Genesis By The Book

[Adziílií]

.
Hello; and welcome to the first book of the Bible.

As of today's date, I'm 81+ years old; and an on-going student of the Bible since
1968 via sermons, seminars, lectures, Sunday school classes, radio programs, and
various authors. Fifty-seven years of Bible under my belt hasn't made me an
infallible authority; but they've at least made me competent enough to compose a
home-spun commentary.

Lots of really cool stuff is in Genesis: the origin of the cosmos, the origin of human
life, Adam and Eve, the origin of marriage, the Devil, the first lie, the so-called
original sin, the origin of human death, the origin of clothing, the first baby, Cain
and Abel, the first murder, the Flood, the tower of Babel, and the origin of the Jews,
the principle of primogeniture, and a precedent that would later on make it
possible to place Jesus in Solomon's genealogy by means of adoption.

Big-name celebrities like Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Ishmael, Rebecca,
Jacob and Esau, and Joseph are here too.

Not here are Moses vs. Pharaoh and the parting of the Red Sea. That story is in
Exodus; Samson and Delilah are in Judges, David and Goliath are in 1Samuel; and
Ruth and Esther are in books of the Bible named after them.

The author of Genesis is currently unknown; but commonly attributed to Moses.
Seeing as he penned Exodus (Mark 12:26) it's conceivable that Moses also penned
Genesis; but in reality, nobody really knows for sure. Genesis may in fact be the
result of several contributors beginning as far back as Abel, the earliest of the
Bible's prophets (Luke 11:50-51) Scholars have estimated the date of its writing at
around 1450-1410 BC; a mere +/- 3,400 years ago.

Genesis is quoted more than sixty times in the New Testament; and Christ
authenticated its Divine inspiration by referring to it in his own teachings. (e.g. Matt
19:4-6, Matt 24:37-39, Mk 10:4-9, Luke 11:49-51, Luke 17:26-29 & 32, John
7:21-23, John 8:44 and John 8:56)

Buen Camino (Pleasant Journey)
_

 

[Adziílií]

.
● Gen 1:1a . . In the beginning God

The first chapter of the first book of the Bible doesn't waste words with an
argument to convince skeptic minds that a supreme being exists; rather, it starts
off by candidly alleging that the existence of the cosmos is due to intelligent design.
I mean: if the complexity of the cosmos-- its extent, its objects, and all of its forms
of life, matter, and energy --isn't enough to convince the critics; then they're pretty
much beyond reach.

The creation story wasn't written for the academic community anyway, nor was it
written for people who indulge in debating and perpetual bull sessions that never
get to the bottom of anything, nor for people who regard this book as just another
chapter of "Pride And Prejudice" to dissect in a Jane Austen book club; rather, the
creation story was written for the religious community.

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that
what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Heb 11:3)

There's quite a bit of disagreement related to origins; viz: the origin of species, the
origin of the universe, and the origin of life; but not much debate about the origin
of matter; defined by Webster's as 1) the substance of which a physical object is
composed and 2) material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is
composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons,
that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy.

Without matter there could be no universe and there could be no life; so the origin
of matter then is where we have to begin.

The Hebrew word translated "God" isn't the creator's personal moniker, rather, a
nondescript label that pertains to all sorts of deities; both the true and the false
and/or the real and the imagined; plus magistrates (Ps 82). The noun is
grammatically plural but doesn't necessarily indicate more than one. Sheep, fish,
and deer are plural too but don't always indicate more than one of each. There are
other gods in the Bible, such as Baal and Dagon, to whom the word is applied and
those gods aren't composite entities; e.g. 1Kgs 18:25-29 and Jgs 16:23.

● Gen 1:1b . . created the heavens and earth--

The Hebrew word for "heavens" is somewhat ambiguous because it pertains to
everything that can be seen in the sky when we look up with either the naked eye
or a telescope-- both in the atmosphere and the celestial regions, i.e. clouds and
stars --for example:

"He took him outside and said: Look up at the heavens and count the stars-- if
indeed you can count them." (Gen 15:5)

The Hebrew word for "earth" is yet another of the Bible's many ambiguous words.
It can indicate dry land, a country, and/or even the whole planet.

