The brief summary of the Genesis 1 account below has explanatory scientific descriptions inserted in the text that make its meaning in English bibles clearly understandable for today’s readers. Bold braces { } identify them. The native text of Genesis 1 is difficult to understand for the good reasons presented in the Genesis 1: Origin and Authorship commentary, Introduction to the creation account. So the body of this summary consists of concise, accurate paraphrases and direct quotations from the account that are accompanied with descriptive science. The descriptive science introduced doesn’t conflict with the Genesis 1 account in the referenced 1984 NIV bible, and it smoothly adds pertinent carefully researched information to the text for clarity. Other English bible versions substitute the different words enclosed in brackets [ ]. Bold face, underlining, and italics are added to this summary are for emphasis only.
This summary introduces the two full-length commentaries of the Genesis 1 creation account: Genesis 1: Creation, The Beginning (v1) and Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days (vv2-31). (The Origin and Authorship of Genesis 1 are covered in its separate commentary.) The creation commentaries include the evidence for the scripturally unrecorded science that is inserted into this summary of the Genesis 1 account that follows:
v1. “In the beginning God created the {celestial} heavens and the earth {from nothing}”.
{After the beginning that was only briefly mentioned in v1, this creation account proceeded to the detailed events that made the barren planet earth into a habitat with life as described in vv2-31 and occurred during six days of the earth’s rotation. They started with v2 on the first day when the earth was covered with an opaque, black cloud layer and a watery ocean, without telling where the water came from. (For a scientific description of v2 see “Forming the waters” in Genesis 1: Creation, The Six days, Introduction to the Six Days).}
vv2-5. The earth was empty [void, desolate] {meaning without life}, and formless, [without shape] {because its ever-changing, wind-blown surface was a violent global sea, "the deep"}. Darkness was over the deep {due to a dark, rainy cloud layer that covered it. Together God called the cloud layer and sea “the waters”}. The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters {while the global torrential downpour filled the sea. The rain slowed when the cloud layer became depleted and the sea was filled}. “And God said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light”. {Then cloudy daylight appeared over the sea when sunlight penetrated the thinning clouds}. God saw the light was good, and {by using the earth’s existing rotation from the beginning} “He separated [divided] the light from the darkness. God called the light ‘day’ and the darkness He called ‘night’. And there was evening and there was morning- the first day”.
vv6-8. And God made a global expanse {a gap of clear dry air} between the sea and the cloud layer above it. “God called the expanse ‘sky [vault, dome, firmament]’”. Sky “separated {sea} water from {atmospheric} water” {when the violent, continuous global rain finally stopped. {While there was global rain the waters spanned the cloud tops to the ocean bottom}. “And there was evening and there was morning- the second day”.
vv9-13. God gathered the water under the sky into one place when He let dry ground that He called “land” {rise above it}. He called the gathered waters “seas”. Then the land produced vegetation {from seeds and spores He planted in the ground as implied by Genesis 2:8}: “plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds”. {Genesis 2:6 implied that sprouting land plants were first watered by streams from underground after the continuous global rain had stopped. All plants including microscopic single-celled algae were made then, but seed plants were highlighted because of their importance as food for the ancient humans this account was first given to.} God saw that it was good. “And there was evening and there was morning- the third day”.
vv14-19. {When the thinning clouds finally scattered} God made the greater and lesser lights [sun and moon] that govern the day and night and also the stars {that were created in the beginning, appear} in the sky. They were to serve as signs to mark seasons, days and years, and give light on the earth. “And there was evening and there was morning- the fourth day”.
vv20-23. And God created all the kinds of living sea creatures and birds. He blessed them to multiply and fill the sea and the earth. “And there was evening and there was morning- the fifth day”.
vv24-31. And God made {the bodies of} all the wild animals, livestock, and creatures that move along the ground {from the materials in the earth according to Genesis 2:19 and He created their consciousness from nothing, similarly to the sea creatures and birds}. Then He {likewise} made one pair of humans, but their consciousness was created in His {spiritual} image and likeness to rule over the sea creatures, birds, and land animals. God charged them all to eat only from the green plants. “And there was evening and there was morning- the sixth day".
Genesis 2:1-3. God saw that everything was very good, “so on the seventh day He rested from all His work. Then He blessed the seventh day and made it holy {for Himself} because on it He rested from all the work of creating that He had done".
{Several thousand years later God gave the Hebrews His Sabbath law in Exodus 20:11 to abstain from all work on the seventh day of each week, Saturday, to observe His day of rest.}
********************************************************************
The section, Authorship of the Hebrew Law, presented substantial evidence from scripture, archaeology, Hebrew writing style, and ancient history that supported Moses recorded the book of Genesis during the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt c1450BCE.
The Genesis 1 Commentary, The Beginning:
v1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth- from nothing. (Written Hebrew past-tense “bra” was used for “created”*.)
The bible mentions three heavens: So the "heavens” in v1 might mean God’s dwelling place, the Heaven of Heavens (Hebrew shimi e.shimim), or “outer space”, the celestial heavens (Hebrew shimim), or Earth’s sky, the atmospheric heavens (Hebrew rqio). However, elsewhere in scripture, Psalm 33:6 refers to the “heavens” in v1 as the “starry host” (Hebrew “shimim”), which means the celestial heavens or the physical universe. There was no ancient Hebrew word for the physical “universe” so “heavens” was used{20}.
The “beginning” ended just before Earth’s 1st day began in v2. This is explained in the Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days commentary, in Introduction to the Six Days. Scripture gives no duration for the “beginning”, but Psalm 33:6 contributes that God spoke the “starry host” (celestial heavens) into existence which suggests its creation was brief. That this brief creation is consistent with observational astronomy is explained below. Outside of Genesis 1:1 and Psalm 33:6 other scripture verses that pertain to the “beginning” are Job 26:7, and Isaiah 40:22** and 42:5, and this commentary explains they are also consistent with modern astronomical discoveries.
* Scripture4All online Hebrew interlinear bible.
** Some bible versions use “globe” instead of “circle”.
Modern astronomy shows planet Earth is immersed in and is part of the celestial heavens. God surely saw this, so v1 described "the heavens and the earth" were created together. And Job 26:7 records this same concept: “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; He suspends the earth over nothing” [1984 NIV]. Yet v1 mentions the celestial “heavens” separately from the earth (“the heavens and the earth”) because the heavens appear to surround the earth and are seen as separate entities by earthbound humans. These “literary style” descriptions in the creation account bypassed the humans’ lack of scientific understanding yet they are technically correct.
Creation of the universe by modern astronomy as compared with scripture
Genesis 1:1 recorded the “heavens and the earth” had a “beginning” when they were created. However, no details were provided about what happened during their creation. Certainly God knew these details were too scientific for ancient humans to understand (See Genesis 1: Origin and Authorship commentary) but modern scientifically educated humans desire to know more. So, modern astronomy will be examined next to let us look behind this curtain of omission in the scriptures back to what corresponds to the “beginning” in Genesis 1:1. This will provide additional information of how the cosmos began according to scientific discoveries and theories. Astronomy has come a long way to understand the universe since early telescopes were developed and first used to observe the celestial heavens about 350 years ago. Fantastic space probes have now visited all the planets in our solar system, and huge complex telescopes, some that operate from space for crystal clear viewing outside of Earth’s shimmering atmosphere, have observed and collected data from celestial objects at various wavelengths to the distant reaches of the universe.
