Atheists, Christians and the creation story....is it all true...?

Question

As a jewess I have studied the New and Old Testament in the origianl hebrew. Atheists take scientific history to refute the creation story. They use bones and the like to say " see...Genesis isnt right "...as they definatly prove the earth isnt 6000 years old. BUT, did you know in the hebrew it says God was RECREATING the earth in Genesis ? The hebrew word says " God refurbished " the earth in Genesis as one would redo an old chair or furniture..BUT the earth was already in existance for millions of years. Isaiah says there was another race of people before us also. This explains why you find human bones that are much older than the genesis account. The book of Job in the hebrew records the existance of the dinosaurs we unearth in archeology. For example,in Florida there was discovered the well preserved body of a young girl that was about 2 million years old in a deep water hole.Do you see that since we read the hebrew scriptures in english we lose the real message of Gods word ?

Answer 1

Do you have the exact passages to which you refer?

Answer 2

You know...I study things like this all the time. I am Christian, and through intense studying, my king James version bible says the same thing you are saying. For instance, in Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens and the earth and everything was Good, but in verse 2, we see that the earth was not good as God had created because the earth was formless, dark, characteristics that don't describe a good place. Also in studies, I have learned of the fall of Satan which was before the creation of human in Genesis 1. When God refurbished the earth due to the fall of Satan, before that, was the time of dinosaurs. Remember at the fall of Satan there was a flood that destroyed all life, which is why God created new life in Genesis. I totally agree with you but because of bible translations over the years, the original intent is being washed away. But yes, God redid the earth because what he made Good had become bad and he had to fix it..Where can I find the Old testament in the Hebrew...And the world is billions of years old. Some want to say 2000 years old but we must remember that about 2000 years ago Christ was crucified and we know that there was life way before Christ had come. Please tell me where I can find the Hebrew OT...
Also, Genesis 1 talks about God separating and dividing...that does not depict a world that is good...

Answer 3

The Bible wasn't just written originally in Hebrew, it was in Greek as well. Consequently, the Hebrew word 'bara' was the word used for "created" in Genesis 1:1, this word implies "creating something out of nothing". Even though the word doesn't contain the exclusive notion of ex nihilo it still was a word reserved for God alone. If something was created from nothing then it couldn't have been 'recreated' as you say, that would imply something already existed and if these were not true then you still couldn't account for creation before the recreation. That would imply God decided to act upon the earth after a few million years of letting it go awry on it's own.
Isaiah is referring to the fallen angels and how they had interacted with women in those times and yes Job does talk of dinosaurs which helps explain a much younger earth than liberal scientists think and a faulty dating system that is unable to accurately date objects of that age.

Answer 4

Wow, isn't it incredible how we build walls around everything we think, say and do. How we quickly put up the club sign above the door, "For Members Only"! I always thought god started it all at the big bang. I thought god was the ultimate scientist and architect. But we are an elitest creature wanting all the attention for ourselves. I wonder if god created the other creatures on this planet, and the plants. Who speaks for them, do they matter? There was at least a snake and an apple before Adam and Eve.
We became human, not when we were created but when we lost our innocense of instinct and knew of him and the difference between right and wrong. When a tiger eats you, he's not doing evil, he's doing what is in his nature, and thats to eat you if you taste good. He has no choice. He's hungry, he kills, he eats. We on the other hand, can do so much more. We kill for spite, vengence, pleasure, gain, and sometimes just because we can. We also turn the other cheek, walk away, place that flower stem in the gun barrel, have mercy, forgive! I do believe we came from the primordial slime, but god was stirring it. I do believe we have come a long long way from the moment and look forward to our evolution. I assure you that when your face to face with him, this won't be on the test.

Answer 5

Well, first of all, evolution and creation are two entirely separate issues. Evolution deals with what happens to life AFTER it came into existence. It does not even try to state HOW life came to exist. That would be abiogenesis. There is nothing in either creation accounts or the theory of evolution that says BOTH can't happen. It's entirely possible that God used evolution as a tool after creation..
to answer your questions, "is it all true"...... no one has 100% certain proof that will satisfy every person on the planet.
"do we lose the message by reading the scriptures in english"......
maybe some important points are lost, and different people have different interpretations of what it all means. I do believe the basic messages are not lost, though. God speaks to each of us in the way we can best understand, and if we have differences, He will sort out where we may have misunderstood in the end. Just my opinion.

Answer 6

Neither the Jewish stories, the Christian stories, or even the Buddhist or Islam is correct. It is all superstitions. No offense intended, but truth has no regards for sentiments. Those with open minds who seek truth or on the right path. Earth might need some refurbishing now anyway. I hope 'god' throws all the wicked in the trash. Don't you? I wonder how true is Hebrew? Is it just a corruption of the African Akan group of languages? A word like Israel or Asrae for example is an Akan word claiming special visitation by God. When we become unanswerable we know that we have truth. Until then, let us seek it with all our hearts. One love!

Answer 7

Our world has probably seen many civilizations come and go throughout the life of the Earth. And when we are long gone, wiped from the Earth through the ever changing living world - humans will once again rise and then explain existence through mythologies just like Christianity, Jud ism, Budd ism and the like. They will unearth someones remains from today and make some ignorant foolish story and religion will be born. Maybe the next messiah will be Mel Gibson in a Mad Max DVD...

