Skip to main content

Genesis Creation Story is Scientifically Accurate


Perspective and Context

Genesis 1 describes only the creation of elements a human would be familiar with: The heavens (night sky – sun/moon/stars), the atmosphere (blue sky), the land, the plants, the animals, and humans of course.

For many centuries this depiction of the earth's creation was the only source available. Because the context of the story is unclear, interpretations of this description depended solely on humanity's best estimations as to what's being described. Many of these centuries-old interpretations are still believed today. However, over the past century or so, and especially in recent decades, science for the first time in human history has really begun to reveal the geological formation of the earth and the biological formation of life, giving us a glimpse of how it all really came together.

With the understanding that it's told on a human level, while keeping in mind the point of view established in the second verse as being 'from the surface', re-reading the Genesis creation story set against the context of our modern scientific understanding reveals incredible insight.

Day 1 - Heavens, Earth, Oceans, Light


Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Verse 1 sums up everything that happened prior to the more detailed account to follow by simply saying God created the heavens and the earth ‘in the beginning’. The big bang that kicked off the formation of the ‘heavens’ is estimated to have happened roughly 13.7 billion years ago, and the earth first began to form about 4.567 billion years ago. So, beyond the first verse, the creation account begins at least 9 billion years along in the process with both the heavens and the earth already in existence.

Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

While the original intention of the creation story was obviously not to prove itself accurate or legitimate, the second verse provides just enough detail to locate a starting point in Earth’s history.

Verse 2 establishes both the setting (the state of the earth at that time) as well as the point-of-view from which creation is described. The setting is the earth, formless and void, with oceans already in existence, shrouded in darkness. This describes the earth’s state around 4 billion years ago during the latter part of the Hadean Eon (4.57 to 3.8 mya). Scientifically, it’s certain the oceans existed by the end of the Hadean. Some believe they may have existed as early as 4.2 bya. They formed when the earth’s first atmosphere of mainly nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor blocked out the sun enough to allow the earth’s surface to cool and harden. The cooler temperatures then allowed the water vapor to condense, which formed the oceans. So for a time, as the water vapor in the atmosphere condensed and filled the oceans, the earth matched the description given in verse 2.

Genesis 1: 3-4 - And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Eventually, as the water vapor in the atmosphere condensed, the sun began to peak through to the surface for the first time since there was a surface to shine on. From a surface perspective, where before it was dark all the time, now there were both day and night. This was a significant moment in Earth’s history as the sun has continued to shine on the surface from that first moment on.

Genesis 1: 5 - And the evening and the morning were the first day.

From this point forward the earth entered a new age of day and night.

Day 2 - Oxygenated Atmosphere


Genesis 1: 6-8 - And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The mention of light in verse 5 proves relevant because it's a crucial ingredient for every event to follow. It's necessary not only to establish the earth's water cycle, but also as an ingredient for photosynthesis.

About 300 million years into the Archaen Eon (3.8 to 2.5 bya), single-celled organisms first began to appear in the oceans, or ‘midst of the waters’. Among these organisms were oxygen-producing bacteria known as Cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. These were aquatic photosynthetic organisms, meaning they required both the oceans and sunlight to produce oxygen.

Over the course of a billion years these organisms had become so prolific in the oceans, and had flooded the seas with so much oxygen, that they managed to suffocate all non-oxygen breathing organisms in the sea. This event is referred to as The Great Oxidation Event, or Oxygen Catastrophe (about 2.4bya). Oxygen had also been escaping the seas and working its way into the air. This was the beginning of the Earth’s second atmosphere. The same oxygenated atmosphere we know and breathe today. In other words, this was the creation of the atmosphere relevant to humans.

And the evening and the morning were the second day. The age of an Earth with an oxygenated atmosphere and a water cycle.

Day 3 - Land

Artist's conception of the supercontinent Rodinia. "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place ..."

Artist's conception of the supercontinent Rodinia. "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place ..."

Genesis 1:9-10 - And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.

The continents as we know them today began to form around the same time as the Great Oxidation Event, around 2.5 billion years ago at the beginning of the Proterozoic eon (2500 to 542 mya). There was continental crust that formed prior to this, roughly 4 billion years ago, but all that’s left of these are 'Cratons', which make up the core that today’s continents, the continents relevant to humans, formed around.

The majority of total continental land mass in existence today had formed by 1.1 billion years ago. The land masses were bunched together, which formed a supercontinent known as Rodinia. During this time the continents were positioned around the equator between the Earth's poles much like they are today. About 825 million years later, or 275 million years ago, the continents again were bunched together around the equator between the poles, forming the supercontinent Pangea.