How does evidence for new star formation today affect the accuracy of the Genesis 1 creation account?
Genesis 1:1 records that the celestial heavens including the stars, our sun (a star) and the moon were created in the “beginning”. However, astronomers have recently imaged what they determined are accretion disks of matter that surround newly forming stars in certain dusty nebulous regions in our galaxy. This is scientific evidence new stars with planetary systems are recently forming{14,17}. Evidently, then stars weren’t all created in the “beginning” so bible critics argue these modern discoveries contradict Genesis 1:1,14-16 and Psalm 33:6.
As was explained in Genesis 1: Origin and Authorship, when God described His creation of the heavens to an early human before the Flood and later to the ancient Hebrews in the scriptures He approached them on their educational level. So Genesis 1:1 surely referred to the celestial heavens that were plainly visible from Earth. However, sophisticated instruments that imaged these new stars used invisible radio wavelengths to penetrate their dusty surroundings to observe them, and humans can’t directly see them. So these invisible stars that are recently forming that humans can’t see don’t challenge v1 that the vast universe we can see today was created from the burst of star formation in the “beginning”.
However, the discovery that new stars with planetary systems are still forming does provide scientific evidence that the “beginning” in v1 had a long duration and the importance of its duration will be explained below.
Another ancient account in Job 38:31-32 refers to the familiar Pleiades, the bears (the big and little “dippers”), Orion’s belt, and what some bibles call “Mazzaroth” (Hebrew for constellations of the zodiac){5}. These verses describe the same approximately 2000 naked-eye stars that include the familiar constellation star patterns, and the nebulous glow of the Milky Way stars in the night sky humans see today. These have hardly visually changed since Genesis 1 was recorded evidently by Moses about 3400 years ago (that originated from an earlier pre-Flood account).
These ancient constellation star patterns move extremely slowly in the night sky due to the earth’s precession on its rotational axis. Over thousands of years this motion slowly changes the seasons when they appear overhead. However, their movement is not visually noticeable for many human generations, and the same “naked-eye” stars and constellation patterns continue to be recognizable since the creation account in Genesis 1 originated.
This Genesis 1: Creation, The Beginning commentary will continue verse-by-verse coverage with vv2-31 in the Genesis 1: Creation, the Six Days commentary. But first, the following presentation of the “Big Bang” creation scenario from modern astronomy is presented. Big Bang theory alleges to illuminate what scripture doesn’t record about the creation events in the early universe. The astronomy section of this commentary concludes with an evaluation of Big Bang theory based on the most recent astronomical discoveries that actually limits what of it is trustworthy.
The Genesis 1 commentary doesn’t support most of the newer features of Big Bang cosmology that were added to the “primeval atom” creation theory that originated it and is described later in this commentary. These newer details are also contested by conventional astronomers. However, Big Bang creation is currently the most favored “cosmology” (study of the large scale structure and formation of the universe). It has survived many recent decades of critical thought by conventional astronomers (partly by adding more features to it) after the previous “Steady State” universe creation theory was abandoned in the 1960s.
The full Big Bang creation scenario that is summarized below presents how conventional scientists claim the creation of the universe occurred. Because the Genesis record is factual it must pass the scrutiny of proven observational science. However, conventional astronomers claim they have disproved the Genesis 1 creation account. So after Big Bang theory is presented below, actual astronomical discoveries and the corresponding scripture verse coverage about the “beginning” will be compared and examined for their compatibility to evaluate these scientists’ claim.
No attempt is made to critique or “twist” actual scripture to fit science, or vice versa during this investigation. However, apparently flawed human interpretations of Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:16-17 have set barriers to understanding how good observational astronomy and actual scripture are consistent. The common interpretation of Exodus 20:11 is cited to mean the universe as it appears today was created in a single day, which is incompatible with observational astronomy. This commentary carefully studies the Hebrew scripture text and provides a meaning for Exodus 20:11 that is linguistically correct and is compatible with observational astronomy. Genesis 1:16-17 is interpreted to mean the sun, moon, and stars were “formed” on the 4th day after they were created in the beginning, which is confusing. The meaning of Genesis 1:16-17 is examined in the Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days commentary. Different interpretations are provided for Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:16-17 that are compatible with the Hebrew scripture text and fit well with the recorded events of the previous 3 days of creation. They are also consistent with observational astronomy.
After Big Bang theory is presented it will be critiqued to exclude features that are merely conjectural and identify those that are supported by observational discoveries. The upcoming section, What can be taken away from this presentation of Big Bang cosmology? uses these trustworthy features from Big Bang cosmology to compare with accurate interpretations of scripture verses that pertain to the "beginning". This comparison shows agreement rather than conflict regarding the events in the scriptural “beginning” (the early universe). Results of this analysis are summarized in the blue-highlighted Conclusion for Big Bang cosmology below.
This leads to a description of how our solar system formed from the “beginning” to Earth’s 1st day that is based on both accurate scripture interpretations and trustworthy astronomical discoveries. It answers plaguing questions by creation scientists about why the planets have youthful features that seem to be only thousands of years old that conventional scientists insist are billion of years old.
The current universe creation scenario by conventional Big Bang astronomy:
The following creation scenario for the entire universe describes how planets, stars, and galaxies may have gradually formed from an explosive burst of created matter, called the “Big Bang”. It was adapted from a recent article in a popular astronomy magazine{4} that uses concepts from current astronomy{11}-
All matter in the universe was created instantly as an enormous all-directional shower of subatomic particles{16} by a sudden explosive event astronomers call the “Big bang”. Whether this matter was composed of both matter and anti-mater (that annihilates matter when they combine), and in what proportions is unknown. The explosion caused the matter to rapidly spread out over the void of space. The highly heated plasma cooled then free protons and electrons combined into high-temperature hydrogen gas as it spread. Kinetic energy from the explosion necessarily separated the newly formed matter that prevented its eventual gravitational collapse into an enormous “black hole” having the mass of the entire universe! The apparent uniform separation of clusters of galaxies in all directions from Earth is believed to have resulted from the briefness of the explosive event that initially created all the matter. Astronomers debate exactly how brief the instant of “inflation” was. However, careful studies seem to show there are some very large scale structures of clusters of galaxies that preclude a perfectly uniform distribution of galaxies in all directions from Earth. Many astrophysicists theorize an unknown “dark energy” is forcing distant clusters of galaxies apart because the expansion today (unexpectedly) appears faster at greater distances from earth. Dark energy is mathematically modeled as pushing apart the “fabric” of space and affects the shape of the “space-time grid”. They mathematically model “empty” space as expanding and material galaxies as being carried along with it. A few even suggest that multiple universes might exist that have different systems of natural laws. This scientific model is still under development by astronomers.