● Gen 1:2a . . the earth being unformed and void

That statement reveals the earth's condition prior to the creation of an energy that
would make it possible for matter to coalesce into something coherent.

● Gen 1:2b . . and darkness was over the surface of the deep

This deep is a curiosity because 2Pet 3:5 says the earth was formed out of water
and by water. So I think it's safe to conclude that every atomic element that God
needed to construct the Earth was in suspension in this particular deep; viz: it was
more than just H2O; it was a colossal chemical soup, and apparently God created
enough of it to put together everything else in the cosmos too.
_

 

[Adziílií]

.
● Gen 1:2c . . and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

God's spirit is a bit of a mystery. Some say it's a supernatural force, e.g. Ezek
36:24-28 where His spirit is shown to be effective at influencing people's behavior.
Others insist it's an aspect of God's sentient existence, e.g. Gen 6:3 where His spirit
is shown capable of debate; the Spirit is also capable of emotion, e.g. Isa 63:10
where God's spirit is unhappy with His people's conduct.

The Hebrew word here for "waters" is another plural noun which means it can be
translated either water or waters. Plural nouns are pretty much at the discretion of
translators whether to make them one or more than one in a particular context.

The Hebrew word for "moving" is located in only three places in the entire Bible.
One is here, and the others are at Deut 32:11 and Jer 23:9. The meaning is
ambiguous. It can refer to brooding; i.e. a mother hen using her wings to keep her
chicks together, and it can refer to incubation and/or quaking, shaking, and
fluttering. Take your pick. I'd guess that the Spirit's movement was sort of like the
hen keeping the colossal chemical soup from running rampant and spreading itself
all over the place before God began putting it to use because up to that point, the
cosmos' natural laws governing matter didn't exist yet.

● Gen 1:3 . . Then God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

The Earth wasn't illuminated by celestial sources till the fourth day when God
created the Sun, Moon, and Stars; so the light in this verse is controversial.

Some posit that the light was God's personal entrance into the cosmos. However;
2Cor 4:6 says the light wasn't introduced from outside the cosmos, rather, it came
from within. My own personal thoughts are that the light in this case pertains to the
cosmos' natural laws, which isn't a stretch of the imagination because Prov 6:23
depicts law as light.

The thing is: in the very beginning, the Earth was chaotic, incoherent, and had
neither form nor function. As such it was unsuitable for human habitation (Isa
45:18). To get it into a useful condition, it was necessary to subject the Earth's
particles to a means of control.

● Gen 1:4a . . And God saw the light, that it was good

God didn't observe the light until He said let there be light; meaning of course that
this particular light was God's handiwork, viz: the cosmos' natural laws were
custom made just for it.

God declared that light is good; but He didn't declare that darkness is good. In
point of fact, darkness typically represents bad things in the Bible; while light
typically represents good things. It's been a rule of thumb from the very beginning.

● Gen 1:4b-5a . . and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the
light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Defining the properties of day and night may seem like a superfluous detail, but
comes in very handy for organizing the three days and nights related to Christ's
crucifixion and resurrection per Matt 12:40.
_

 

[Adziílií]

.
● Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

There are two kinds of Days in the first chapter of Genesis. One is a creation day
and the other is a natural day. It's very important to keep those two kinds of days
distinctly separate in our thinking because they are as unalike as sand and gravel.

Natural days are regulated by sunrise and sunset whereas creation days are a bit
problematic because there were no sunrises or sunsets to be seen on Earth till the
fourth day. And-- when you think about it --a strict chronology of evening and
morning defines overnight; viz: darkness (Lev 24:2-4). In order to obtain a full 24
hour day, we'd have to define creation's Days as a day and a night rather than an
evening and a morning.

In other words: the evenings and mornings relative to creation days aren't solar
events. So it's very likely the terms are merely index flags indicating the beginnings
and endings of unspecified periods.

