ORG: Cosmology in Genesis 1 by F. Sutherland ("Suds") Macklem
(Note: In citing Hebrew words the Hebrew letters are represented by
English capitals, a lower case letter being attached to distinguish
certain Hebrew letters from others. Also the English transliterations
are written left to right instead of right to left as in Hebrew.
I The Universe
It is sobering to realize that the first verse of the Bible, which
is one of the best known passages in the English language, quite
obviously badly misinterprets or misreads the Hebrew original. It says
in the KJV (King James Version): "In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth." And that appears to come from the more than two
thousand year old Greek translation known as the Septuagint which also
renders the Hebrew word for "heavens" or "skies" singular. More modern
English versions make it plural, as it is in the Hebrew. But that is
only a minor discrepancy.
The major discrepancy is that the Hebrew words HShMIM, "the air(s),
the spaces" and HERtS, "the hard, compact" do not become names for "the
skies" (or "heavens") and "the earth" until vss. 8 and 10 respectively.
Not only that, but whereas vs. 1 has the earth formed, verse 2 says
that it was not formed-- "the earth was without form" (KJV)! It would
be difficult to make it more obvious that there is something radically
wrong with the first verse of the Bible in both the Greek Septuagint
and the English versions. Yet it has stood virtually unchallenged for
more than two thousand years! And unfortunately the misreading has
hopelessly distorted the cosmology of Genesis 1.
Correcting the opening verse, it should read something like: "In
beginning Elohim cut the spaces and the mass" (see my annotated
translation of Genesis 1 to 3 in GENESI.1-3 in DL 9). The definite
article "In (the) beginning" is optional but permissible. "Elohim" is
the Biblical name normally translated God or gods. "Cut" (or "carved")
is more literal than "created", though the word is always translated
"created" when ascribed to Elohim. "The spaces and the mass" more
faithfully expresses the Hebrew, without unjustifiably anticipating the
new meanings, skies and earth, that are not assigned until vss. 8 and
10. But with vs. 1 corrected, everything that follows, up to and
including vs. 10, has to be revised! For example there would be no
"waters" before the earth was formed and "the deep" in vs. 2 cannot
possibly mean "the ocean" as has sometimes been supposed.
The effect of correcting vs. 1 is that Genesis describes the
universe as consisting of a distinction between high density mass and
low density spaces separating mass. It requires that before that
distinction between high and low densities was "cut" or "created"
neither space nor mass existed. And it is important to realize that
Genesis does not allow even SPACE preexisting the creation. Space comes
into existence by contrast with the density of mass, and mass comes
into existence by contrast with the density of space. Spaces are what
separate masses. But before Elohim (God) "cut" the spaces and the mass
into existence, there was neither space nor mass--only God. Indeed it
is impossible to give any meaning to the word *space* except as a
separation between material entities. Where there are no separated
material entities there can be no space!
Also by making it plural "spaces" separating mass Genesis depicts a
universe of many (or at least more than two) separated masses, such as
a universe of elementary particles. For ease of visualization we can
assume a universe of elementary particles to begin with. The second
verse then tells us that when first created the particles were
uniformly distributed throughout the deep of unbounded space (or "the
deep" in the KJV). That is the only way that the distribution could be
"without form" as the KJV puts it. To suppose anything less than
uniform distribution would introduce some kind of form.
Then Genesis tells us that, with the particles uniformly
distributed, space ("the deep") was in a state of total darkness! That
is a most remarkable insight! It is remarkable because it is so
scientifically accurate. If the universe was formless then the mass of
the universe was uniformly distributed throughout unbounded space, and
in that case the universe was in a state of total darkness. What
Genesis has described is what modern physics calls a "black body".
Within such a black-body universe, modern science tells us that there
has to be absolute, total, darkness. And Genesis certainly agrees with
that!
But vs. 2 also tells us that the particles were in motion--since
"flowing" is the root meaning of the Hebrew word misread "waters" at
this point (due to the misreading of vs. 1). Correcting vs. 1, the
earth was not formed and therefore we cannot talk about any "waters"
yet. But the word for "flowing" is plural so we have to refer to
(plural) "flowings" of particles. But initially the distribution was
uniformly random. That requires not only that the particle positions
were randomly distributed, but also their velocities (their relative
speed and directions) were randomly distributed. That requires that
half the particles were approaching one another and the other half were
receding from one another, at the moment of creation as visualized by
Genesis.
That is a most intriguing idea! A completely uniform distribution of
particle positions is analogous to what is called a maximum entropy
state ("entropy" being a measure of the uniformity of the system). And
a universe in total darkness, as Genesis describes it, is a
maximum-entropy universe. But if the particle velocities were also
randomly distributed, that confronts us with a minimum entropy state!