Swirling eddies developed in the rapidly spreading hot gas{4}, and localized denser regions in the matter slowly formed by gravitational clumping. These eddies began the observed ubiquitous rotary motions of future celestial objects- rotating planets revolving around rotating stars, stars with planets orbiting centers of their galaxies, and galaxies orbiting around other galaxies in clusters of galaxies. Forces from these revolutionary motions would counter their gravitational attraction toward the mass centers and enhance the stability and longevity of galactic and planetary systems by slowing their gravitational collapse.
After the explosive creation of matter irregular-shaped rotating gaseous nebula formed. Eventually, the gaseous matter formed solid dust-size particles after it cooled, which became gravitational “nuclei” for larger chunks to form. These nebulae naturally flattened into disks of gas and dust by their rotation-fed equatorial expansion. Eventually countless huge rotating “accretion disks” of various diameters and thicknesses formed throughout the early universe. Each consisted of gas and larger chunks of solid matter from clumping and growth became faster as their size increased. The disks became gravitationally stratified with the denser bodies at the center and lighter ones orbiting further out. The bodies became naturally spherical by their self-gravity and they grew in size by gravitationally continually absorbing the solid and gaseous disk debris until it was consumed. Their final masses determined their internal temperatures and whether they gravitationally compressed into extremely hot luminous stars, or planets after they cooled. So each accretion disk formed a stellar system that consisted of one massive central star (or a few) many with smaller orbiting planets. Accretion disks are shown have lengthy lifetimes so each planet has physical features with a range of ages (below). Heavy atomic elements in stars and planets are proposed to have been produced by nuclear fusion of lighter atoms within older stars that were released into the interstellar gas at the end of their lifetime. This was source material for accretion disks that formed more recent “populations” of metal-rich stars and planets, such as our solar system. However, there is currently no general agreement on a detailed scientific mechanism for the production of the heavy atomic elements. Stellar systems vigorously formed throughout the early universe after the creation of matter while the supply of cosmic hydrogen gas was plentiful. Later, star formation slowed as the rich gas clouds became depleted, and observations today show accretion disks are limited to certain dusty, gaseous nebula.
Astronomers recently discovered many newly forming stars that are each surrounded by an accretion disk of debris in dusty nebulous regions of our galaxy{14,17}. The massive central star may be surrounded by a 1 or 2 other stars and up to several less massive planets. The disk material is stratified by gravity with the densest debris closest to the center so the densest planets developed closest to the central star, as is the case with our solar system. Astronomers refer to these nebulae as “stellar nurseries”. These newly forming stars in our Milky Way galaxy are buried in dust clouds about 300-10,000 light years away, so none are naked-eye visible from the earth. Images made of the accretion disks by a dust-penetrating radio telescopic interferometric array shows orbiting planets are apparently gravitationally sweeping out lanes in debris of the accretion disks as they grow while they orbit around the dense central body.
The “asteroid belt” in our solar system is now believed to be the left-over debris from the sun’s ancient accretion disk that the planets self-assembled from by gravitational compression{23}. It contains rocky debris down to dust size particles between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars. The large spherical asteroids Ceres and smaller Pallas (both called “dwarf “planets”) orbit the sun in the center of the belt where German astronomer Johann Titius’ equation predicted a planet’s orbit should be based on the layout pattern of the other known planets. Astronomers claim that chaos theory predicts Jupiter’s gravitational tug-of-war with the sun’s gravity prevented a planet from forming there by causing it to disintegrate after it reached only a modest accretion size. So only scattered debris and “planetesimals” (dwarf planets) can exist in the asteroid belt.
Gravitational collapse of large local mass concentrations produced dense “black holes” (from which even light cannot escape). The most massive “black holes” provided gravitational centers for vast accumulations of stars to orbit around that formed the common spiral and elliptical galaxies (internet). Invisible “dark matter” in galaxies that might be left-over subatomic particles that didn’t form hydrogen gas{13} could explain the (unexpected) nearly constant linear velocities of stars orbiting galactic centers at various distances{6,12}. Since the outer stars further from the gravitational centers should orbit slower, additional gravitational pull by unseen (“dark”) matter in galaxies that would increase their linear speed is hypothesized.
The initial creation of high velocity moving luminous matter began the concept of time in the material universe that apparently needs a changing process to sense it. Repetitive cyclic motions of illuminated planets orbiting stars, specifically the rotating Earth and other bright planets orbiting the sun in our solar system provided a convenient way for humans to mark seasons, years, and days. This would serve them to regulate their lives and visualize "time" as an aid to study natural processes. Notice these events (not the human concept of “time”) are described in Genesis 1:14. The problem of time is examined in Topical note 8 in connection with the age of the universe.
How do scientific and biblical universe creations compare?
The Big Bang scenario above describes that all of the newly created matter in the universe expanded rapidly and its physical laws were in effect at its creation. This is consistent with Psalm 33:6* that records “By word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth” [1984 NIV]. That God apparently spoke the celestial heavens into existence implies brevity. Isaiah 42:5 recorded “he who created the heavens and stretched them out…”, and Isaiah 40:22b is similar [NIV], so scripture affirms an expansion followed their creation. An extended period for the celestial bodies to self-assemble afterwards according to modern astronomy{4} would have been a seamless part of the biblical creation of matter, because it was accomplished automatically with no separate intervention needed by God. This self-assembly occurred according to God’s physical laws of nature (including gravity, F=ma, and PV=nRT) that were intrinsically part of the creation. These “mindless” physical laws appear to manage the cosmos today and evidently, they were important during its creation according to modern astronomy. However, Psalm 33:6 is also consistent with the traditional biblical creation interpretation (below) where the entire universe was created suddenly and entirely in a single day, like it is today. So the traditional Christian creation interpretation is examined next.
*Psalm 33:6 was attributed to King David long after Moses lived. Notice in this verse he apparently used “made” to mean the same as “created”, contrary to its original usage in Genesis 1 that Moses recorded. However, these distinctions of word usage aren’t important here.
The traditional Christian creation of the universe:
This traditional interpretation of Genesis 1:1 is- God created the “heavens and the earth” with perfection, suddenly and entirely like they appear today early on the 1st literal day of creation week. This was in 4004 BC according to Usher’s dating chronology that is used by traditionalists today. Exodus 20:11 is used to support this interpretation. (However, evidence from the Hebrew and recent astronomical discoveries presented in this commentary about the beginning challenge the traditional interpretation of Exodus 20:11.) Also Genesis 1:16-17 is interpreted to mean the sun, moon, and stars formed on the 4th day of creation week when they appeared in Earth’s sky. So apparently they weren’t completed during their creation in the “beginning” as recorded in Genesis 1:1. (This Genesis 1 commentary provides a different explanation for their appearance on the 4th day that better fits the biblical Hebrew and science.) This traditional creation interpretation is religious so it emphasizes God created the universe, and it teaches our solar system was created recently which explains why the planets have youthful features that are derived from their hot interiors.
The traditional creation scenario doesn’t include the observed expansion of the universe, but God certainly could have created it expanding to prevent its gravitational collapse. However, it seems to be incompatible with observed new stars and planetary systems forming today{14,17}, because the cosmos would not then have been entirely created in a single Earth day several thousand years ago, as this view specifies. Just one objection to this view is that layered impact and volcanic craters on many planets and moons in our solar system suggests their formation was chaotic and gradual and didn’t occur in just part of one day. Fresh new craters overlap older washed out ones that appear to have a wide age range.
