills,
before the mountains had settled in place;
26 he had not yet made [‘asah] the earth, the fields,
or even the earth’s first grains of dust.
27 When he established [kun] the heavens, I was there.
When he drew the horizon’s circle on the deep,
28 when he set the skies above in place,
when the fountains of the deep poured forth,
29 when he prescribed boundaries for the sea,
so that its water would not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30 I was with him as someone he could trust.
For me, every day was pure delight,
as I played in his presence all the time,
31 playing everywhere on his earth,
and delighting to be with humankind.
—Proverbs 8:22–31 CJB

Next in series: Genesis 1:1–5, Day 1