However, in the time between Rodinia and Pangea, all of the Earth's continental land mass drifted all the way down to the south pole and back. While still positioned underneath the planet, about 650 million years ago, 70% of all single-celled life in the seas died, most likely due to much colder temperatures as they lived on the continental shelves of the drifting land masses. As the continents began to work their way back up north, something remarkable happened...

The Phanerozoic Eon and the Cambrian Explosion


The most extraordinary event to happen during the formation of life on this planet happened somewhere around 542 million years ago as the continents began their trek back north. It is commonly referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, which marks the beginning of the Phanerozoic eon (542 mya to Present). Somewhere in this timeframe, where every form of life that came before was always a single-celled organism, life made a significant evolutionary leap forward as the first multi-celled organisms began to appear. These more complex organisms ultimately proved to be the beginnings of most major plant and animal groups to come.

Day 3 - Plantlife


Genesis 1:11-13 - And God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Following the Cambrian Explosion, the first life form to make its way onto land was plant life. They first began to leave the sea and grow on land at some point during the Ordovician Period (488.3 to 443.7 mya), the period immediately following Cambrian, which is where the Cambrian Explosion gets its name. By the end of the Devonian Period (416 to 359.2 mya) the first forests were forming. During the Mississippian Epoch (359.2 to 318.1 mya), the first half of the Caroboniferous Period (359.2 to 299 mya), large primitive trees appeared and there were full blown forrests consisting of ferns, club mosses, horsetails, and gymnosperms.

For 3 billion years aquatic photosynthetic plant life flooded the seas with oxygen to the point that oxygen began to work its way out of the water and into the air. Plant life uses the suns rays to split hydrogen from oxygen in water molecules. The hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide forming glucose which is absorbed into the plant's makeup while the oxygen is released as a waste product.

Once plant life emerged on land, now being in direct contact with the atmosphere, the process was greatly sped up. Over time the earth's atmosphere changed from translucent to transparent as it is today as plant life on land continued to thrive. Before, daylight from the surface was the lit up dome of the sky, like a perpetual overcast day. As the atmosphere became more and more transparent, heavenly bodies that could not have been made out before from the surface eventually became visible.

And the evening and the morning were the third day, third age. The age of land with plant life.

Day 4 - Sun, Moon, and Stars Set in Firmament


Genesis 1: 14-19 - And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"; and it was so. And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Here the 'from the surface' point of view established in verse 2 is important. As stated above, while the Cambrian Explosion was happening in the seas, the continents were just beginning to creep back up north out of the deep southern hemisphere. While the land was underneath the planet the days would have been roughly six months long, followed by six months of night, the moon would be visible about half of each month, and the stars in the night sky would just pivot around the south pole.

Over the next 300 million years, as plant life made its way onto land and thrived, not only did the sun, moon, and stars become visible as the atmosphere transitioned from translucent to transparent, the continents continued to drift back up to the side of the planet as they are today. From the perspective of someone standing on land, this moving of the continents would literally position the sun, the moon, and the stars in the sky so they could be used for the purposes Genesis stated. They provide light for the day and the night, and they can be used for signs and seasons, and to track days and years. Once the continents moved back up to the equator they've remained there ever since.


Doesn't it say the sun didn't exist until after plant life?

Verse 16 tends to confuse matters for many. It states directly that God made the sun, the moon, and the stars. Because this is stated during the day 4 portion of creation it's read by many to mean the sun, moon, and stars didn't exist until day 4, one day after plant life on land and three days after God defined light as day and dark as night.

However, verse 1 states that God created the heavens "in the beginning". In the age the bible was written, when people spoke of the heavens they were speaking of the heavenly bodies; the sun, the moon, and the stars. When God said "Let there be light" in verse 3, verse 2 makes it clear He was speaking from the perspective of the surface when it says "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters". While the surface has been lit by the sun for roughly 4 billion years, the sun, the moon, and stars have only been visible in the sky for maybe 400-500 million years. Before they were visible, they were not spoken about specifically. Once they were, Genesis simply states a fact, God made these as well and states for what purpose.

The sun, moon, and stars becoming visible and the continents moving to be situated between the poles of the planet proved to be a vitally important development for the animal life to come.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day, or age. An age of 24 hour days of both sun light and darkness for land inhabitants.

Day 5 - Life From the Sea Through Birds


Genesis 1: 20-23 - And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth." And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Keeping in mind God's spirit was on the surface, and that the point of view is from the land as evidenced by the sun, moon, and stars being positioned on day 4, it becomes obvious that God's declaration to, "Let the waters bring forth..." means He called life to come from the sea onto the land.