Half the particles approaching one another and half receding from one
another is a maximum NON-uniformity, and that makes a minimum entropy
state!
The picture Genesis paints is of a universe of unknown size,
consisting of a uniform distribution of mass particles in random motion
suddenly materializing. If that is what happened, then half the
particles had to be approaching one another and the other half had to
be receding from one another, or we would have to explain why the
velocities (speeds and directions) were not uniformly distributed. And
of course the particles had to be in motion relative to one another or
we would have to explain what held them in fixed positions. Of course
other interpretations are possible in which the velocities are not so
uniformly distributed.
In the thirteenth century Robert Grosseteste a bishop of the
Christian church in England (Oxford) advanced the theory that light
(i.e. "energy") is the raw material of the universe, and that the
universe began as an infinitesimal point, and expanded from there. That
is a form of what is now known as "Big Bang" theory, and the good
Bishop"s interpretation of Genesis (and Aristotle) even somewhat
anticipated Einstein by propounding that the universe is nothing but
energy, (i.e. light). "Big Bang" theory does not allow an initially
random distribution of velocities. It has all the mass (or energy) of
the universe receding from a singular point, though not all particles
necessarily receding from one another.
Genesis, on the other hand, ascribes no special velocities (speeds
or directions) to the moving particles. As a result it requires half of
them approaching one another and the other half receding from one
another. But any two particles approaching one another must eventually
reach their closest approach and, unless some force alters their
velocities, they must thereafter forever recede from one another. It
follows that the half of the particles approaching one another would
eventually occupy a minimum volume, whereafter that volume would
forever expand.
But something much more important would happen long before the
minimum volume was reached. The particles approaching one another
represent increasing particle density (the number of particles in a
volume of space). The other half of the particles, receding from one
another, represent decreasing particle density. Where we started with a
uniform distribution of particle positions, and uniform particle
density, we quickly arrive at a non-uniform distribution of particle
density. And modern science tells us that across such a non- uniformity
there must be a flow of energy--i.e. light! In other words, the first
thing that has to appear after the initial creation of the universe is
light--long before any stars or galaxies could form.
Again Genesis emphatically agrees! After the creation of the
universe the first thing created in the universe was light. And Genesis
is clear that light came before any stars or galaxies were
formed--which is what modern science also requires. Genesis has
described a black-body universe, a formless void of darkness. Any
departure whatsoever from that black-body state would have to produce
light--Heb., AUR radiation, radiance. Thus light (or radiation) most
certainly had to precede the formation of any stars or galaxies, as
Genesis says it did.
By ascribing no special velocities to the particles initially,
Genesis allows that many of those approaching one another could come
close enough for gravitational forces to alter their velocities. In
that way they could collect into non-uniformities--ultimately to be
seen as stars and galaxies. All of this follows from ascribing no
special positions and no special velocities to "the spaces and the
mass" created initially. Also by ascribing no special distribution to
begin with, there was maximum uniformity (a black body) to begin with,
therefore if stars and galaxies formed they too would have to be
distributed uniformly throughout unbounded space.
The creation of an initially uniform random distribution of
particles and particle velocities, it should be understood, is only one
possible interpretation of the first and second verses of Genesis,
albeit the most natural one. Other interpretations more in line with
"Big Bang" theory are also possible-- as Bishop Grosseteste affirms.
But there is no question that Genesis recognizes the fundamental
scientific principle that, whatever the beginning, light (Heb. AUR
"radiation, radiance") had to come long before any stars or galaxies
could have formed. The realization that light had to precede all the
formation of any luminaries (stars, galaxies, the sun, &c.) is stunning
confirmation that there is a profound knowledge of physical science
behind the Genesis narrative.
Assuming that the natural interpretation of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is
correct, then the "half-universe" of particles that were initially
approaching one another is now our "whole" universe. There may be "out
there" the other "half- universe" by now very thin and tenuous, far
removed from this universe, and perhaps impossible to detect. We do,
however, detect energy from something out there. We appear to be at the
center of a sphere of radiation some 17 billion light years from us in
all directions.
It is called "background radiation" and Big Bang theory attributes
it to residue from the Big Bang. But that doesn't explain why the
radiation comes to us from a sphere that is 34 billion light-years in
diameter, with us at its center! To explain that you have to turn to
modern "Inflationary Theory" which says that in the first 10^-33 second
the universe inflated to the 34 billion light-year size, and then
settled down to its relatively snail-paced expansion. But let's not get
into Inflationary Theories, elegant though they are! Big Bang theory
along the lines described by Bishop Grosseteste six hundred years ago
were revived by an extrapolation of Einstein's general relativity
equation. Inflationary theory is something else again--as is Genesis'
cosmology.
