Sunspots 1000

 

Things I have spotted that may be of interest to you:

Joel Duff has posted another serious article about why there are no dinosaurs now, if they survived the Flood. 

Gozmodo reports that pedestrians prefer to make choices to the left. We don't know why.

SciTech Daily discusses how a large stone was probably moved a few hundred kilometers to its current location in Stonehenge.

Relevant reports on a planned examination of what could be the remains of Noah's Ark. I tried to find a reference to this endeavor on the Answers in Genesis web site, but did not find such. (There are a lot of references to Noah's Ark!) There have been a number of studies, using various means, proposed, and perhaps carried out, and, so far, there don't seem to be any unambiguous remains of the Ark.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 990

 

Things I have spotted that may be of interest to others. Graphic from NASA.

Bible Scholar Ken Schenck on the different interpretations of early Genesis.

Schenck also has posted an analysis of what the Bible says about God's omniscience. It's not as straightforward as I thought..

Sojourners has an article on ministering to Christians with dementia (usually in their home). Sojourners allows you to read two articles a month, free.

Gizmodo has a chilling report on the firing of the Centers for Disease Control head, less than a month after she was confirmed, by Rober F. Kennedy, Jr., and how he is not using real science in his decision-making.  

Gizmodo also reports that a significant number of people say that they are in some sort of relationship with a chatbot.

The Firmament (or Expanse)

This post is one in a series on the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. 

Ezekiel 1:22 Over the head of the living creature there was the likeness of an expanse, like the awesome crystal to look on, stretched forth over their heads above. 1:23 Under the expanse were their wings straight, the one toward the other: each one had two which covered on this side, and every one had two which covered on that side, their bodies. (All scripture from World English Bible, public domain, unless noted otherwise. Long quotes are in this color.)

The word translated as "expanse" is as follows, according to Strong's Concordance (See Wikipedia article on that resource) as shown in the Blueletter Bible:

Note that Strong gives two meanings for the Hebrew word rāqîa. The first is a "base, support," and the second is "regarded by the Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it."

rāqîa is found in a number of passages in the Old Testament. It is translated as "firmament," "expanse," "surface," "platform" or "vault" in various translations, in Genesis 1:6; 1:6; 1:7; 1:8; 1:14; 1:14; 1:15; 1:17; 1:20, Job 37:18, Psalms 19:2; 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22; (3 times) 1:23; 1:25; 1:26 Daniel 12:3. "Expanse" is the most common, and it is often rendered "likeness of an expanse."

The graphic below is from the same source as the first one, and shows the concordance of Gesenius.

These two old authorities (Strong and Gesenius) believed that the firmament, or expanse, was a physical structure, over the earth, and that the stars were fixed in that expanse, and that that expanse supported reservoirs of water, just as the ancient Jews believed.

Here are some more Biblical uses of the word, rāqîa:

Genesis 1:6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky”. There was evening and there was morning, a second day.” The King James Version, and some others, use "firmament," rather than "expanse." "Expanse" is used more often than "firmament." One version uses "arch." The NIV uses "vault." (See here for over a dozen translations of Genesis 1:6.)

Job 37:18 Can you, with him, spread out the sky, which is strong as a cast metal mirror? [This verse supports the idea of a solid dome.]

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God. The expanse shows his handiwork.

Psalm 150:1 Praise Yah! Praise God in his sanctuary! Praise him in his heavens for his acts of power!

Ezekiel 1:22 Over the head of the living creature there was the likeness of an expanse, like an awesome crystal to look at, stretched out over their heads above. 23 Under the expanse, their wings were straight, one toward the other. Each one had two which covered on this side, and each one had two which covered their bodies on that side. 24 When they went, I heard the noise of their wings like the noise of great waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a noise of tumult like the noise of an army. When they stood, they let down their wings.25 There was a voice above the expanse that was over their heads. When they stood, they let down their wings. 26 Above the expanse that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone. On the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the appearance of a man on it above.

Daniel 12:3 Those who are wise will shine as the brightness of the expanse. Those who turn many to righteousness will shine as the stars forever and ever.

There are also Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the sky’s windows opened. ["windows opened" suggests a belief in a solid dome.]

and Job 22:12 “Isn’t God in the heights of heaven? See the height of the stars, how high they are! 13 You say, ‘What does God know? Can he judge through the thick darkness? 14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, so that he doesn’t see. He walks on the vault of the sky.’ [Walking on a vault suggests that the vault is solid.]

