Is Genesis the story of the earth's creation?

[larryt]

I am a Biblical conservative or at least that is how I define myself. But it seems to me that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. I believe however that Genesis 1:1 is the story of the restoration of the earth from a previous state of existence. I believe that series of creative events recorded on the earth were 6,000 years ago. What say you? Am I way off base or close to the truth in your opinion?

Are you talking 6001 yrs, 6100 yrs, 10,000 yrs, millions of yrs, billions of yrs?

It does say that the earth was without form and void. Does that mean that something happened to the earth since the original creation or that God made it that way to start?

LT

[nebula]

How would one interpret this then? Literal or not?

Genesis 2 v 4:

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

I've heard people claiming the wording of this contradicts Genesis 1 in that it puts all "6 days" outlined in Gen. 1 into one day.

It is for reasons such as this that I have stepped back from the "traditional" interpretation of Creation and tried looking at what the passage actually says, and what it doesn't say, and working a framework from my own observations rather than what's been passed down.

It is from this personal search that I found looking for God and the message of God through the account to be more beneficial and fruitful than looking for the Earth.

Shiloh presented a wonderful teaching on this is the Studies forum - if you haven't seen it yet.

[EricH]

I have not landed frimly on this one, yet.

[Guest HIS girl]

How would one interpret this then? Literal or not?

Genesis 2 v 4:

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

I've heard people claiming the wording of this contradicts Genesis 1 in that it puts all "6 days" outlined in Gen. 1 into one day.

It is for reasons such as this that I have stepped back from the "traditional" interpretation of Creation and tried looking at what the passage actually says, and what it doesn't say, and working a framework from my own observations rather than what's been passed down.

It is from this personal search that I found looking for God and the message of God through the account to be more beneficial and fruitful than looking for the Earth.

Shiloh presented a wonderful teaching on this is the Studies forum - if you haven't seen it yet.

"in the day" isn't referring to one day - it's just another matter of wording/point people like to argue about. The Creation account would have to be one of the major events in the Bible that most Christians argue over (as well as the Flood).

"in the day" is the same as saying -"back in my day, the Sydney Harbour Bridge was built." - it took longer than one day to build this bridge.

Personally, I have NEVER read Gen 2 v 4 and thought it took one day for Creation to happen.

I think with ALL of of Scripture whether it be the Creation account or the Flood or the adulturous woman, we can read the stories and see that God/Jesus (personal application/message for us) is relevant in all aspects of it and is beneficial from the standpoint of teaching history as well as being a tool to show God's love, mercy etc for us TODAY. If we read the Bible from that point of view, we get a more rounded, fuller meaning/picture than if we just read it in formal manner - as reading a "normal" book - of course being prayerfully led by the Holy Spirit whilst reading the Bible is paramount to understanding and discernment of the text.

[EricH]

The word used for create in Genesis 1:1 does speak of creation ex nihilo, not reformation

[Ddavid from NC]

The word used for create in Genesis 1:1 does speak of creation ex nihilo, not reformation

You make a very good point. And I am willing to accept the truth whether or not I can wrap my mind around it or not. I would prefer to just take the Bible at its word. But, how much time if any elapses between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Verse 2 seems to suggest that the earth exist in some form prior to the introduction the Garden of Eden. The Earth seems to have been in some trauma, "the earth was without form, and void." Is the condition of the earth the result of a battle involving Lucifer and the host of heaven?.....some say so.

[exrockstar]

I am a Biblical conservative or at least that is how I define myself. But it seems to me that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. I believe however that Genesis 1:1 is the story of the restoration of the earth from a previous state of existence. I believe that series of creative events recorded on the earth were 6,000 years ago. What say you? Am I way off base or close to the truth in your opinion?

to say the earth is 6000 years old is just as bad as saying the earth is flat.

there are too many indicators in life to show that the earth is more the 6000 years old.

it can be things like fossils or to something as simple as a diamond.

[Guest shiloh357]

The word used for create in Genesis 1:1 does speak of creation ex nihilo, not reformation

You make a very good point. And I am willing to accept the truth whether or not I can wrap my mind around it or not. I would prefer to just take the Bible at its word. But, how much time if any elapses between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Verse 2 seems to suggest that the earth exist in some form prior to the introduction the Garden of Eden. The Earth seems to have been in some trauma, "the earth was without form, and void." Is the condition of the earth the result of a battle involving Lucifer and the host of heaven?.....some say so.

Actually, the theory I have heard more than once is that the earth was inhabited by earlier, pre-Adamite race, which is supposed to explain the cavemen and all of that. The battle with Lucifer is allegedly part of that story.

The problem I have is that if there was an earty prior to this one, why was there no plan redemption offered to that pre-Adamite race?

It seems to me that it diminishes man because it makes us a "do over" and not what God originally was after. It makes us "Plan B" when God's first attempt at managing earth failed. Furthermore it means that sin existed prior to Adam, and the New Testament makes it clear that sin came into creation by means of Adam. All creation groans in and travails as a result of it. If the pre-Adamite world theory is true, that would mean that sin and rebellion was already here prior to Adam.

I see Genesis 1:1 as a prologue or a brieft synoposis of what is to follow. There is a lot of missing information and God has provided us with what we need to know.

[Guest shiloh357]

The word used for create in Genesis 1:1 does speak of creation ex nihilo, not reformation

this is from Strong...

Bara'

to create, shape, form

(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)

of heaven and earth

of individual man

of new conditions and circumstances

of transformations

Seems that reformation could fit nicely into this.

No it doesn't. It follows "Brehesis" which means, "at the first." If it is at the first or "in the beginning," then it defies "bara" being used in that verse as a "reformation" as that would imply something prior. If "bara" in verse one means "reformation," then the 1st verse of the Bible is internally inconsistent with itself.

[Matthitjah]

The word used for create in Genesis 1:1 does speak of creation ex nihilo, not reformation

You make a very good point. And I am willing to accept the truth whether or not I can wrap my mind around it or not. I would prefer to just take the Bible at its word. But, how much time if any elapses between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Verse 2 seems to suggest that the earth exist in some form prior to the introduction the Garden of Eden. The Earth seems to have been in some trauma, "the earth was without form, and void." Is the condition of the earth the result of a battle involving Lucifer and the host of heaven?.....some say so.

Actually, the theory I have heard more than once is that the earth was inhabited by earlier, pre-Adamite race, which is supposed to explain the cavemen and all of that. The battle with Lucifer is allegedly part of that story.

The problem I have is that if there was an earty prior to this one, why was there no plan redemption offered to that pre-Adamite race?

It seems to me that it diminishes man because it makes us a "do over" and not what God originally was after. It makes us "Plan B" when God's first attempt at managing earth failed. Furthermore it means that sin existed prior to Adam, and the New Testament makes it clear that sin came into creation by means of Adam. All creation groans in and travails as a result of it. If the pre-Adamite world theory is true, that would mean that sin and rebellion was already here prior to Adam.

I see Genesis 1:1 as a prologue or a brieft synoposis of what is to follow. There is a lot of missing information and God has provided us with what we need to know.

Bingo! Give that man a ciiiiiii-gar and a cupie doll.