This older creation interpretation is still promoted today by organizations that adhere to fundamentalist religious beliefs as doctrinal policy. These beliefs include strict orthodox interpretations of the meaning of certain scripture verses that may be flawed. Orthodox scripture interpretations were designed to support traditional Christian church doctrines but eventually some became inexplicable with observational human science as it progressed. Trouble began when medieval European astronomers challenged the scientifically incorrect doctrine that the celestial heavens were Earth centered. So well-meaning orthodox scripture interpretations are not necessarily also scientifically accurate. Yet they remained agreeable with the weekend worshiping public in the western world through the mid-1900s, but not with the secular scientific community who use them to show the public the bible is wrong.
Exodus 20:11 is often interpreted as scriptural proof that the universe was created entirely in one day that is incompatible with observational astronomy (below). And Genesis 1:16-17 is interpreted to mean the sun, moon, and stars “formed” on Earth’s 4th day that appears to conflict with them being created before that in the “beginning” in v1. The correct meanings of Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:16-17 are important to understanding the science behind the creation account in Genesis 1 that these commentaries describe as factual. So, the meaning of Exodus 20:11 is examined below, and that of Genesis 1:16-17 is examined in the Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days commentary, both using the standards of correct Hebrew word usage and observational science.
This commentary strives to show the Genesis accounts were originally written to be understood factually so they are part of reality and not entirely a matter of religious faith. Because they touch on observationally proven science and history they must also pass their scrutiny, so the proven sciences can be useful tools to find the correct interpretation of certain puzzling scripture verses. (Proven science doesn’t include the “consensus sciences” of deep-time astrophysics, evolutionary speciation, and uniformitarian geology that are critiqued in Topical notes 6-8.)
Was the entire universe as it is seen today created suddenly, or over a lengthy period?
Psalm 33:6 recorded God spoke the celestial heavens into existence that implied its sudden creation (above). However, this scripture verse is actually consistent with both the traditional biblical creation interpretation that the universe was created suddenly like today in part of a single day, and the Big Bang scenario from modern astronomy above that described the brief, explosive creation of matter that contained the entire universe. The Big Bang explosion was followed by a gradual gravitational self-assembly of the newly created matter into stars, planets, and galaxies afterward that was still part of the creation because it occurred automatically according to natural laws.
Astronomers recently observed that new stars with orbiting planets are recently forming in accretion disks of debris in certain dusty, gaseous nebula of our galaxy{14,17}. Star formation began in the biblical beginning according to Genesis 1:1. However, continued star formation until recently seems to be conclusive scientific evidence the universe was not created entirely and suddenly in a single day long ago, but is still recently being created in a smaller way. So a single-day creation of the celestial heavens is not scientifically correct. However, all of the “naked-eye” heavens humans can see were created in the “beginning”, so Genesis 1:1 as it was written for ancient humans is technically correct.
That “naked-eye” stars are no longer forming suggests the universe is slowly running out of its fixed quantity of matter (cosmic hydrogen gas) that was created in the beginning. Thus God must have created the universe to have a predetermined number of stars so it isn’t “infinite”.
Does Exodus 20:11 mean the universe was created in part of one day several thousand years ago?
Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day”[1984 NIV]. Exodus 20:11 (and similarly, 31:17) are often quoted to teach the "heavens and the earth"- the universe, was created suddenly and entirely like it is today within a day early in creation week, several thousand years ago according to creation chronology. This is believed to have been on Earth’s first day. But evidently “the sea” finished forming over the earth on its first day and our solar system was already operating then (see vv2-5 in the Summary of the Genesis 1 account above). Recent images taken of accretion disks with new stars and orbiting planets that are still originating is convincing scientific evidence a one-day creation of the universe long ago can't be true. These scientific telescopic discoveries (not just theories!) seem compelling, yet scripture must be factual. So the Hebrew in these verses is carefully examined below to check if this interpretation was their intended meaning.
When describing the origin of “the heavens and the earth” by God, Genesis 1:1 used “created” (Hebrew bra) while Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 that were quoted to seemingly refer to it instead used “made” (Hebrew oshe). Those who quote these verses in Exodus to support a one day creation of the universe assume “made” in Exodus 20, 31 is used to mean the same as “created” in Genesis 1:1, as synonymous words. However, Genesis 1 was explained to be God’s own creation account and both words were used in it because they have different meanings. “Created” meant God produced something “out of nothing” whereas “made” meant He “formed it from previously created materials”. The following distinct definitions of “create” and “make” that were introduced in the Created and Made section above with references{1,2} are restated and analyzed below for their application to Exodus 20:11 and 31:17-
The two root verbs, “create” and “make” also have the following definitions in their past tense usage throughout Genesis 1 according to the cited references above in this Genesis 1 commentary:
“’Create’ which always has the Creator as its subject refers to God calling entities into existence [from nothing]. ‘Make’ refers to “systems constructed [usually meaning formed] (by either God or men) [intelligent beings] out of previously created entities” [materials]. The heavens and the earth were both created and made [by God].”
Bracketed [ ] words include explanatory insertions for clarity. Words in parentheses ( ) are part of the original quoted text.
Note that Moses evidently penned Genesis 1, and also Exodus 20:11 and 31:17. So he should have preserved the context of “created” and “made” from the earlier record in Genesis 1.
These verb definitions necessarily impact the interpretation of Exodus 20:11 (and 31:17). Although these two verses in Exodus seem to refer to “the heavens and the earth” that were “created” in Genesis 1, they include them with the “made” events in the six days, and use the verb “made” for all of them. Use of “made” for “the heavens and the earth” in these verses must mean they aren’t referring to their original creation. The definition for the root word “make” stated above usually means to form something from preexisting materials, and it suggests the intended meaning of Exodus 20:11 (quoted above) was as follows, when placing the bracketed interpolative insertion in the bible text:
>> For in six days the Lord made the heavens [appear in the sky*] and the land**, the sea, and all that is in them… <<
*The Genesis 1: Creation, the Six Days commentary for vv14-19, the 4th day [1984 NIV] provides substantial evidence from correct written Hebrew word usage and observational science that a gradual clearing of Earth’s initial dark cloud layer that started on the 1st day caused the sun, moon, and the stars to appear in the sky (Hebrew rqio} by the 4th day, instead of them actually being formed in the celestial heavens [Hebrew shimim] then.
**Both ”the earth” that is used in Exodus 20:11 by most English bibles and “the land” in English are the same word in written Hebrew, “e.artz” according to scripture4all Hebrew online interlinear bible. Use of “the land” in this verse (instead of “the earth”) is consistent with dry land appearing on the 3rd day of creation week as recorded in Genesis 1:9-10 that evidently rose from under the sea.
The bracketed [ ] interpolative insertion and use of English “land” for “earth” were added to Exodus 20:11 [1984 NIV] to clarify its meaning when “made” is used in the same context as it is throughout Genesis 1. The original Hebrew for Exodus 20:11 in the online Scripture4all interlinear bible shows no comma separators. Commas were added in English translations.