Now, according to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all terra critters on the
sixth day; which has to include prehistoric creatures because on no other day did
God create beasts on land but the sixth.

However; the sciences of geology and paleontology, in combination with
radiometric dating, strongly suggest that prehistoric creatures preceded humans by
several million years. So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be
taken to represent eras rather than 24-hour events. That's not an unreasonable
posit; for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is the very same word for each of the six
days of God's creation labors. Since day in Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time
obviously much longer than a 24-hour solar event; it defends the suggestion that
each of the six Days of creation were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other
words: Bible days are ambiguous and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a stone in the shoe for just about everybody
who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days of creation
consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so Bible readers end up stumped when
trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the earth, and
factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Cretaceous,
etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.

NOTE: Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. He believed that science and religion
complement each other: science answers questions that religion doesn't bother to
answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer.

For example: theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking understood pretty well how the
cosmos works; but could never scientifically explain why it should exist at all. Well;
in my estimation, the only possible answer to the "why" is found in intelligent
design; which is a religious explanation rather than scientific. Religion's why is
satisfactory for people of faith. No doubt deep thinkers like Michio Kaku, Neil
deGrasse Tyson, Michelle Thaller, and the late Carl Sagan would prefer something a
bit more empirical.

* One of the very few things I look forward to in Heaven is the possibility of a
library where everything that can be known about the cosmos is stored. Carl Sagan
would've loved a library like that because he went to his grave with a lot of
unanswered questions. But now they'll never be answered because Carl was, at
best, an agnostic, and at worst, an atheist.
_

 

[Margery]

There are two kinds of Days in the first chapter of Genesis. One is a creation day
and the other is a natural day. It's very important to keep those two kinds of days
distinctly separate in our thinking because they are as unalike as sand and gravel.

Natural days are regulated by sunrise and sunset whereas creation days are a bit
problematic because there were no sunrises or sunsets to be seen on Earth till the
fourth day. And-- when you think about it --a strict chronology of evening and
morning defines overnight; viz: darkness (Lev 24:2-4). In order to obtain a full 24
hour day, we'd have to define creation's Days as a day and a night rather than an
evening and a morning.

In other words: the evenings and mornings relative to creation days aren't solar
events. So it's very likely the terms are merely index flags indicating the beginnings
and endings of unspecified periods.

With respect, NO.

ALL of the days of Creation were boundaried by evening and morning.

God seems to go out of His way to include that data in EACH account of His creation days. There was evening and morning - from the very first day.

God created light on that first day. He also separated light from dark on that first day. And He begins each day in the evening. As has been pointed out in your other thread, this phrase evening and morning is ALWAYS used thru the Bible for a literal 24 hour day.

So light appears before the Sun, yet God says evening and morning because HE separated light from darkness. So there is both day and night before the Sun is created.

He doesn't create the Sun till the 4rth day - and that is AFTER the water is separated which sets normal astronomical theories on their head, because water is considered to be an element that appears after the suns begin to blow up creating heavier elements beyond hydrogen which would mean oxygen of course since water is both hydrogen and oxygen together as a molecule, and molecules don't appear in cosmology and astronomical theory until much much later when the planets begin to spin off.

Because the order of Creation doesn't follow the evolutionary model, and because God emphasizes over and over and over that each day of Creation was a literal 24 hour day from the very first day when He created light, and separated light from dark, it forces the text to go places it wasn't intended, by creating an artificial special type of Creation day.

 

[Margery]

Another little problem that separates the Biblical account from the Evolutionary myth is this.

God created the plants - vegetation on the third day. Plants need light for photo synthesis. It's an integral part of being a plant.

But He didn't create the sun till the FOURTH day. Those plants soaked up the light God created, before He created the sun.

So evolutionary models are WRONG. Because the alternative is to suggest that God got confused about when He created what.

The evolutionary model is just a scientific theory, subject to modification when new information comes in.

The Bible is either God's Word, 100% accurate and true or it is not. There is no middle ground.