Answer 8

If you are Jewish, then explain to me how death came into the world? Was their death before Adams transgression? If not then all of those fossils that scientists claim to be millions of years old would still only be as old as man, because they did not die before Adams transgression. In other words, those human bones that you claim are found before the Genesis account would not make much sense in the Jewish theology.
Secondly, if you are Jewish, and you believe the Torah (which you call the OT, a Christian term), please explain to me why it says in the creation account in Genesis, that the evening and the moring were the first yom (translated as day), and the evening and morning were the second yom, and the evening and morning were the 3rd yom (etc...)
The Bible specifically makes it clear that the days of creation were evening and moring, six - 24 hour time periods.
As for scientific evidence that supports darwinism... that is flawed as well, full of holes, and in transition as I type. Much of the dating methods used are cyclical and thus not scientific, carbon dating is only accurate in certain circumstances. Stop trying to adjust your theology to meet with science, science must agree with God's word.

Answer 9

Well not only do we lose the original meaning of the words in the translations many times the intent of the author is completely lost. Most of the stories in the new testement are more alegorical than fact based. Taken literally the majority of the stories in the bible dont make much sense, but when you take them as metaphorical and allegory they can be great lessons on morality and on the social attitudes of the times they were written in.

Answer 10

Wow, that explains the vision I had when the Amazons, who worshiped the Earth Mother, had to rescue this really bored despot who had nothing better to do than let blood be shed in the name of a false god. He had to learn about Love, so God took away the Tree of Life and the Earth spoke: "The land will no longer bear fruit for you as it once did. From now on, you must struggle to obtain the things I once gave you without price. I will make of this place a great desert and a place of strife. It will be the focus of God Himself because of your iniquities against me. He will send His only Son, but even then the effects of your evil deeds will not be so quickly healed. It will be a very long time before this jungle will once again bloom here."

Maybe that bored guy was Adam. (In my vision, the problem he had was nothing to do with apples, or a snake. His problem was kind of simpler and earthier, and there were lots of people, not just "Adam" and "Eve".)

Answer 11

"Question: How does the evidence of life on earth millions of years ago equate with the Bible claim that God created life on earth recently by comparison?

—N.J., Redruth, England

Answer: Could some forms of life, such as the dinosaurs, have been present in a world unfit for human habitation before the seven-day creation account in Genesis 1? If we carefully examine the first two verses in the Bible, we might be surprised at the possible conclusion.

We are introduced to the account of the creation of the earth in Genesis 1:1-2: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep."

The original Hebrew wording, compared with other passages of Scripture, has led some to conclude that a considerable time interval is indicated between these two verses. If such an interval is indeed intended, there is no discrepancy between the Bible record and scientific discoveries that indicate that the earth could be much older than a few thousand years. If, on the other hand, there is no such gap, then the earth itself must be only around 6,000 years old—which most scientists consider an impossibility.

Do other passages, as well as history, shed any light on this question?

Some scholars propose that Genesis 1:2 can or should be translated: "Now the earth became without form, and void . . ." as opposed to the common rendering "The earth was without form, and void . . ." Others dismiss this idea entirely. They assume the original Hebrew word hayah must be translated "was" and then assume the earth was originally created in this disorderly condition.

However, as can be seen from many Bible helps, both translations of the word hayah are possible. Only the context can determine which is correct.

Gleason Archer, professor of biblical languages, comments: "It should be noted in this connection that the verb was in Genesis 1:2 may quite possibly be rendered 'became' and be construed to mean: 'And the earth became formless and void.' Only a cosmic catastrophe could account for the introduction of chaotic confusion into the original perfection of God's creation. This interpretation certainly seems to be exegetically tenable" (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 1974, p. 184).

In a footnote Archer adds: "Properly speaking, this verb hayah never has the meaning of static being like the copular verb 'to be.' Its basic notion is that of becoming or emerging as such and such, or of coming into being . . . Sometimes a distinction is attempted along the following lines: hayah means 'become' only when it is followed by the preposition le; otherwise there is no explicit idea of becoming.

"But this distinction will not stand up under analysis. In Gen[esis] 3:20 the proper rendering is: 'And Adam called the name of his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all living.' No le follows the verb in this case. So also in Gen[esis] 4:20: 'Jabal became the father of tent dwellers.' Therefore there can be no grammatical objection raised to translating Gen[esis] 1:2: 'And the earth became a wasteness and desolation.'"

Some scholars also argue against translating hayah "became" instead of "was" in Genesis 1:2 because they assume this interpretation came about only recently, after geology revealed the strata of the earth to be very old. Thus, they consider this explanation a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with modern geology.

The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the earth becoming waste and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory." The idea was attributed to scholars Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century and to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th.

Yet the interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years. The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century.

The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic versions of the Old Testament, translated Genesis 1:2 as "and the earth was laid waste." The original language led them to understand that something had occurred that had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.

The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342).

In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2: "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this: 'How long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering . . . of it was taken in hand?'" (De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, Part 1, Chapter 6). Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geologists determined the earth to be far older than 6,000 years.

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin—that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology—is groundless.

Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2. Dr. Custance states, "To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library some 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen. 1:2 as 'But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions" (1970, p.7)."