The word “created” should have properly been used instead of “made” in the Exodus verses if God originally created (from nothing) the heavens and the earth in the six days. Notice this commentary is not “rewriting” Exodus 20:11 this way but is only illustrating an interpretation for it that is supported by the Hebrew word usage of “made” in Genesis 1 and is otherwise consistent with the scripture record.
Commandment 4 in Exodus 20:8-11 tells that God commanded the Hebrews to observe the Sabbath because He rested on the seventh day after He worked for six days (Genesis 1:31-2:2). No record was made that God worked in the “beginning” when He merely spoke the starry heavens into existence (Psalm 33:6) that the earth was a part of (Genesis 1:1, Job 26:7) when He originally created them. So, Exodus 20:11 and 31:7 that use “made” rather than “created” can’t refer to the original creation of the heavens and the earth (from nothing). The daily events of “the six days” (vv2-31) are explained in detail with supporting evidence below in the Genesis 1 commentary, Creation: the Six Days.
Conclusion for the interpretation of Exodus 20:11-
Using Exodus 20:11 (and 31:17) to support a one-day complete creation of the universe several thousand years ago conflicts with scientific discoveries that new stars are recently forming in our galaxy (even if they aren’t naked-eye visible). When “made” that is used in these verses is interpreted to have the same meaning as is defined above and was used in the Genesis 1 creation account, Exodus 20:11 doesn’t teach a one-day creation of the universe. So scripture is consistent with observational astronomy by not teaching the universe was created in one day.
Was the “beginning” when the celestial “heavens and the earth” were created before or during “the six days” according to scripture?
Although many adamantly claim that the “beginning” when the “heavens and the earth were created” was on the 1st Day of creation week, evidence from scripture for this is actually lacking. Two pieces of alleged evidence (1 and 2 below) that are cited to support the “beginning” was during “creation week” are explained to be invalid. Other evidence (3 and 4 below) either suggests or mandates the “beginning” was before “creation week”.
1. As was explained in the previous topic, the definition of “made” from Genesis 1 implies its use in Exodus 20:11 doesn’t refer to God originally “creating” the heavens and the earth during “six days”. Instead, evidence from Hebrew word usage and other scripture verses shows Exodus 20:11 referred to ”making” the previously created barren Earth in v1 into habitat with life in six days in vv2-31.
2. Some believe the Hebrew conjunction “u” that was translated “Now” in English at the start of v2 appears to connect the 1st day of creation week with the “beginning” in v1. However, a study of scripture use of the Hebrew conjunction “u” shows it may be translated as “and”, “now”, “so”, “thus”, “but”, “that”, or “also” in English (or even omitted). The Scripture4All online Hebrew interlinear bible shows that Hebrew “u” is also used to start nearly every new topic sentence throughout the book of Genesis and the other books of the Law into Deuteronomy regardless whether or not the previous and new topics occurred closely in time. So this repeated sequential use of the Hebrew conjunction “u” in the Torah appears to be Moses’ writing style when he recorded these books. Perhaps its frequent use was intended to link content together into continuous accounts. The continuous use of “u” in the Torah finally stopped before the end of Deuteronomy and the death of Moses. It wasn’t used in historically later Bible books starting with Joshua that had different authors after Moses died. So use of Hebrew “u” (English “Now”) at the start of Genesis 1, v2 of creation week is not evidence that the “beginning” in v1 was grammatically linked to and therefore part of it.
3. Notice that Hebrew past-tense “bra” (created)* was used for the creation of the “heavens and the earth” in the “beginning” in v1 instead of present-perfect tense "ibra" (is-creating) that is used for most later events in the Genesis 1 account. And the creation period in v1 was named the "beginning" that separated it from the following numbered days of "creation week" starting in v2. These two word choices suggest the “beginning” was in the past at the time when v2 introduced the start of creation week.
*Scripture4All online Hebrew interlinear bible.
4. Our solar system consists of the sun and orbiting planets that was part of the “heavens” with the stars to mark “seasons, days, and years” and to “separate the day from the night” on the earth (v14). The solar system was created in the “beginning” (v1) and its completion was the last event of the “beginning” because it next provided daylight through the thinning clouds on Earth’s 1st day (v5) in creation week. Although scripture is silent, modern astronomy provides evidence the solar system began its creation as debris in the sun’s accretion disk. This was long before the sun and its planets completed their gravitational compaction of the debris into their final forms several thousand years ago. “Time” on Earth according to scripture started with Earth’s 1st day (Genesis 1:2-5) that was about 7454 years ago according to Josephus’ chronology, that followed the "beginning".
That the “heavens and the earth” were entirely created within a literal day in the past is also scientifically incompatible with the recent astronomical discoveries of new stars currently forming. It was developed earlier that because Genesis 1 describes factual events they must be compatible with proven science and history.
Scripture gives no starting time or duration for the “beginning” because it was before recorded time began on Earth’s 1st day.
So this reasoning concludes the “beginning” was a scripturally undefined period before Earth’s 1st day.
What is the age of the universe according to modern astronomy?
Unlike scripture, modern astronomy provides a creation scenario that details the early creation events of the universe. Big Bang cosmology doesn’t specify an age for the universe but it suggests there was a lengthy period after the instant creation of matter while stars with planets and galaxies self-assembled by gravity and other natural laws.
Other principles from modern astronomy were used to compute the age of the universe as 13.5 billion years that is widely promoted. This commentary doesn’t endorse that age. (The Objections to Big Bang creation section below critiques this age, and Topical note 8, The Age of the Universe provides evidence for a younger age.) One age determining method used by conventional astronomers measured red shift recessional velocities of the most remote galaxies to find their corresponding distances using the Hubble’s Law velocity-vs-distance relationship (~70km/sec/Mpc). Then the age was determined from the expansion rate of the most remote galaxies. Another method used thermal energy from the measured cosmic microwave background of the early universe. Astronomers claim there was close agreement of these ages. However, their alleged agreement is questioned in Objections to Big Bang creation (below), and in Topical note 8.
Completing the creation of planets
it could be much older than the accretion disks of chunky matter. See below, Would a universe that is “billions of years” old conflict with the Bible?
Planets are the most recently formed celestial bodies in stellar systems. According to radiometric dating of space rocks that are planetary fragments, the solar system is 4.5 billion years old. However, the age of a stellar system is partly the age of its accretion disk that formed its bodies. Recent studies show accretion disks that form stellar systems have lifetimes that may be from 5-10 million years to as little as thousands of years depending on the compaction mechanism involved that produced them (Topical note 8{4}), and presumably also their size. Because stellar accretion disks have lengthy lifetimes planets in our solar system show physical features with a range of ages: The oldest feature is their elemental atomic composition that was derived from the accretion disk’s original materials that were contained in the prior solar nebula. However, the time period and pathway from the explosive creation of matter to the formation of accretion disks are not known with certainty.