If the radiation that comes to us from a sphere 17 billion
light-years away is the other "half-universe" we can conclude that the
whole universe is now at least 17 billion years old. During that time
this half-universe went through its minimum volume, and a kind of "mini
big bang, " and has been expanding ever since. There is no question
that in a universe of "spaces and mass" in random, there has to come a
time when any two independently moving masses have to have passed their
closest approach and must thereafter be receding from one another. It
is to be expected, therefore, that if sufficient time has passed, and
galaxies are now separated sufficiently to be independent of
gravitational interaction, every galaxy must now be receding from every
other galaxy, and this our galactic half-universe has to be expanding.
That is the state that is now observed. Sufficient time having
passed it could hardly be otherwise. Not only that, but if enough time
has passed, galaxies receding from us at the fastest rate must now be
at the greatest distance from us. And eventually that has to be true
for every galaxy in the universe! Intelligent life in any galaxy must
observe all other galaxies receding, and those receding fastest must be
at the greatest distance from the observing galaxy. In that sense,
every galaxy sees itself at the center of the universe! That applies
also to the other "half-universe". If enough time has elapsed, every
galaxy must see itself at the center of the source of the so-called
"background radiation".
II The earth
With the appearance of light in the universe (Genesis 1:3) all
things became possible--the Day of the universe had dawned, and
everything prior to that is therefore called Night. After the formation
of the earth (which we are coming to) "Day" becomes (by analogy) the
name of the period of light on earth, and Night the name of the period
of darkness on earth. In Genesis 1:4 however, Day is the name given to
the dawn of the "life" of the universe which had come out from the
darkness of primeval chaos, rising up from the dark formless void of
initial uniformity.
Due to gravity, particles formed stars, and stars formed galaxies,
and in due course the galaxies inevitably receded from one another,
expanding the universe. And Genesis 1:6 says "Elohim said there will be
an expansion in the midst of the flowings and there will be separation,
flowings to flowings." The picture is one of flowing particles forming
stars, and flowing stars forming flowing galaxies, and the flowing
galaxies separating from one another.
We are then told (Genesis 1:7) that a great expanse separated the
flowings (or galaxies) "above" from the flowings (of a galaxy) "below".
God has put a vast expanse between the flowings of this galaxy "below"
and all the other galaxies "above", and He calls that vast expanse "the
skies" or "the heavens".
We have now focused in on "home"--on the flowings that form this
galaxy we call the Milky Way, and on the flowings that formed the
proto-solar-system. So finally we arrive at the creation of the planets
of our solar system in Genesis 1:9: "And Elohim said the flowings will
gather from under the heavens toward a place each and the solid will be
seen."
The solids, the "non--flowing," were of course the planets of our
solar system solidifying out of the flowings of a proto-solar-system.
The King James Version calls the flowings "waters" and the planets "the
dry", and then has to infer the word "land"--all of which is made
necessary by the glaring error in Genesis 1:1 which has the earth
already formed, and then not formed in vs. 2!
At last we come to the Earth herself in Genesis 1:10 when, "Elohim
gave the name Earth to a solid and the name Waters to her collected
flowings." In ten short verses Genesis has summarized the cosmology of
the universe and the solar system!
The narrative goes on to describe how the earth generated organic
life, and caused organic life forms to evolve into their various kinds,
until the direct creation of mankind, male and female (Genesis 1:27).
It is to be noted that Genesis ascribes the initial appearance of life
to the earth, not to a direct act of creation by God. According to
Genesis, God created a world in which the appearance of life was
inevitable, and life appeared naturally as "greening" to begin with.
Genesis also insists that all forms of life evolved naturally and
inevitably with no direct act of creation necessary along the way until
the creation of the verbal life form we call man (male and female).
That utterly destroys the Darwinian theory of evolution, in which
natural evolution is a creative force. But to understand that it is
necessary to understand the Biblical first and second laws.
The Biblical first law is that a knowing ("personal") Creator is
essential to creation and creativity. The second law is then the
obvious corollary that --without the guidance of a knowing Creator all
changes are destructive rather than creative. In other words, all
purely natural events are in the direction of a return to the darkness
and formless void of Gen. 1:2. A special case of the Biblical second
law, as it applies to energy "in a closed system", is known as the
second law of thermodynamics, which says that all natural events tend
to increase entropy.
The Biblical counterpart of the second law of thermodynamics is that
"in any complete system" natural events are always destructive. An
example would be organic life viewed as "a complete system, " in which
case organic life forms evolve naturally in the direction of
self-annihilation. Natural evolution is then driven by the need to
destroy! Organic life forms must naturally become more efficient at
consuming organic life forms and their environment until they
ultimately annihilate themselves.