Since I was going to write on the firmament/expanse/vault/arch, I thought I should see what AiG, the most important young-earth creationism organization, had to say about it. Here's part of that:

Critics of the Bible have often said that the writings of Genesis reflect an “unscientific view” of the universe—one that reflected the cosmology of the ancient world. One of these criticisms centers on the Hebrew word raqia used in the creation account of Genesis 1. (Guy Vaterlaus, "Underneath a Solid Sky," Answers in Genesis, August 8, 2023. Also published earlier on March 9, 2009.)

And, from the same post: "The argument from these Bible critics is that the ancient Hebrews believed in a solid dome with the stars embedded in the dome." Vaterlaus strongly implies that the ancient Hebrews didn't believe in a solid dome, holding up the heavenly bodies.

"Critics of the Bible" sounds like an important idea. But, what it really means, to Answers in Genesis, is "critics of the Answers in Genesis interpretation of the Bible." See the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith, which includes the following:

• The account of origins presented in Genesis 1–11 is a simple but factual presentation of actual events, and therefore, provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe. ...
• The great flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and catastrophic in its effects. ...
• Scripture teaches a recent origin of man and the whole creation, with history spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.

In spite of the scriptural and historical evidence, AiG maintains that people of Bible times didn't believe in some sort of dome over the earth, holding up the clouds and heavenly bodies. Here's an article on the subject, from AiG. The title says it: ""Is the Raqiya‘ (‘Firmament’) a Solid Dome?" The answer, is "no."

Another article on the subject, from AiG, says The argument from these Bible critics is that the ancient Hebrews believed in a solid dome with the stars embedded in the dome. They say that the word firmament reflects the idea of firmness, and this reflects erroneous cosmology. Therefore, the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, and we don’t need to listen to its teaching.

AiG may be correct about some Bible critics and what they say about the Bible. But I doubt that many such base their criticism primarily on the idea of a solid dome above the earth. AiG is not correct in saying that statements in the Bible about scientific subjects, like cosmology, have to match our current knowledge, or, if they don't, the Bible is deeply discredited. I have posted here about ancient understanding of the function of the liver, and here, about the size of mustard seeds, and about how the sun's position relative to the earth is described. In these cases, the Bible reports something that was said, or believed, and was wrong scientifically. But that doesn't make the Bible wrong, anymore than reporting on some wacky idea, without arguing for its truth, would discredit CNN's reporting.

The Bible does not teach, as a doctrine to be defended, that there was a solid dome above the earth. But it does describe the situation as the ancient Jews believed it -- they thought there was such a firmament. If anything, that makes the Bible more believable.

Thank you for reading.

 

Could there have been animal death before the Fall?, 2nd edition

It is often said that the earth must not be very old, because death could not have occurred before the Fall of Adam and Eve, as told in Genesis 3. When this is said, it means death of non-humans, such as the many generations of animals that would have been needed for, say, the origin of birds from reptiles, by natural selection.

A search has led me to some web pages, all arguing, using the Bible, that there could have been, or even must have been, death of non-human creatures before the Fall. (There are also posts that deny this.)

Here they are:
"No Physical Death Before the Fall?" by Glen Kuban.

"Death Before the Fall: God Created Cellular Death Codes," by Glenn Morton.

"Creation Science Issues: Death Before the Fall of Man," by Greg Neyman. 

 "Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say?" by Lee Irons.

"Was there animal death before the fall?" by Jay Wile.

"Did death occur before the Fall?" by BioLogos.

I have previously posted on a related matter.

None of these take the view that there couldn't have been death before the Fall, but some of them also present reasons why some people believe that there was no such death.

See my posts on David Snoke's book, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth. Snoke argues that the Bible allows the death of animals before the Fall. Here's one such post. Click on the "David Snoke" label at the end of the post to see all of them.

This post is a revision of one from January 2008.

Thank you for reading!

 

Denis Lamoureux on the Bible and ancient science

Denis Lamoureux has written a good book. The title is The Bible & Ancient Science: Principles of Interpretation. (Note that there's an ampersand, not an "and" in the title.) The point, made over and over, by analyzing the original language of the Bible, is that the Bible was written from the standpoint of ancient science.

Lamoureux discusses the statement, by Jesus, that the mustard seed is the smallest seed (it isn't) in Mark 4:30-32. Jesus wasn't teaching botany, nor was He mistaken, or lying. He was speaking to the people of the day, using the knowledge that they had. The message, about the Kingdom, was far more important than the size of the seed.
 