I think God who knows the end from the beginning, placed that little nugget in there to blow people's minds and give them a choice

Choose this day whom you will serve as Elijah put it.

Choose to believe God who created everything and gave a truthful account or choose humanity's best scientists whose track record of accuracy changes by the day.

 

[mattfivefour]

.
● Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

There are two kinds of Days in the first chapter of Genesis. One is a creation day
and the other is a natural day. It's very important to keep those two kinds of days
distinctly separate in our thinking because they are as unalike as sand and gravel.

Natural days are regulated by sunrise and sunset whereas creation days are a bit
problematic because there were no sunrises or sunsets to be seen on Earth till the
fourth day. And-- when you think about it --a strict chronology of evening and
morning defines overnight; viz: darkness (Lev 24:2-4). In order to obtain a full 24
hour day, we'd have to define creation's Days as a day and a night rather than an
evening and a morning.

In other words: the evenings and mornings relative to creation days aren't solar
events. So it's very likely the terms are merely index flags indicating the beginnings
and endings of unspecified periods.

Now, according to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all terra critters on the
sixth day; which has to include prehistoric creatures because on no other day did
God create beasts on land but the sixth.

However; the sciences of geology and paleontology, in combination with
radiometric dating, strongly suggest that prehistoric creatures preceded humans by
several million years. So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be
taken to represent eras rather than 24-hour events. That's not an unreasonable
posit; for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is the very same word for each of the six
days of God's creation labors. Since day in Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time
obviously much longer than a 24-hour solar event; it defends the suggestion that
each of the six Days of creation were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other
words: Bible days are ambiguous and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a stone in the shoe for just about everybody
who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days of creation
consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so Bible readers end up stumped when
trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the earth, and
factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Cretaceous,
etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.

NOTE: Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. He believed that science and religion
complement each other: science answers questions that religion doesn't bother to
answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer.

For example: theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking understood pretty well how the
cosmos works; but could never scientifically explain why it should exist at all. Well;
in my estimation, the only possible answer to the "why" is found in intelligent
design; which is a religious explanation rather than scientific. Religion's why is
satisfactory for people of faith. No doubt deep thinkers like Michio Kaku, Neil
deGrasse Tyson, Michelle Thaller, and the late Carl Sagan would prefer something a
bit more empirical.

* One of the very few things I look forward to in Heaven is the possibility of a
library where everything that can be known about the cosmos is stored. Carl Sagan
would've loved a library like that because he went to his grave with a lot of
unanswered questions. But now they'll never be answered because Carl was, at
best, an agnostic, and at worst, an atheist.
_

We dealt with this specific topic extensively in another thread. With the greatest respect I suggest that, other than an inability to believe (or a difficulty in believing due to human reasoning) God's simple Word, there is no reason to suppose a creation day is anything other than what it is stated to be: the period from one sunset to another.

 

[AnyMinute]

​

Many verses came to mind while reading this thread. Since Jesus Himself seems to expect us to believe in a literal 6 day creation (see link below), that is more than good enough for me.
I'll stick with the word of the One who spoke all into existence in those 6 days!

Colossians 1:16-17
16For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [e]principalities or [f]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

​

Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?

A very important question we must ask is, “What was Jesus’ view of the days of creation? Did He say that He created in six literal days?”

answersingenesis.org

​

Chapter 20​

Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?​

by Ken Ham on December 20, 2007
Featured in The New Answers Book 1
A very important question we must ask is, “What was Jesus’ view of the days of creation? Did He say that He created in six literal days?”

Latest Answers​

When confronted with such a question, most Christians would automatically go to the New Testament to read the recorded words of Jesus to see if such a statement occurs.

We see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence.