Vertebrates first made their debut on land during the Carboniferous Period (359.2 to 299 mya). By this period there were already forests of plant life on land, including large primitive trees, and the continents were already well across the equator.

Beyond the point of view already established, the real clue here is God's call for birds in the same verses as life from the sea. The assumption has always been that these verses are specifically talking about sea life. Here God calls for 'moving creatures that hath life' and birds. We know birds didn't remain in the sea, so why would we assume everything else did? Only now do we really know better. Birds, along with everything else, did actually originate in the sea.

We're all but certain birds evolved directly from dinosaurs. In fact, all amniotic creatures are categorized this way; sauropsids, which are reptiles and birds, and synapsids, which are mammals and mammal-like reptiles. There is a direct line of evolution that can be seen from the first land vertebrates, to reptiles, to dinosaurs, to birds.

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day, or age. The age of life on land and birds in the air.

Why aren't there dinosaurs in the Bible?


When the events of 'day 5' are read in this context something really interesting can be seen in verse 21. In the above translation it says, "God created great whales and every living creature that moveth...". In other translations, instead of stating God created 'great whales', it sometimes says 'great sea animals' (CEB), or 'giant sea monsters' (CEV).

The actual Hebrew words used here that are translated so many different ways are 'e-thninm', which means 'the monsters', and 'e-gdlim', which means 'the great ones'. We now know that between the debut of vertebrates on land and the appearance of birds there were numerous creatures that much more aptly fit these descriptions than 'great whales' .... namely dinosaurs.

Considering the intended audience at the time Genesis was written would have no knowledge of dinosaurs it's unlikely they are what it was speaking of. It's more likely that these descriptions refer to large reptiles or other large non-mammal creatures familiar to people in this age. However, if there were to be any mention of dinosaurs anywhere in the bible, it would be right here.

Day 6 - Living Creatures from the Land


Genesis 1: 24-25 - And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was good.

Here that dividing line mentioned above between sauropsids and synapsids begins to take on a whole new context. In verse 24 God calls for the 'earth' to bring forth specific kinds of creatures. Knowing that life had already made its way onto land during 'day 4', there would be plenty of living material to use.

The first mammals appeared way back during the end of the Triassic Period (251 to 199.6 mya), most likely evolving from synapsid reptiles (see proto-mammals). All throughout the Jurassic Period (199.6 to 145.5 mya) mammals continued to etch out an existence in terrain dominated by dinosaurs, but grew no larger than a small rodent. But once the dinosaurs were out of the way by the end of the Cretaceous Period (145.5 to 65.5 mya) mammals really began to thrive as placental mammals, and then modern mammals, developed all throughout the Paleogene Period (65.5 to 23.03 mya).

Day 6 - Humans


Genesis 1: 26-28 - And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

While it is clear that humans are mammals, the lineage between chimpanzees and early humans of the Homo genus are relatively unknown. The first mammals to begin to take on the 'image' and 'likeness' of modern humans were bipedal hominins who walked on two legs. These beings first showed up about six million years ago. It is not known at this time if these hominins are direct anscestors of modern humans or not.

God gave humans very specific instructions according to Genesis. Each subsequent species of early humans progressively exhibited physical traits that more resembled the 'image' and 'likeness' of modern humans and behaviors that realized the instructions given; fill the earth, subdue the earth, establish dominion over all the living creatures of the earth. This is exactly what early humans did, throughout the course of many generations and many different species.

Homo Habilis first appeared during the early portion of the Pleistocene Epoch (2.58 mya to 11,400 years ago), marking the beginning of the Stone Age as they were the first species to use stone tools. Pleistocene is most well known for being the Epoch where megafauna existed; mammoths, sabre-toothed cats, dire wolves.... When the dinosaurs were taken out by the seemingly selective K-T mass extinction (65.5 mya), mammals enjoyed dominance in the animal kingdom and eventually grew to exceptional sizes. While Homo Habilis exhibited increased mental capabilities in forging and using tools, they proved to be no match for the dominant megafauna, as fecal evidence shows they were a fairly regular diet for large cats known as dinofelis.

About 300,000 years into the Stone Age, a new species called Homo Erectus showed up in the same region where most species of the Homo genus appear to have originated, the Great Rift Valley in East Africa. Homo Erectus were very similar to modern humans in their skeletal build, the trait which earned them their name. They also proved to exhibit a natural 'will' to migrate over long distances mirroring God's command to 'fill' and 'subdue' the earth as this went a long way towards establishing humanity's existence in the natural world. Many also believe this to be the species where early humans lost a majority of their body hair and developed the ability to sweat. Traits that would definitely prove beneficial for long trips on foot.