The author also discusses the beliefs of Biblical writers on human reproduction. They thought that a woman was merely a sort of field, where the male implanted something which grew into a child. Infertility was always the "fault" of the woman. The Bible reflects that belief. Again, the Bible isn't a text on human reproduction. It's a text on God's plan of redemption, and false beliefs about peripheral issues are just that, peripheral.

Another item. The Biblical authors thought that the earth was circular and flat, surrounded by water, and that there was a solid firmament above it. But Genesis 1-2 isn't a textbook of astronomy, geology, meteorology or oceanography. It was written from the standpoint of the beliefs of the people of the day, and tells us that God is creator, that the creation was good, that humans sinned and need a Redeemer. There is no firmament, even though the Bible writers thought that there is. The earth is not flat -- careful study of the Hebrew of the Bible, which Lamoureux appears well-qualified to do, shows that the Bible does not teach that the earth is a globe, but describes it as if it was flat.

(The illustration above is not from the book)

Lamoureux, like many others, points out that the apparent sequences of events in Genesis 1 vs. 2 seem to be contradictory. But Genesis 1-2 was not meant to be taken as a literal, step-by-step account (or accounts) of what happened at the beginning, and it isn't that. Does this downgrade the Bible, or the Gospel? No, argues Lamoureux. The first part of Genesis was made to teach eternal truths, namely that one God created, without using stuff from some other entity, that creation was good, and that sin entered the world.

Although he doesn't mention Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis much, the book demonstrates that the AiG thesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old, is not really based on scripture, in spite of what AiG believes  the Bible says. Lamoureux directly criticizes the writings of Henry Morris, the most important young-earth creationist of the 20th century, for the same reason -- he took Bible passages that were not meant to be taken literally, and not meant to describe the world in terms that we would use now, and took them literally, and as if they describe the world as we now understand it.

There's more serious, and good, thinking and teaching in the book.

I was pleased to be able to read this in Kindle format, using my Kindle Unlimited membership. But the Kindle version's type size was almost too small to read on my 9 inch tablet, and, unlike most books in Kindle format, the type size can't be changed on this one. 

Thanks for reading. Read Lamoureux.

The Lost World of Genesis One, by John Walton

I recently read John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One, which, judging by things I had read about it, is an important book. It lived up to what I had heard.

What lost world is Walton discussing? It is the worldview of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture, the culture of the human author of Genesis, and of those who heard and read that book. Walton believes that we, living in the 21st century, have our own worldview, and that we often do not understand that another one is possible, or, in the case of ANE people, that a different worldview is to be expected, let alone understood.

Walton does not believe that we, of the 21st century, mean the same thing about God’s creation, in the first chapter of Genesis, as the people of the ANE meant and understood. His book summarizes what Walton believes is a major consequence of our worldview, so different from that of the human writer(s?) of Genesis one. Walton states that “I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins.” But, he says,

Most interpreters have generally thought that Genesis 1 contains an account of material origins because that was the only sort of origins that our material culture was interested in. It wasn’t that scholars examined all the possible levels at which origins could be discussed; they presupposed the material aspect.

and All of this indicates that cosmic creation in the ancient world was not viewed primarily as a process by which matter was brought into being, but as a process by which functions, roles, order, jurisdiction, organization and stability were established.

As an example, Walton uses the sun and moon. ANE culture didn't understand that the sun and the moon were large bodies beyond our atmosphere, nor that the moon was in orbit around the earth, and the earth was in orbit around the sun. The ANE understanding of Genesis 1:14-18 would have resembled someone painting, or installing, these lights on the the firmament. Walton sees that passage as about function, not about creating from nothing, and notes that Genesis 1 indicates the functions of what we now think of as heavenly bodies:

Genesis 1:17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light to the earth, 18a and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. (World English Bible, public domain)

By the way, ANE culture believed that the clouds and the heavenly bodies were held up, and in place, by a transparent sphere, a ceiling, the firmament. There isn't a firmament. Does that mean that the Bible is in error? Not so. The Bible is inerrant, but inerrant in what it affirms, not in what it reports or adjusts to in the culture of the time it was written. It doesn’t affirm ANE concepts of astronomy, nor, for that matter, 21st century concepts of astronomy. It just reports them, or uses them. Walton points out that we usually talk and write as if the sky really was blue, (It is often red or pink near dawn and sunset. For the reasons for that, see this Scientific American article.) and as if the sun really rose and set. Neither is really true, but, if some portion of the Bible were to be written today, and made reference to these phenomena, it would not be in error, unless blue sky and a rising sun were an integral part of the message of the gospel.