Now, when we search the New Testament Scriptures, we certainly find many interesting statements Jesus made that relate to this issue. Mark 10:6says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” From this passage, we see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence. Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19 indicating that man’s sufferings started very near the beginning of creation. The parallel phrases of “from the foundation of the world” and “from the blood of Abel” in Luke 11:50–51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning. His Jewish listeners would have assumed this meaning in Jesus’ words, for the first-century Jewish historian Josephus indicates that the Jews of his day believed that both the first day of creation and Adam’s creation were about 5,000 years before Christ.1

In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In this passage,Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This, of course, is the basis for our seven-day week—six days of work and one day of rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

(more at link)

 

[Hol]

From @Adziílií
“The Hebrew word translated "God" isn't the creator's personal moniker, rather, a nondescript label that pertains to all sorts of deities; both the true and the false and/or the real and the imagined; plus magistrates (Ps 82). The noun is grammatically plural but doesn't necessarily indicate more than one. Sheep, fish, and deer are plural too but don't always indicate more than one of each. There are other gods in the Bible, such as Baal and Dagon, to whom the word is applied and those gods aren't composite entities; e.g. 1Kgs 18:25-29 and Jgs 16:23.”

Here’s additional information, Genesis 3:8 “And they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the cool of the day; and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden.”

the voice
ק֨וֹל (qō·wl)
Noun - masculine singular construct
Strong's 6963: A voice, sound

of the LORD
יְהוָ֧ה (Yah·weh)
Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's 3068: LORD -- the proper name of the God of Israel

God
אֱלֹהִ֛ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 430: gods -- the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

But you are referring to Elohim in Gen. 1:1

● Gen 1:1a . . In the beginning God

In the beginning
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית (bə·rê·šîṯ)
Preposition-b | Noun - feminine singular
Strong's 7225: The first, in place, time, order, rank

God
אֱלֹהִ֑ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 430: gods -- the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

created
בָּרָ֣א (bā·rā)
Verb - Qal - Perfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 1254: To create, to cut down, select, feed

May I suggest that the LORD wasn’t communicating with any outside of Himself in Genesis. 1:1. The example from Genesis. 3:8 shows that this Elohim is God communicating with Adam and Eve.

Though Elohim is used for false gods, He makes it clear to Adam & Eve that He alone is LORD God, our Creator.

Elohim is plural and in normal Christian doctrine, Genesis. 1:1 teaches that Elohim is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—singularly one God.

@Adziílií do you agree that God is triune?

 

[Adziílií]

do you agree that God is triune?

Yes
_

 

[Adziílií]

.
● Gen 1:6-8a . . And God said: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and
divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were
above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.

We can easily guess what is meant by water that's below the sky. But is there really
water that's above it? Yes, and it's a lot! According to an article in the Sept 2013
issue of National Geographic magazine, Earth's atmosphere holds roughly 3,095
cubic miles of water in the form of vapor. That may seem like a preposterous
number of cubic miles of water; but not really when it's considered that Lake
Superior's volume alone is estimated at nearly 3,000.

Our home planet is really big; a whole lot bigger than sometimes realized. It's
surface area, in square miles, is 196,940,000. To give an idea of just how many
square miles that is: if somebody were to wrap a belt around the equator made of
one-mile squares; it would only take 24,902 squares to complete the distance;
which is a mere .012644% of the surface area.

Some of the more familiar global warming gases are carbon dioxide, fluorocarbons,
methane, and ozone. But as popular as those gases are with the media, they're bit
players in comparison to the role that ordinary water vapor plays in global
warming. By some estimates; atmospheric water vapor accounts for more than
90% of global warming; which is not a bad thing because without atmospheric
water vapor, the earth would be so cold that the only life that could exist here
would be extremophiles.

How much water is below the firmament? Well; according to the same National
Geographic article; the amount contained in swamp water, lakes and rivers, ground
water, and oceans, seas, and bays adds up to something like 326.6 million cubic
miles; and that's not counting the 5.85 million cubic miles tied up in living
organisms, soil moisture, ground ice and permafrost, ice sheets, glaciers, and
permanent snow.

To put that in perspective: a tower 326.6 million miles high would exceed the Sun's
distance by a factor of more than 3½.

● Gen 1:8b . . And the evening and the morning were the second day.

At this point, there was no sun to cause physical evenings and mornings; so we can
safely assume that the terms are merely index flags indicating the completion of
one of creation's six-step processes and the beginning of another.