The most recently formed features of the planets in our solar system are their magnetic fields and active surfaces which are caused by their hot interiors. Their internal heat resulted from gravitational compaction and internal radioactivity. Active planetary surfaces and magnetic fields express their hot interiors. They are evidence that our solar system was completed recently when the last debris of the solar accretion disk was consumed- only several thousand years ago just before Earth’s 1st day in “creation week”. Earth’s 1st day must have a historical date in the factual Genesis 1 creation account. This was 7474 years ago (5454BCE) according to Josepheus’ historical chronology, and other religious historians give dates of several thousands of years ago. If the planets that are far the sun were billions of years old as conventional scientists claim, their interiors would be cold so they would lack magnetic fields and active surfaces. (The “dynamo theory” for perpetual planetary magnetic fields is hard to defend scientifically.) After the planets’ recent completion when gravitational compaction stopped, volcanic and impact features started to accumulate on those with rocky surfaces and obscuring dust began to cover them. Understanding accretion disks is a key to understanding of the physical features of our solar system, so this topic is continued in the next section.
What can be taken away from this presentation of “Big Bang” cosmology from modern astronomy?
Most of the features of Big Bang cosmology that were described in the lengthy scenario at the start of this section are not supported by observational discoveries, so these hypotheses are treated as conjecture for now: They include the created matter-vs-antimatter ratio, dark matter and dark energy, the origin of heavy elements, details of galaxy formation, black hole theory, and the possibility of “multiple universes” with differing physical laws.
However, the following TWO FEATURES have observational support so they deserve special attention:
1. The “Big Bang” itself-
Scientific evidence supports that all matter in the universe originated in an explosive event called the Big Bang, long before the earth and our solar system existed. The initial kinetic energy imparted to it prevented its gravitational collapse (theoretically into a “black hole” the mass of the entire universe!). The observed nearly uniform average expansion rate and separation of clusters of galaxies in all directions as viewed from Earth, and the cosmic microwave background also suggest this. Because Big Bang cosmology mathematically models “space” as expanding in all directions carrying galaxies with it, observers in all parts of the universe will see distant high-red shifted galaxies of the same concentrations surrounding them in every direction. Although there is no apparent unique center of the universe, each observer everywhere will see themselves at the center. How starlight initially arrived suddenly on Earth on Day 4 of creation week is explained in the Genesis 1:14-19 commentary below and Topical note 8, First light on the earth.
Biblical evidence that the universe had a definite beginning comes from “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” in Genesis 1:1. Its brief explosive origin is consistent with it began “by the breath of His mouth” in Psalm 33:6, and its continued expansion is described by “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space” in Job 26:7, and “He stretches out the heavens like a canopy and spreads them out like a tent* to live in” in Isaiah 40:22b, and similar 42:5 [italics were added for emphasis the to 1984 NIV text].
*Isaiah 40:22b used an illustration: The earliest Hebrews were nomads who lived in family-sized tents. Even later generations who understood their scriptures but lived in cities were familiar with unpacking tents and spreading them out on the ground before they set them up on posts to live in.
The natural association of stellar systems into galaxies may seem plausible, but recent observations by the new James Webb Telescope (JWT) that is positioned in deep space for crystal clear viewing question current details about galaxy formation. They problematically show the brightest of the most distant and supposedly oldest galaxies on the edge of the observable universe are actually similar in size to those much closer to Earth{19} that are presumably much younger. Their estimated star counts were 10 billion to 100 billion solar masses, and are similar to our Milky Way galaxy of 60 billion solar masses{19}. Researchers note according to theory these galaxies seem to be too massive to have formed in their assigned only 700 million years after the big bang 13 billion years ago{19}. No “baby galaxies” were seen at this distance and presumed age. Some astronomers now suggest these expected small newly formed galaxies must lie further away beyond the view of the JWT, and the universe is even older than 13 billion years (internet source). However, the Tolman effect predicts the dimmed surface brightness of rapidly receding galaxies would prevent imaging them at such great distances{25}. This questions their recessional velocities, distances, and age determinations, which have no reality check as was noted previously. These new discoveries by JWT might be evidence that galaxies formed everywhere in the universe during the same era in the “beginning”.
2. Accretion disks of rotating solid particulate matter that form stellar systems are telescopically observed discoveries, not just theories!
Images made by a radio telescope array (that can penetrate dusty nebulae) show some accretion disks in our galaxy that are currently forming stellar systems{17}. Also, the asteroid belt in our solar system is apparently the remnant of the sun’s accretion disk where Jupiter’s gravity prevents any sizeable planets from forming. Before the discovery of accretion disks it was instead believed to have been caused by the disintegration of a planet between the orbit of Jupiter and Mars that broke up due to the tug of Jupiter’s gravity. This is evidence the sun and planets in our solar system formed from an accretion disk.
The following is a summary of the creation of our solar system:
It is based on the trustworthy discoveries from modern astronomy that are compatible with the accurate records in Genesis 1 and the few other verses that pertain the “beginning”. And it explains why our planets have both old and young physical features that creation scientists marvel.
Creation of the early universe
The Big Bang scenario describes the universe began with the sudden, explosive creation of matter that sent out swirling eddies of a super heated plasma of subatomic particles in all directions into space. The matter cooled as it spread that allowed protons and electrons to combine and form hydrogen gas. The details of how the original rotating accretion disks of chunky matter (above) formed from the fast-moving superheated, hydrogen gas is conjecture for now. The solar accretion disk formed from a prior gaseous solar nebula that was enriched with all the modern elements heavier than hydrogen. Observations of the distribution of star populations with different amounts of these heavy elements in our galaxy suggests that heavy elements were produced in stars by fusion of hydrogen and helium long after the Big Bang, then released into the interstellar medium at the end of their lifetimes. These heavy elements produced the disk-size solid particles in stellar nebulae as “nuclei” that seeded the larger chunky solid material in accretion disks. The enriched interstellar medium produced later population stars like our sun and its planets with heavy metal content of up to 2% from accretion disks. If true, the age of the solar accretion disk metal-rich material would be extended back to include the age of these older population stars that produced it, so it could be much older than the solar accretion disk. See below, Would a universe that is “billions of years” old conflict with the Bible? However, all observable stars today*, even the “old” stars of globular clusters, have some heavy metal content (internet) so the heavy elements might have instead been produced in the explosive creation of matter- the Big Bang at the start of the biblical “beginning”. So the entire universe would be much younger.
* Proposed original “population III” stars that are entirely hydrogen and helium have not been observed (internet).
Completing the creation of planets
Planets are the most recently formed celestial bodies in stellar systems. According to radiometric dating of space rocks that are planetary fragments, the solar system is 4.5 billion years old. However, the age of a stellar system is the age of its accretion disk that formed its bodies. Recent studies show accretion disks that form stellar systems have lifetimes that may be from 5-10 million years to as little as thousands of years depending on their size, and the compaction mechanism involved that produced them (Topical note 8{4}). Because stellar accretion disks have lengthy lifetimes planets in our solar system show physical features with a range of ages: The oldest feature is their elemental atomic composition that was derived from the accretion disk’s original materials that originated from the prior gaseous solar nebula. However, the period from the explosive creation of matter to the formation of accretion disks is unknown.