There are other ANE concepts that we no longer hold, such as that the earth is flat, with four corners.

To Walton, Genesis 1 was not meant, by God, to be taken as sequential history, setting forth a literal description of God’s acts in making things. Rather, it was meant to contradict other creation stories, about false gods, and to describe God’s work in making a functioning, harmonious earth, with its inhabitants.

Walton discusses the first three days, so-called, from Genesis 1, and concludes that they, as described, were meant to credit God for creating time, weather, and food, in that order.

Even humans, says Walton, were mentioned not principally as something made, but as something with functions in God's creation:
Genesis 1:26b “... Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in his own image. In God’s image 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. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

He also writes that “Of the seven days, three have no statement of creation of any material component (days 1, 3 and 7).”

Beside his interpretation of Genesis 1 as describing function, not making, Walton has another important idea, namely that Genesis 1 should be interpreted as God preparing a temple for himself, and, on the seventh day, inhabiting it. Besides his interpretation of what the original Bible language says, Walton has also looked at lots of ancient writings by non-Hebrew ANE authors, and that, too, has influenced his view of what he calls temple inauguration. Walton explicitly denies that Genesis is based on these other writings.

It so happens that I was reading a book by N. T. Wright, an important bible scholar, as part of my devotional reading, while I was writing this. I was surprised to read the following:

When God made the world, he “rested” on the seventh day. This doesn’t just mean that God took a day off. It means that in the previous six days God was making a world—heaven and earth together—for his own use. Like someone building a home, God finished the job and then went in to take up residence, to enjoy what he had built. Creation was itself a temple, the Temple, the heaven-and-earth structure built for God to live in. - N. T. Wright, Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters

Now, finally, about the age of the earth. Says Walton: If the seven days refer to the seven days of cosmic temple inauguration, days that concern origins of functions not material, then the seven days and Genesis 1 as a whole have nothing to contribute to the discussion of the age of the earth.

and “The point is not that the biblical text therefore supports an old earth, but simply that there is no biblical position on the age of the earth.”

Walton does not claim that he wrote as he did with a view to contradicting Young-Earth Creationism, but, as he says, it is clear that this important Bible scholar is not wedded to YEC.

Thanks for reading!

This graphic below (not from Walton) indicates that it is impossible to read both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as if they were simple narratives, expressing events in sequence as they happened:

Was the original creation perfect?

Many Christians believe that the creation was perfect before the Fall. Perhaps. But the Bible doesn't really say that.

A search for the Hebrew word meaning "perfect," in the Blueletter Bible, from the King James Version, results in 91 instances, in 85 verses. (If anyone needs reminding, the Old Testament was mostly in Hebrew, and the New Testament was mostly in Greek, so searching for a Hebrew word doesn't result in any New Testament occurrences.) The first three instances of "perfect" are as follows: The superscript, and/or link, right after the word, perfect, below, is a link to the results of the broader search.

 Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect ^H8549 in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

 Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. ^H8549

 Exo 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, ^H8549 a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

These three instances refer to the attitudes of two humans, servants of God, and to an animal sacrifice. Most of the uses of perfect in the Old Testament are like these.

A search for "good" also gives results. The first occurrences are in Genesis 1-3, about some aspect of created entities -- "behold, it was good," or "it was very good."

Then, there are the next two occurrences, one of which is translated into a different English word, rather than good:

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; ^H2896 and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen 15:15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good ^H2896 old age.

One of these is a description of female attractiveness, and one is related to living a good, long life.

However attractive a woman might be, or, actually, several women, it is hard to believe that they were all perfect, or perfectly attractive. Close, maybe, but not perfect. And it is difficult to believe that a good, long life (Abraham's is the one in Genesis 15) was perfect. He was a good man, an example of faith, but he made some mistakes, and fell short of perfection. He allowed his wife to talk him into siring a child with a servant girl, and he lied to other men, saying that Sarah wasn't his wife, when she was. Most likely, there were other failings, not mentioned specifically in the Bible. His life was good, not perfect.

The word perfect is not used in describing the created world. Rather, "good," or "very good," is found in the first part of Genesis. I checked the translations of Genesis 1:31, which summarizes God's creative activity, and none of the English versions of the Bible use the word, perfect, which, as shown above, was used in other places in the Old Testament. They all use very good.

For this, and other reasons, it appears that saying that the world, as created, was perfect, is reading something into scripture that isn't there.

Thanks for reading.