● Gen 1:9 . . And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

At this point, the Earth's surface likely resembled the topography of a billiard ball so
it would remain entirely flooded were it not reshaped.

"He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. You covered
it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your
rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains
rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a
boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth."
(Ps 104:5-9)

That passage is stunning; and clearly way ahead of its time. Mountains rising, and
valleys sinking speaks of magma pressure, uplift, and tectonic plate subduction--
powerful forces of nature that keep the Earth's surface in a perpetual state of
alteration.

Now, it's right about here that young-earth theorists have a problem because it's
obvious from physical evidence that much of the Earth's higher elevations were
inundated for a very long time before they were pushed up to where they are now.

Take for example Mount Everest. Today its tippy top is something like 29,029 feet
above sea level. The discovery of fossilized sea lilies near its summit proves that
the Himalayan land mass has not always been mountainous; but at one time was
the floor of an ancient sea bed. This is confirmed by the yellow band below
Everest's summit consisting of limestone: a type of rock made from calcite
sediments containing the skeletal remains of countless trillions of organisms who
lived, not on dry land, rather, underwater in an ocean.
_

 

[Margery]

"He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. You covered
it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your
rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains
rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a
boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth."
(Ps 104:5-9)

A closer look at this passage reveals that it's referencing the post flood era here "You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth."

Again cover the earth means that the waters covered the earth at creation, but also at the flood.

This directly refers to God's promise to Noah, that He would no longer ever again destroy the earth with a world wide flood.

This also reinforces the fact that in Noah's flood, just as at Creation, the earth was fully covered with water.

As for Everest, it is a recent upthrust and plate tectonics (something my uncle who was a geo physicist dealt with) were post flood. The plates of the earth were in rapid flux, so that they were crashing together, creating the upthrust mountains and volcanic zones as seen in the Pacific Ring of Fire.

 

[mattfivefour]

It's always interesting to read the thoughts of people who use their god-given intelligence to engage in conjecture as to the meanings of what the Bible says. However, interpreting Scripture comes with one huge caveat. One that cannot --must not-- be ignored or bypassed or explained away, no matter how much our ability to reason may lead us to do so. And that caveat is this-- the Word of God as given to us is perfect. End of story. Honest translations and textual differences between some manuscript traditions do not alter that truth. Were that not true, then when God said that man must live by every word that proceeds from his mouth (Deuteronomy 8:3), He must have really meant our interpretation of every word. And thus 2 Timothy 3:16 ("every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness) is meaningless because there is no bedrock, for Scripture would no longer be fixed but subject to the interpretations of man.

God has preserved His Word perfect for every person, of every language, in every culture...from the day each scripture was first given, until today. This is a truth that we MUST honor in all we do when approaching the exegesis of the Word of God. "The words of the Lord are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times." (Psalm 12:6) Indeed, "The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul." (Psalm 19:7). There is an entire psalm (119) --not incidentally the longest psalm and the longest chapter in the Bible-- dedicated to the priority and the reliability of God's Word. When Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 10:5 "overthrowing arguments (KJV=imaginations), and every high thing lifting itself up against the knowledge of God, and taking captive every thought into the obedience of Christ" he clearly had this sort of thing in mind. You see, the word translated as arguments and imaginations is the Greek word logismos (λογισμός) which literally means "reasonings". Paul, being the scholar he was, continually upheld the importance of the plain meaning of the Word of God and never allowed it to be subjected to man's thinking, his traditions or his "science". He knew that God is supernatural and so is His Word, its transmission, and it's preservation. Indeed, all that God does is supernatural.

So, we will not permit speculations or interpretations of God's Word here that question it's veracity as plainly given in Scripture. When we seek interpretation, it must come from comparing scripture with scripture. The Bible truly is it's own best interpretor and commentator.

I will be editing --or removing in their entirety-- any posts that go against this truth. That work will begin tonight. And going forward anyone who consistently violates this truth will find every one of their posts being moderated before being posted publicly.

This thread is now closed, pending editing.