The most recently formed features of the planets in our solar system, their magnetic fields and active surfaces, are caused by their hot interiors that resulted from gravitational compaction and internal radioactivity. Active planetary surfaces and magnetic fields express their hot interiors. They are evidence that our solar system was completed when the last debris of the solar accretion disk was consumed only several thousand years ago, just before Earth’s 1st day in “creation week”. This was 7474 years ago (5454BCE) according to Josepheus’ chronology. (If these planets that are far the sun were billions of years old as conventional scientists claim, their interiors would be cold so they would lack magnetic fields and active surfaces. The “dynamo theory” for perpetual planetary magnetic fields is hard to defend scientifically.) After their recent completion when gravitational compaction stopped volcanic and impact features started to accumulate on planets with rocky surfaces and obscuring dust began to cover them. Understanding accretion disks is a key to understanding all of the physical features of our solar system, so this topic is continued in the next section.
Details of Earth’s later creation events that are recorded in vv2-31 during its first six days of creation are covered in the Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days commentary.
Objections to Big Bang creation:
Big Bang cosmology doesn’t acknowledge God’s creator role that was included in the traditional creation interpretation described above. God isn’t included in this model because it only describes the science of creation. It is purely a scientific model.
The recent hype by proponents of Big Bang cosmology exuberantly describes a godless universe that “came from nothing” that is maligned by creation scientists. However, the originator of what is known today as the “Big Bang” theory was Fr. Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian cosmologist and a religious Catholic priest in 1927{21}. He had strong interests in both his religious beliefs and scientific studies. Although he kept them separate, he said there was no conflict between them. He taught physics at a Catholic university in Belgium and received his PhD in physics from M.I.T. He worked with Einstein’s new general relativity equations, and his thinking was influenced new astronomical discoveries that galaxies were rapidly separating from each other so the universe was expanding. He developed a theory to explain the new astronomical findings by using the accepted “scientific method” that tests them with predictive measurements (below). (Although some creation scientists who oppose the Big Bang origin complain this method is “reverse engineering” that is designed to arrive at results that are “expected”). These observations led him to reason there was a time when all the matter in the universe was packed closely together in an extremely dense state. He described the physical universe was then initially a single particle he called the “primeval atom” that exploded and gave rise to space and time, and its expansion that continues to this day. He actually estimated the “Hubble constant” for the expansion of the universe based on his calculations that predicted Hubble’s experimental measurements two years in advance (Wikipedia)! Today, the IAU refers to this expansion rate as the Hubble-Lemaitre Law. In 1931 he predicted the expansion was actually accelerating, that was confirmed in the 1990s by observations of supernova with the Hubble Space Telescope.
Pope Pius XII later endorsed Fr. Lemaitre’s new theory for the origin of the universe as a “scientific validation of the Catholic faith”{21}, although this came as a shock to Fr. Lemaitre{21}. This new scientific creation theory described the universe had a definite “beginning” that was consistent with Genesis 1:1 and suggested God created the “primeval atom” and the universe with its natural laws. The sudden explosive creaton of matter and its continued expansion were also implied respectively by Psalm 33:6 and Isaiah 42:5 [1984 NIV] as was explained above. Although the pope wasn’t a scientist, Fr. Lemaitre’s new astronomical creation theory must have come as a theological relief because the then prevailing astronomical Steady State theory pictured a universe without God that was simply always here. In 1949, Fred Hoyle, then a leading astronomer and proponent of his Steady State theory deridingly called Fr. Lemaitre’s theory the “Big Bang” on a BBC radio broadcast (internet). So Hoyle unknowingly coined the popular name for the theory that became the coffin nail for his own Steady State theory. Fr. Lemaitre's “primeval atom theory” eventually became known by this popular name.
A godless universe?
Although God isn’t mentioned in the Big Bang theory, its origin by a Catholic priest as the “hypothesis of the primeval atom” and its endorsement by a pope as a “scientific validation of the Catholic faith” clearly show it wasn’t intended to teach the universe was created without God. Many new features have been proposed as additions to Big Bang cosmology since its origin as the “primeval atom” theory. All except the explosive creation event itself with its resulting expansion, and the recent accretion disk discoveries were reasonably critiqued as “conjecture” at this time due to lack of support by observational discoveries in the section above, What can be taken home from this presentation of Big Bang..? Specifically, these two features from Big Band cosmology don’t conflict with scripture and actually support Genesis 1:1 and the few other scripture verses about the “beginning”.
Individuals must choose whether they believe God as revealed in the Bible created the matter and designed the natural laws that produced and govern the universe we see. This is apparently is what Fr. Lemaitre intended. Those who have religious convictions should be alert for others who use Big Bang creation to actively promote their godless world view.
Some will object that the Big Bang creation scenario seems to describe the universe formed (or “evolved”) into something more complex appearing than the uniformly expanding hydrogen gas cloud that it originated from.
This would violate the entropy law of thermodynamics. However the Entropy’s Rainbow article{4} strived to show that an astronomical volume of kinetically energetic, rapidly-moving and initially uniformly-distributed hot hydrogen gas would clump by gravity and then self-assemble by the natural laws of physics into luminous stars and orbiting planets whose masses determined their temperatures. Evidently gravity (F=Gm1m2/r2), PV=nRT and other physical laws that pertain to solid, liquid, and gaseous states of matter naturally formed spherical stars and orbiting planets{17}. Gravitationally bound stars, some with orbiting planets, aggregated to form huge rotating galaxies. And nearby loosely gravitationally bound galaxies revolved around themselves to form clusters of galaxies. So the universe didn’t randomly “evolve” into a more ordered state than its initial energetic plasma from the “Big Bang”{17}. The same physical laws that govern processes in the universe today played their part in forming it. The self-assembly process was a seamless part of the creation of matter because God didn’t need to intervene later to separately make stars and planets. However, the physical universe was “empty” as Genesis 1, v2 records [1984 NIV] until God supernaturally created and made life forms to inhabit Earth during the six days after the “beginning”.
Some object to the 13.5 billion year age for the universe.
The commentary does not endorse this great age. Although Big Bang cosmology doesn't specifically predict an age for the universe, it clearly implies a lengthy period was required for the universe to form after the instant, explosive creation of matter. The theoretical basis for this derived age came from cosmological spectral redshift measurements for the most distant galaxies and the thermal microwave background measurements of space. These data collections and workups involved assumptions, subjective corrections, and lengthy calculations- that were all certainly influenced by prevailing ideas about the great age of the universe.
It’s important to notice there is no reality check on the resulting 13.5 billion year age. Topical note 8 uses a historical illustration to explain the importance of a reality check to verify the results of calculated methods. Apparently the only way to try to verify this age is to compare it for agreement with results from different calculated methods. Although astronomers claimed the two above calculation methods closely agreed, even this agreement can be flawed because the same deep-time assumptions were made to work up the data. Topical note 8 also explains the surprising new understanding from recent astronomical research that the cause of the cosmological redshift is actually not known with certainty! Yet it’s used to determine the age and size of the universe. Topical note 8 provides evidence for downsizing both of these.
Would a universe that is actually “billions of years” old conflict with the Bible?