According to DNA evidence, both Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals appear to have evolved from a species known as Homo Heidelbergensis, who also migrated great distances. Neanderthals first showed up in Europe about 400,000 years ago. This is where early humans really began to establish their dominance in the animal world as Neanderthals only appear to have really done one thing, and they did it really well, they hunted megafauna. Homo Sapiens, who appeared around 200,000 years ago in East Africa, were also skilled hunters who preyed on megafauna, and who ultimately proved to be too much for Neanderthals as they literally pushed them out of existence within about 30,000 years.

From the moment Homo Sapiens first appeared they migrated, they hunted, and they filled the earth, adapted to the various climates, and established dominance in the animal kingdom throughout Africa, Europe, Asia, and even Australia. They lived lives much like, and probably very much resembled, indigenous tribal cultures that still exist today. Namely the Aborigines of Australia and tribal cultures of central Africa.

In fact, every human alive today shares a common ancestor, a Homo Sapien woman, that lived roughly 160,000 years ago in East Africa. She is known as Mitochondrial Eve, a name inspired by Eve from Genesis. Her descendants continued to fill and subdue and dominate the terrain, spreading to North and South America when the sea level was low enough to expose the Bering Land Bridge that linked Eastern Asia to the other side of the world.

The First Farmers

"When major climate change took place after the last ice age (c. 11,000 BC), much of the earth became subject to long dry seasons. These conditions favored annual plants which die off in the long dry season, leaving a dormant seed or tuber. These plants tended to put more energy into producing seeds than into woody growth. An abundance of readily storable wild grains and pulses enabled hunter-gatherers in some areas to form the first settled villages at this time." -

So as a result of climate change, at the beginning of a series of dry seasons, the conditions made for abundant plant life that produced a lot of seeds, which led directly to the discovery of horticulture and the first human settlements.

Genesis 1: 29-31 - And God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat"; and it was so. And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

By 10,000 BC, all species of megafauna were extinct, and the planet was 'filled' by Homo Sapiens, the only remaining species of the Homo genus. About 2,000 years later, early humans first began to farm. Farming first appears to have begun in Mesopotamia, and then spread from there.

Verse 29 and 30 both depict God showing humans the 'green herbs' and 'fruit trees' He provided for both the animals and humans to eat, but for the humans only He specifically spoke of the herbs and fruit that bore seeds. Seeds that only humans would begin to use.

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day, the age of mammals and humans.


Using a more complete picture of earth's history provided by modern science, it can now be seen that the creation account in the Book of Genesis is much more accurate than many have given it credit for. Many of the things detailed throughout this article have only been determined in the past few decades.

It is unknown just how old the Books of Moses really are. Scholars estimate it's original inception, based on a study of the text as it was around 200 BC when the oldest surviving copies were made, was probably during the kingdoms of Judah and Israel no earlier than 950 BC. Others say they were written by Moses around 3500 BC, though there's the logistical issue of Moses' death being written into the story. Tablets containing stories very similar thematically to stories in Genesis were written by the Sumerians of Mesopotamia as early as the end of the 3rd millennium BC.

In any case, the creation account in Genesis was written back when humans thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Without divine intervention in some form, it's hard to believe the scribes that wrote the creation account could have correctly listed 13 details and 6 major eras of earth's history in the correct chronological order....

Details in order: The heavens, earth, oceans, darkness, light, atmosphere/water cycle, land, plant life, position of sun/moon/stars, life from the sea, birds, mammals, and humans.

Major eras or 'days':

The 6 'Days' of Genesis

Day 1: Verses 1 through 5

Hadean Eon - Age when oceans formed and atmosphere became translucent

Day 2: Verses 6 through 8

Archaen Eon - Age when water cycle and oxygenated atmosphere were established

Day 3: Verses 9 through 13

Proterozoic Eon - Age when continents formed; Paleozoic Era - Plantlife on land

Day 4: Verses 14 through 19

Paleozoic Era - Age when atmosphere transitioned from translucent to transparent

Day 5: Verses 20 through 23

Mesozoic Era - Age when life from the sea thrived ultimately leading to birds

Day 6: Verses 24 through 31

Cenozoic Era - Age when modern mammals and humans developed


tt02 on August 03, 2017:

dang, @emmaspeaks, you are acting pretty childish and beligerent. who are you, and why do you feel you can be so rude. I am pretty stoked on what jeremy put together.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on February 23, 2017:

