In commentary no. 4 David says “The key to understanding Genesis chapter 1 lies in looking at the account as communicating in terms understandable to persons living in the Middle East many centuries ago and as focusing on what they needed to know.”

I can’t agree more. So why is the Bible relevant to me? I know that the world is round and that it has been around for millions of years longer than the Bible gives it credit for. Why should I be guided by an inaccurate account meant for people of a different place and time?

I suspect that the Biblical account of creation is inaccurate NOT because it needed to be understsood by the people of the time but because the writers were also a product of their time and didn’t know any better.

Commentary by Charles
Posted on: 10/9/2007 13:50 pm

That the Hebrew word yom does not have to be restricted to mean 24 hours is apparent from Genesis 2:4, where the entire creative period is designated as “day.” “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” (KJV) In Genesis 1:5, we read that God called the light “day” (yom) and the darkness he called “night,” indicating that the word yom does not in itself always mean 24 hours. There are those who insist that the six days of Genesis chapter 1 are 24-hour days, and there are those who do not understand them to be 24-hour days.

The focus on Genesis chapter 1 is on God as the Creator, and the Israelites were the ones who first heard the words in their language. So it can be very beneficial to initially think in terms of aspects relating to them to avoid drawing wrong conclusions. Just how individuals from various backgrounds will regard Genesis chapters 1 and 2, and what conclusions they may draw as to the purpose or purposes of the account will vary. Of necessity, comments in this kind of format are limited in scope. One may, however, reasonably conclude that there would be general agreement that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 identify God as the Creator and that he is the One to be worshiped, not the creation. This, however, would not preclude the validity of additional insights respecting the account.

Commentary by Hans Werner
Posted on: 7/7/2007 04:52 am

That’s a very thought-provoking commentary, Hans. It certainly brings up some ideas that warrant further thought and discussion.

Two things, however, aren’t quite accurate. First, the Hebrew word in Genesis 1 that is translated as “day” is the word “yom” which does mean a literal 24-hour day. This usage is consistent everywhere else it is used throughout the Old Testament; to presume it does not indicate a 24-hour day here has no exegetical basis.
The other point I’d like to clarify is the implication that this was directed solely at the ancient Hebrews. The book of Genesis is part of the Bible, the inspired Word of God. The nature of this Book is that it is a timeless record of God’s interactions with His Chosen People. As such, it would have to have been understandable and applicable not only to the ancient Hebrews but also to us today as well as to those who will come after us.

While I believe your point that the creation should not be worshipped is an extremely valid one, to limit Genesis 1 to that sole purpose is to limit God Himself. Genesis 1 is the foundation upon which the rest of the Bible is built. Its importance and purpose extends beyond any single purpose; it is a conglomeration of purposes, all pointing to the glorification of God.

Commentary by David
Posted on: 7/5/2007 04:32 am

The key to understanding Genesis chapter 1 lies in looking at the account as communicating in terms understandable to persons living in the Middle East many centuries ago and as focusing on what they needed to know. The earth as a rotating planet and the vast universe with its billions of galaxies was unknown to the ancient Israelites. To them, the earth was land. Aside from the rivers, streams, and lakes, they were familiar with the Great Sea, the Mediterranean. When they looked at the cloudless sky above, they saw a blue dome or vault, and the sun appeared to be traveling from east to west across that vault. At night, the moon and the stars appeared against the backdrop of the black dome.

To this day, our language reflects what appears to our eyes and not what we know to be the reality. We speak of sunrise and sunset, but the sun does not rise nor does it set. On account of the daily rotation of the earth, the sun only appears to rise, travel across the celestial dome, and then to set.

In Genesis, we are told that light came to be on the “first day” (the length of that day not being specified but represented as starting in evening darkness and ending in morning light). The creative period is portrayed as a week of six working days followed by a day of rest. This gave the Israelites a reason for observing the Sabbath, imitating God thereby and thus ennobling their faithfully keeping the Sabbath.

If we had been human observers floating on the water that covered everything, we would, on what Genesis calls the “first day,” suddenly have been able to see as if coming out of a dark cave. Although light now reached the surface of the water, we would not have known the source of that light, how it came to be, the manner in which it reached us, nor about the existence of a vast universe.

On the “third day,” we would have been able to stand on land in the midst of lush vegetation, thriving because each day, about half of the time, there was light. Then, on the “fourth day,” we would have seen a change in the dome above us. For the first time, we would have seen a brilliant orb moving across the dome. At night, we would have seen another orb (not as bright) and many smaller specks of light all over the celestial vault.

Accordingly, from the standpoint of the human observer, a big light, a lesser light, and the stars had been set, placed, or made in the celestial dome. Similarly, in Genesis 1:4, we are told that God separated the light from the darkness, calling the light day and the darkness night. While such a separation appears to exist because of the daily rotation of the earth, there is no literal separation of light and darkness.

As humans, we possess mental capacity, and it is up to us to explore, investigate, learn and discover. Divine revelation is not needed for us to grow in knowledge about our planet, the great variety of plant and animal life, and our vast universe. To interpret Genesis 1 as meaning that everything took place within a period of six 24-hour days is going beyond the purpose of the account. Genesis chapter 1 has God as its focus. The Israelites did not need to be given a detailed record about the actual process of creation, the manner in which the visible universe came into existence, or the time that passed. These were not aspects they would have been able to understand and for which an adequate vocabulary did not even exist. What they did need to know is that the earth, the plants and animals, the sun, moon, and the stars were not objects for worship (as they were among other peoples, tribes, and nations). Everything had come about through the word of God, the expression of his will, and in an orderly, progressive manner. What a powerful message Genesis chapter 1 provided in helping the Israelites to see how wrong it would have been for them to worship the creation!

The collection of ancient writings making up the Bible primarily deals with matters of faith and unbelief. It is a mistake to use any part of the Bible as if it had been written to miraculously accelerate growth in knowledge respecting the earth and the material universe. Being reverential does not require giving up one’s capacity to think and to reason, but should further that capacity, with a resultant increase in godliness and a compassionate concern for fellow humans.

Commentary by Hans Werner
Posted on: 6/6/2007 19:56 pm

In fact the sun does rule night and day, because the sunlight is reflected on the face of the moon (as al children nowadays know). And if you take it all literal, it’s true what John S said: “how was there day and night with no sun, for day one and two?” The writer of Genesis had no
understanding as to the nature of stars (if The Bible were inspired by God, he should!) because the sun is in comparison with many stars a much lesser light.

Commentary by Albert Michael
Posted on: 6/4/2007 21:38 pm

The lesser, presumably the moon was supposed to ‘rule’ the night. Why is it only visible some nights?

The stars also. Perhaps the (other) stars were an after thought. Or perhaps the writers were unaware that the Sun is a star and that the stars are all significantly older than the moon.

Commentary by McCulloch
Posted on: 6/3/2007 17:07 pm

But God already said “let there be light” in 1:3-so there was light before the sun and moon? Why? God is supposed to be omnipotent, did he need a cosmic flashlight to work by, before getting around to creating the sun and moon? What happened to the first light then, and what was it? Also, we’re up to the third day now…how was there day and night with no sun, for day one and two?

Commentary by John S
Posted on: 6/2/2007 12:03 pm