No, as this commentary explained. Scripture itself doesn't associate any time with the “beginning” when the “heavens and the earth” were created (such as “when” or “how long” it was) because this era was before Earth’s 1st day when scriptural time began for the earth and humans. The “beginning” ended with the completion of our solar system. However, Genesis 1:1 states there was a “beginning” for the “heavens and the earth and implies this interval must have ended just before Earth’s 1st day in creation week when its sea was formed (Exodus 20:11). So the 13.5 billion year age for the universe that is claimed by secular astronomy doesn’t challenge Genesis 1:1 or the few other scripture verses that pertain to the “beginning”.
Conclusion for Genesis 1 v1, The “beginning”.
This lengthy astronomy presentation compared what the bible teaches about the “beginning” with modern astronomy. Modern Big Bang cosmology includes fascinating details about how many conventional scientists believe the universe was created{4,11,16,17}. However, lack of supporting observational discoveries shows most features of Big Bang cosmology are conjectural for now.
God apparently limited His creation account to unscientific descriptions of its events for the scientifically uneducated ancient humans, but this study strives to show the Genesis 1 record is still technically correct and is consistent with observational science.
The discovery that invisible new stars with planetary systems are forming today doesn’t conflict with the bible that records the “heavens” were created in the “beginning”. The biblical “heavens” that God described in this creation account must have comprised the stars and the glow of the Milky Way the ancient Hebrews could plainly see. However, any new stars forming today, even those that aren’t naked-eye visible from earth, are conclusive scientific evidence that the entire universe is still being created in a small way today. So its complete creation has occurred over a lengthy period not in part of a literal Earth day several thousand years ago.
Disagreement by conventional astronomers about the biblical creation of the universe mostly concerns whether it is old or young. Scripture doesn’t record “time” before Earth’s 1st day that followed the “beginning” era when the universe was created. So it has nothing to contribute as to when or how long this era was. The absence of age information in scripture for the “beginning” actually seems to exempt Genesis 1:1 and the few other verses that pertain to it from challenge by conventional astronomers about a biblical age for the universe. So it is doubtful that modern astronomers can validly claim they disproved the biblical creation record of the “heavens and the earth” in Genesis 1 in the light of explanations in this commentary.
Scripture supports rather than conflicts with modern astronomy:
Genesis 1:1 states the universe had a definite beginning, and Psalm 33:6 implies its creation was brief. Its continued expansion is described by “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space” in Job 26:7, and “He stretches out the heavens like a canopy and spreads them out like a tent to live in” in Isaiah 40:22b, and 42:5 [italics were added to 1984 NIV text].
Apparently flawed interpretations of two scripture verses that are key to properly understanding the Genesis 1 account were uncovered and correctly revised using explanations that use accurate Hebrew word meanings and observational science. They cleared up important roadblocks to the agreement between modern astronomy with biblical scripture:
1.The analysis of Exodus 20:11 explained why it cannot be used as scriptural evidence that the universe was created in a single day, and it allows the “beginning” in Genesis 1:1 to be a lengthy period before Earth’s first day in v2. However, Topical note 8 provides evidence this period was less than “billions” of years.
2.Also, this commentary provides evidence for a more accurate explanation for the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars in Earth’s sky on the 4th day as recorded in Genesis 1:14-16 than the traditional interpretation that that they supposedly “formed” then after they were created before this in the beginning. Many argue the traditional interpretation of these versus is problematical. See Creation: The Six Days commentary for these verses.
So the claim by conventional scientists that modern astronomy has disproved the biblical creation account shows a lack of detailed understanding of the Genesis 1 record and the interpretations of certain scripture verses that parallel the discoveries of modern astronomy, and that Big Bang cosmology has many conjectural features that are not supported by observational discoveries.
Other contested areas with conventional science in the Genesis accounts include- Noah’s Flood as a historical account, evolutionary speciation and the fossil record, fossil humans, and earth history and dating methods. These are carefully explained in Topical notes 3,4,6 and 7 that continue to provide convincing evidence the Genesis accounts are factually correct.
This Genesis 1 creation account continues in the Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days commentary for vv2-31 where God transformed the barren planet earth into a habitat with life.
Click on active links to read internet references:
{1,2,3} appear in Topical note 4{49,50,51}.
{4} Hester, Jeff, Astronomy magazine, October 2017, Entropy's rainbow, p16.
{5} Kennedy, James, 1989, The Real Meaning of the Zodiac, Coral Ridge Ministries, p7 (book). Also, Job 38:31-32 [Complete Jewish Bible].
{11} Kay, et al, 21st Century Astronomy, 4th ed., 2013, Chapters 19-23 Galaxies, the universe, and modern cosmology.
{12} ibid, Rubin, Vera, Fig 20.13, p623
{13} Temming, Maria, 2020 ‘Missing matter’ may be found, Science News, June 20, p6. Source article is in Nature, May 28. (The article indicates Dark matter’s composition is contested.) Some astronomers believe it is composed of subatomic particles, that might have been left over from the creation of matter in the “Big Bang” event that didn’t combine to form hydrogen gas.
{14} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation#Stellar_nurseries.(New stars forming in our Milky Way galaxy apparently have been detected by their unique spectra.) Current modern astronomy texts also cover this topic.
{15} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_star-forming_regions_in_the_Local_Group (star forming regions in the local group of galaxies.
{16} Odenwald, Sten, Astronomy magazine, April 2022, Imagining our infant universe, pp16-23. This easily read review article describes current particle physics as applied to astrophysics.
{17} Rimmer, Arwen, Astronomy magazine, June 2022, The very hungry universe, pp16-23. (This article explains how observed accretion disks of matter that surround newly forming stars produce planetary systems. The image on p22 of an accretion disk that surrounds a star shows concentric gaps caused by orbiting planets that are gravitationally accreting material from it. An image collection on p26 from a sky survey of protoplanetary accretion disks that each surround a central star and some disks show one or more dark planetary rings.)
{19} Grossman, Lisa, Science News, March 25, 2023, Early Galaxies have a lot of heft, pp14-15.
{20} https://isgenesishistory.com/product/feature-film/ (click on the link to your web browser to open it, scroll down and select “Are the early chapters of Genesis history?”, then click arrows to start video.) This short creation video that is presented by the organization, Is Genesis History? explains the early chapters of Genesis were meant to be historical.
{21) https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/georges-lemaitre-big-bang#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Big%20Bang,of%20the%20Big%20Bang%20theory (Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre was the father of what is today the Big Bang theory.
{23}Wikipedia, Asteroid belt. This information was taken from the “formation” section of this lengthy article. Previously, the solar system’s asteroid belt was believed to have been produced by a planet that orbited the sun at this distance and was fragmented by Jupiter’s gravitational pull. However, the differing chemical compositions of asteroids in the belt in part was taken as evidence in favor of it being the remnant of the accretion disk that formed our solar system.
(The Tolman effect explains why surface brightness is constant for nearby galaxies but not for distant ones.)
{26} 2021, Timm, R.C., Astronomy Magazine, June 2021, ASK ASTRO, p60.
W. Cook January 2025
Independent Researcher
Contact: genesismakessense@gmail.com