But organic life forms in order to become better at consuming
organic life forms and their environment, will develop greater
complexity and diversity to accomplish that end. That means that an
organic life form is forced to take in available energy (it comes from
the sun) in order to lower its own entropy, because that dissipates
available energy and it will accelerate the OVERALL destructiveness of
natural evolution. And because that is the Biblical second law, the
Bible predicts ultimate annihilation, without the intervention of a
knowing Creator!
III Epilogue
Biblical prophecy told us that there would be an apocalypse (i.e. a
revelation) which would threaten the destruction of the world (i.e. of
civilization) at the end of the age. The "age" that the Bible deals
with is primarily the six days of labor of "the holy people" to find a
social system with peace and justice for all. In the Bible "the holy
people" are of course, God's people, descended physically from Adam,
through Shem, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and spiritually (i.e. by
words) descended from God through His Son our Lord Jesus Christ.
The commandment that the holy people should labor six days and rest
on the seventh day is familiar enough, but when Peter was speaking of
the time of the end, and the return of Christ he warned: "be not
ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." That and its parallel
in the Old Testament (Ps. 90:4) is where the period of six thousand
years of labor comes from.
The period began with the founding of the first nation the Adamic
Kingdom. To place that, requires an analysis of the chronology of the
Bible, the best of which was done some three hundred years ago by
Archbishop Ussher. By one of those little miracles of history Ussher's
chronology survived because some unknown agency got it inserted into
the reference edition of the original King James Version of the Bible
in English.
As a chronology of the Bible it is unsurpassed, but relating it to
various scientific chronologies of history has been more difficult--the
scientific chronologies change radically almost once a decade. Then
carbon dating seemed to suddenly confirm Ussher--and Zondervan
Publishers issued and sold barrels of mew Bibles with Ussher's
chronology. But Egyptologists were unhappy because it disagreed with
their current scientific chronology and Libby was prevailed upon to
change his carbon calibration to agree with Egyptology.
But Egyptologists were and are absurdly mistaken in their basic
premise-- that the Egyptians had a 365-day calendar that continued
without revision or interference for three thousand years That is
really too naive to be taken seriously. Consequently Ussher is much
more reliable. His only discrepancy is a mere four and a half year
error in placing the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which makes Ussher's
dates prior to Neb. four or five years off. Ussher placed the epoch of
Adam (the founding of the Adamic Kingdom) at 4004 B.C. Correcting his
date for Neb. the Epoch is the year 4000 B.C.
We know from the Bible that before the Exodus the calendar was tied
to the Autumnal Equinox--and the date changed at midnight (not sundown
as later). The calendar epoch for the founding of the first dynastic
civilization on earth-- the Adamic Kingdom--was thus Midnight of 23
Sept. (Greg) in 4000 B.C. Man's struggle to find a just social order
began with Adam's founding of the first physical kingdom and nation on
earth. Many like it have been founded and perished in the same quest
ever since.
But Jesus Christ pointed a new direction. The Kingdom of Jesus
Christ is not a physical kingdom, it is a spiritual kingdom. Jesus
founded the first spiritual kingdom on the face of the earth--which
also has had many would-be imitators. But because Adam founded the
first physical kingdom he is called the first man, and because Jesus
founded the first spiritual kingdom He is called the second man [1 Cor.
15:45-47].
That of course, does not mean that Adam was the first of the human
species on earth, nor that Jesus was only the second member of the
human species on earth. The early Christians and Jews, as represented
by Paul (who was a Jew who became Christian), were obviously better
informed and had a better understanding of the Bible than that! As best
we can tell, the human species, homo sapiens, was around for fifty to a
hundred thousand years before the first man Adam was born, and 3996
thousand more years before the second man Jesus, was born.
Since our Lord was born in 4 B.C. (the night of 3 October [Greg.],
when Jerusalem and Bethlehem were crowded for the Feast of
Tabernacles), His birth marked the end of the first "six days" of
labor, where each "day" was 666 years --6 being the symbol of labor in
Biblical symbolism. He thus ushered in day 7 the seventh 666-year
"day", beginning a 666-year "day" of rest. In Biblical symbolism 7
symbolizes Divine intervention--thus a day of rest--just as 6
symbolizes labor or "works".
The beginning of the seventh day, the day of rest--should, then,
usher in a thousand years of peace on earth (for the "holy
people")--beginning at the Autumnal Equinox (23 Sept.) in 2001 A.D.,
just six thousand years after the quest began. But also because our
Lord was born 3 October in 4 B.C., therefore 5 October in 2001 A.D.
ends the third 666-year "day" from His birth, and ends day 9, the ninth
666-year "day" from the epoch of Adam. And in Biblical symbolism the
number 9 symbolizes "judgment". The 666-year "day of judgment" thus
began in 1335 A.D. and will end in 2001 A.D.
F. Sutherland ("Suds") Macklem