COSMOLOGY IN GENESIS 1
(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. A transliteration table is given
in my annotated translation of Genesis 1-3 in the file GENESI.1-3 in DL 9.)
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 antic-
ipating 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 material-
izing. 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 infinit-
esimal 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 interpret-
ation 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 recog-
nizes 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 cor-
rect,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 inevit-
ably 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 under-
standing 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 sym-
bolism the number 9 symbolizes "judgment". The 666-year "day of judgment"
thus began in 1335 A.D. and will end in 2001 A.D.