Ken Ham/Answers in Genesis ignores much of the Bible: revising Ham's 7 C's

Answers in Genesis has posted a way of looking at history, by Ken Ham and Stacia McKeever. They hang human history on 7 C's, as follows:
Creation
Corruption
Catastrophe
Confusion
Christ
Cross
Consummation

In their discussion, each of these C's has scripture describing that particular event, or stage.

Others have noted -- I can't remember who -- that since Confusion is about the story of the Tower of Babel, which is in Genesis 11, and the next stage is Christ, their scheme leaves out almost the entirety of the Old Testament.

No Abraham, no plagues of Egypt, no Moses, no Exodus, no Mount Sinai, no Ten Commandments, no Tabernacle, no system of celebration and sacrifices, no prophets, no wisdom literature, no Psalms, no David, no Solomon, no Temple, and much more -- you get the idea. More than half the Bible left out!

Bible scholars are by no means unanimous on the dates and geographic extent of events in Genesis, but by the reckoning of Answers in Genesis, the Tower of Babel (Confusion) was in 2242 BC. (Or 2246 BC.) Thus, about 2240 years of the history of life on earth are ignored in the 7 C scheme. Answers in Genesis says that creation took place in 4004 BC. So their scheme leaves out about 37% of what they believe to have been earth's history, and more than half of the times, and most of the events, covered by the Bible. Amazing, for a Bible-based organization.

I propose, for those who want a C scheme, an 8th C -- Covenant, between Confusion and Christ, and that the scripture associated with this be taken from Genesis 12 through Malachi. Captivity would also fit in.

There is, no doubt, some value in the 7 C's scheme, even if one doesn't agree with the dates put forth by Answers in Genesis, or their ideas on the geographic extent of the Flood. But there's a lot of God's revelation left out.

On January 25, 2022, I added this:

Not only does the 7 C's scheme leave out some important scriptures and people, but it includes a minor story, that of the tower of Babel. That story occurs in only one chapter of Genesis, and, so far as I can determine, is not referred to anywhere else in the Bible.

Thanks for reading! (The title was revised on May 31, 2022)

Should Genesis 1-2 be taken literally?

Should Genesis 1-2 be taken literally?

First question: what is literally? In this case, let's say that "literally" means that the days of Genesis 1 were consecutive 24-hour days, and that the events described as having taken place during these days took place as Genesis 1 indicates that they did, in the order given. I also stipulate that "literally" means that the events in Genesis 2 took place as described, in order as given.

The creative events in Genesis 1 (See here for link to that chapter. I have linked to the public domain World English Bible, but all commonly used English translations may be accessed easily from that page.) may be listed as follows:
Day 1: light (verses 3-5)
Day 2: sky (?) separating clouds from surface water (The King James says "firmament.")

Note added June 17, 2022: there is no firmament. Answers in Genesis, the most important young-earth creationist organization, does not believe that there was one. See here. That means that taking Genesis 1:6-7 literally does not make sense.

 
Day 3: dry land, land plants
Day 4: sun, moon, stars
Day 5: moving water creatures, birds
Day 6: land animals, humans

The events in Genesis 2 are as follows:
1: Adam (verse 7)
2. A garden (verse 8)
3. Animals created (verses 19-20)
4. Eve created (verses 21-22)

Genesis 2 is often taken to be a re-telling of the events in Genesis 1, or as a passage putting Genesis 1 in context. But, whatever Genesis 2 was meant to do, the sequence of events is not the same as those in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2, Adam comes before the garden, and before the animals. Thus, Genesis 1 and 2 cannot both be taken literally, if literally means what was specified in the beginning of this post.

There are other problems with taking Genesis 1 and 2 literally:

* The various days, as described, begin with the word "let," for example "let there be," in verse 14. But Genesis 1:2, which indicates that there was a formless creation, probably covered with water, comes before "let there be light," in verse 3. Was there, then, creation before day 1?
* What was the source of light in day 1? (The sun was mentioned first in day 4.)
* "Day" is used in Genesis 1, with the apparent (but perhaps not literal) meaning of 24-hour day. However, in Genesis 2:4, which summarizes the creation, it can't mean 24-hour day. Also, the Blueletter Bible gives several different meanings for yowm, the Hebrew word translated as "day," in Genesis 1, and also in Genesis 2:4.
* (added April 7, 2020) Here's a post on how Young-Earth Creationists haven't fully explored the use of yowm in the Bible.

For more on this topic, see J. Richard Middleton, "What is the Relationship Between the Creation Accounts in Genesis 1 and 2?" 

Thanks for reading. 

Added March 4, 2020:
I have come across two posts from Answers in Genesis. They suggest that some Bible translations do not translate a Hebrew word correctly, and that where Genesis 2 is translated as "19 Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field ..." in the World English Bible, and other versions, it should have been translated as "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals ..." [emphasis added] as in the New International Version, and two other translations. (The rest of the 14 translations given in the Blueletter Bible use "formed.") The translation that they prefer could resolve the seeming discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2, as to the timing of the creating of the land animals vs. the creation of Adam, but the translation is not preferred in most versions.

But there is still a difficulty with the comparison of Genesis 1 and 2, for those who hold that both should be taken literally.  In verse 9 of Genesis 2, it says "Out of the ground Yahweh God made every tree to grow ...". If that should have been "Out of the ground Yahweh God had made every tree to grow ...", none of the 14 English translations in the Blue Letter Bible do so. Thus, there seems to be a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, as to the sequence of land plants and humans. (Adam is mentioned in Genesis 2:7, before the mention of land plants.)

This is one post on Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 by Answers in Genesis. This is the other. The first one does not mention Genesis 2:9.

Were land-dwelling vertebrates the only organisms preserved on the Ark?

Genesis gives the impression that the animals preserved from the Flood of Noah's time were mostly, or entirely, land vertebrates -- mammals, birds, and land-living reptiles and amphibians, although it doesn't explicitly say this:
Genesis 7:1 Yahweh said to Noah, “Come with all of your household into the ship, for I have seen your righteousness before me in this generation. 7:2 You shall take seven pairs of every clean animal with you, the male and his female. Of the animals that are not clean, take two, the male and his female. 7:3 Also of the birds of the sky, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive on the surface of all the earth. 7:4 In seven days, I will cause it to rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights. Every living thing that I have made, I will destroy from the surface of the ground.” (World English Bible, public domain)

Leviticus 11:20 “‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are an abomination to you. 21 Yet you may eat these: of all winged creeping things that go on all fours, which have legs above their feet, with which to hop on the earth. 22 Even of these you may eat: any kind of locust, any kind of katydid, any kind of cricket, and any kind of grasshopper. 23 But all winged creeping things which have four feet, are an abomination to you.
This passage from Leviticus may indicate that Arthropods (insects, spiders, and more) were classified, by God, as clean or unclean, just as mammals and birds are. That doesn't prove that, say, butterflies and centipedes were on the Ark, but it is possible.

Some questions come to mind. (In 2007, I posted a series of questions about Noah's Flood. There is some repetition with the previous post in the current one, but the two are significantly different.) The questions here are related to the variety and care of the animals on the Ark.

1) Does the Bible really describe a world-wide flood? Others have considered this, and there are plenty of opinions available, so I won't attempt to answer this, except to say that there seem to be these possibilities:
a) there was a world-wide flood.
b) there was a localized flood, but it was experienced by ancestral humans, who thought it was world-wide, or described it as if it were. (perhaps they were living in a large basin, which became the Mediterranean Sea after the flood.) See here for a discussion by theologians who believe that there was an important flood, but that it was not actually world-wide. Here is a discussion of the literary genre of Genesis 1-11. At least some important early theologians did not take Genesis 1-11 to be strictly historical.
c) The entire story of Noah and the Flood is a parable, or just a story, in the Bible to emphasize the dangers of evil living, and God's care for His creation.

Added May 19, 2020:
Here's a post from a Christian geologist who believes that there really was a flood in Noah's time, but does not believe that the Bible really teaches that it was world-wide. He also does not believe that that flood was responsible for as many geological phenomena as many Young-Earth creationists claim that it was.

2) If there was a world-wide flood, how did animals from, say, New Guinea, get to the Middle East, in order to get in the Ark, and, if they did, how did they get back to their origin, without leaving evidence of their passing through, including offspring and fossils, behind them? Joel Duff has considered this question in depth for armadillos and their relatives.
3) How were pairs of unclean animals selected? I have done some bird sexing, and, although, in many cases, it is easy to distinguish males from females, in some cases, it isn't, and the same would be true of many reptiles and amphibians, and even some mammals. Did the animals come marching, or slithering, or hopping, or flying, into the Ark in pairs by Divine impulse of some kind? Genesis seems to indicate that Noah was to do the selecting. {"you shall take with you")
4) Some mammals, such as anteaters, have insects as their diet. Was it necessary to have not just a pair, but, say, an entire termite nest, on the Ark, for the feeding of such mammals? That would be far more than a pair, or seven, of termites.
5) Some bees, ants, some wasps, termites, mole rats, and other animals are eusocial. Would a pair, or seven of these, be able to survive? For example, honeybees would presumably need a queen, a drone, and workers of more than one type.
6) Many animals eat living, fresh plant material, such as pollen, nectar, leaves, or fruit. Would the Ark have needed a bamboo grove for giant pandas, or a field of flowering plants for bees and butterflies? Living plants require sunlight for photosynthesis, leading to growth. Would the ark have had provision for lighted plants? The diets of some animals (like pandas) is restricted to a single type, or very few plants, and it is difficult to see how conditions on the ark could have been able to support all of the different types of plants needed by the variety of animals. Answers in Genesis has considered these questions. Basically, their claim is that the animals on the ark were not specialized as to diet.
7) Many salt-water organisms don't do well if suddenly immersed in fresh water, or are unable to survive in fresh water at all. The reverse is also true. (See here.) Presumably the flood, if there was a world-wide one, was of fresh water. Either the oceans of Noah's day were fresh, or marine organisms of that time were much better able to survive sudden immersion in fresh water than most current organisms.
8) How could there have been room for all the types of animals? Answers in Genesis has considered that question, and their belief is that there were less than 150 types of animals on the Ark, and that all of the variety of land animals now in existence evolved (although they don't use that word much) from these. I find such a proposal impossible to believe. (So do others!) There's no fossil, traditional or artistic evidence for such rapid changes and diversification in animal form and behavior -- lions seem to have been lions for at least the past few thousand years for example. If this rapid evolution occurred after the Ark landed, why didn't it occur between Adam's time and Noah's, so that there would have been much more than 150 kinds by Noah's time? See here for a fuller discussion.
9) If there was a world-wide flood, how were land-living invertebrates, such as snails, insects, centipedes, spiders, annelid worms, and more, stored, fed, and protected? (See question 6, above.)
10) If there was a world-wide flood, why is there little or no geological evidence for this?

Thanks for reading.

I just READ Genesis 1 - but you INTERPRET it!

There are many different views of origins. None of them are without flaws. Young-earth creationism (YEC) is a popular view, and it may be correct. But some YECers say, of other Christians with different views: "I just read the first part of Genesis. But you interpret it."

Let's examine that idea.

Unless you are reading Genesis in Hebrew, you are reading a Bible which is the result of interpretation by translators. That's true of all English versions of the Bible.

Here's some of the first part of Genesis, in the King James version: (The King James is not perfect, but it is public domain, so it can be used this way; at least the first verse is familiar to most people; and some YECers prefer it).

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And 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 the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 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. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

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. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And 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 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 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, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? 10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. 11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; 12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. 13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. 
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. 15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch*: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
*Note - according to the Bible, this is not the same Enoch as the one mentioned in Genesis 5:18-24

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

A response to the statement of the title comes from reading YEC literature. In Six Days of Creation, (Institute for Creation Research, 2013) by Henry Morris, III, a prominent YECer, there is this sentence: "The biblical record indicates that God separated the light from the darkness." Fair enough. That seems to be reading, not interpreting. But the next sentence says this: "This most likely indicates that the earth of Day One was shaped into a sphere (by the Holy Spirit 'energizing' it)." If that isn't interpreting -- going beyond what the Bible actually says -- I don't know what is!

 Then there's The New Answers Book 1 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006.) Ken Ham, probably the most prominent of today's YECers, is listed as author on the title page, and as general editor on the cover. In one chapter, written by Terry Mortenson, presumably with Ham's blessing, we read "The Hebrew words translated 'the fountains of the great deep burst open' (Genesis 7:11) clearly point to tectonic rupturing of the earth's surface in many places for 150 days, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis." That's interpretation. The Bible doesn't actually say any of this that Mortenson says is "clearly" meant.

I don't know the writings of Morris, or Ham (or Ham's assistants), other than superficially. I'm not aware that any of them have ever said "I just read the first part of Genesis. But you interpret it." But some of their followers do make such claims, when, logically, they should not. Interpreting, as Morris and Mortenson have done, can be part of legitimate Biblical scholarship, but it is important to remember that it is interpretation, and to not present it as being certainly what God had in mind.

As another response to the statement of the title of this post, consider some questions about the text quoted from Genesis above:

1) How could there have been morning and evening before the sun appeared?

2) Where did the light come from before the sun appeared?

3) Did the lesser light really rule the night? Currently, about half of the time, while the sun is visible, the moon and the sun are both in the sky at once. About half of the time, while the sun is not visible, the moon is not, either, so the moon does not seem to rule all the nights. Did the arrangement of the sun, moon, and earth change, somehow, after the original creation?

4) When did water plants (Such as algae of all kinds, which are part of the plant kingdom, in older classifications) appear? They are not mentioned.

5) When did flying insects, such as bees, flies and butterflies, appear? Are they part of the "fowl" in day 5? Part of the "creeping things" in day 6? Just not mentioned at all?

6) When did bacteria and fungi appear? Were they part of the plants mentioned in day 3? (Most likely, the Hebrews had no conception of bacteria at all, so it isn't surprising that they aren't mentioned.)

Here's a post related to questions 4, 5 and 6. 

7) Did animals we now consider to be predators, like tigers and hawks, actually eat only plants -- not animals -- before the living things in the Ark came out? If they did, what changes took place in their behavior and anatomy, to make them predatory? Would these changes have made the names Adam used to name them invalid? (In most of the Old Testament, including Genesis, the names of people were chosen carefully, and matched the person's perceived character. Adam may have done that in naming the animals.)
8) What does "after their kind" mean?
9) What is the "image of God"?

10) Adam is said to have been made of the dust of the ground, but Eve from Adam's rib. Were they, therefore, of the same substance?
11) Why do Genesis 2:4 and 2:17, in the KJV, say "day"? Didn't the creation take six days, not one? Adam didn't die during the 24-hour day when he ate from the Tree, but much later. Therefore, the word "day" doesn't seem to mean a 24-hour period in 2:17. In 2:4, "day" seems to refer to the entire period of creation. (The Hebrew word used in 2:4 and 2:17 is the same one used for each day in Genesis 1.) With these usages in 2:4 and 2:17, how can we be sure that "day" meant a 24-hour period in Genesis 1?
12) Does Genesis 2:5 mean that plants hadn't appeared completely yet, until Adam did? How can that be reconciled with Genesis 1, which puts plants on the third day?
13) What is the relationship between Genesis 1 and 2:4-25? Is 2:4-25 a re-telling of Genesis 1, or is it an expansion of the sixth day, or is it something else? Genesis 2 leaves out some important things which were given in the description of the six days of  creation in Genesis 1. Why?
14) Were there marine bodies of water, as well as fresh water, before the Flood? If so, how did marine organisms survive the increase in fresh water? If not, when did marine and freshwater animals become separated?
15) Where did Cain get his wife? What other people was he afraid of? Did he marry and have offspring before the birth of Seth? If not, why does the mention of Seth's birth come after the story of Cain?

Anyone answering any of these questions must do some interpreting. For example, related to questions 1 and 2, it is possible that the sun was not visible on earth, because of a cloud cover, which would have meant that there was light, and also morning and evening, before the sun could be seen through that cloud cover. But the Bible doesn't say any of this explicitly. 

YECs interpret Genesis 1 and 2 to mean that the earth and the living things on it, and other features, were created in six 24 hour days. Perhaps they are right. But there other ways to interpret Genesis, held by Bible-believing scholars who understand Hebrew and the culture of the people of Bible times, that may also be correct. Some important Christians of the distant past held such views.

My conclusion is that anyone saying, about the first part of Genesis, or any other part of the Bible, "I just read it. but you interpret it," should reconsider. We have to interpret it into our own language, and recognize that it was written by people in a different culture. The church of the past often drew conclusions that aren't explicitly stated in scripture, but that most Christians of today consider to be valid, for example on the nature of Christ. May God help us to interpret correctly.

Thanks for reading. I added question 15, and the quotations from Genesis 4, on February 21, 2015. I added links to the material from YEC literature on February 26, 2015.

January 27, 2016: I'm adding a link to a relevant conversation on how to interpret Genesis 1, and a link to a relevant interview with John Walton, an influential Old Testament scholar, in Christianity Today. His views on how to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 are important, and influential. Here is one part of a series, examining Walton's views, as set forth in his The Lost World of Genesis One, in the BioLogos blog.

April 4, 2017: I added Genesis 2:17 and 18 to the scripture quoted, and noted that Genesis 2:17 uses "day" for something other than a 24-hour day. 

January 13, 2019: I did some minor editing, for clarity. 

February 8, 2019: This post points out that the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts give different sequences of creation events. It doesn't seem reasonable to say that both accounts are straightforward narrations of what took place.

April 1, 2019: This post, which does not deal with origins at all, from resurrecting orthodoxy, is a review of a book about how people from Bible times understood the Torah. It says "Someone who scoffs at the valuable insights scholars try to give about the Bible is someone who is not serious about understanding the Bible."