I think there's a danger there of formulating an ideal of what we might wish for God to be while losing who He actually is only really to appease ourselves. I don't see the God of the OT as being any different than the God of the NT. The situation changed, not God. Throughout the OT God was dealing with an element that He did not control. Everything in the natural world acts exactly according to God's will, but when He introduced free will into the world through Adam/Eve He introduced an element He did not have control of. We may find some of his actions as violent or negative, but this was simply what was necessary in that context. To realize Jesus, God had to be firm. He could not control, only influence behavior and actions. Once Jesus was created He could then step back. God basically had to create Jesus through his interactions with humanity though He had no control over their actions. The OT God used anything and everything to control human behavior to realize the outcome He (we) needed. He gave commandments, He threatened, He plagued, He struck people down in sight of others. This was all in the interest of influencing behavior to realize the birth of Jesus. Once that happened humanity then had a savior.

It's not that the OT God was vengeful or wrathful. He's a force of nature. Like gravity. Gravity doesn't do what it does out of revenge or wrath. It just is what it is. God is the same way. Our free will makes us 'unnatural'. We're like matter that doesn't behave according to natural law. Once we die, if we are not saved through Jesus, then we cannot move through to the other side because we are in an unnatural state. We are something that behaves not in accordance to God's will like everything else in the natural world, but of our own will.

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on February 23, 2017:

Let me add another idea. God, The Ideal, is good and does Not have negative human emotions. The God of the Old Testament (OT) is vengeful, wrathful, violent, killer, warrior. All stories depicting God/Ideal as violent or with negative emotions are blasphemy. Thus most OT stories about God are just plain wrong. We need to get away from OT/Bronze Age thinking and have a Good God, as described by Jesus. What do you think?

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on September 09, 2016:

Hey lone77star, long time no see. Anyone who says the Bible was meant to be "easy", I'm not sure where they'd get that from. And I find it very disappointing that organized religion tends to be so against re-evaluating things in the light of new knowledge, especially since one of its most influential forefathers, St. Augustine, specifically said how important it is.

"The interpretation of biblical passages should be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge". - St. Augustine

I'm not sure what a "PK" is.

Rod Martin Jr from Cebu, Philippines on September 09, 2016:

Well said, Headly. Being a PK has no bearing on logic or spiritual righteousness. My grandfather was a Southern Baptist Minister. Only one of his 3 children agreed with his viewpoint on the Bible.

Christ said that the path to salvation is narrow and difficult. Biblical literalists seem to forget this when they declare that the Bible was meant to be "easy" to interpret. Oops!

My book, "Watered Down Christianity," points out a number of things today's Christians seem to be missing. Foremost is the art of humility -- the ability to say, "I don't know everything and I can learn something new."

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on September 03, 2016:

Well I'm sorry to hear that, but physical evidence doesn't lie. 6000 years is the amount of time, roughly, that the bible chronicles, but that does not mean that's the entirety of the Earth's history. The idea that the Earth is 6000 years old is born of the idea that creation happened in 6 days, which isn't true.

Let me ask you this, in the creation account, doesn't God command life to populate the Earth through "being fruitful and multiplying"? Would that not take many generations to accomplish? And doesn't it take months for just one generation to come to term? So could this be accomplished during the course of day 4 or 5?

Just because some guys centuries ago translated the Hebrew text to say that each of these periods were 'days', that doesn't mean that's true. All the other clues indicate otherwise. We just have to recognize them. The word translated as 'day' is the same word they'd use to describe long periods of time, which is the much more likely conclusion.

I'm not meaning to offend anyone. I just want to challenge old ideas. Humans are the fallible element in this scenario, and a lot of what you and I were taught growing up are interpretations made by humans. It's our duty to use the brains God gave us and to not just swallow what other humans tell us is true.

Joy on September 03, 2016:

As a pastors kid, I find this article very offensive. It seems to me like your trying to combine creation and evolution. The earth is only roughly about 6000 years old.....NOT billions of years old. You also mentioned in a comment that you dont alter the just strip pre-concieved ideas about what it says. If you dont know..the bible was written by people from back then. Technically your altering the bible taking parts from it. Also, are you saying that creation and evolution have lots in common?? Because if you are...thats really funny!! Creation and evolution are like total opposites. Not impressed by this article....seriously found it offensive!!!!!

Rod Martin Jr from Cebu, Philippines on July 27, 2014:

Headly, this is fascinating and likely entirely wrong. I don't mean that in a bad way. Three or four years ago, I might have agreed with it all. But we all keep learning -- some more than others. I see some commenters, here, who seemed to have taken a break from learning (their arrogance is thick).

I find your dialog on the topic refreshing.

In my own research, I discovered what might be called the "mechanics of creation." Powerful stuff -- bending and breaking physical law at will. One key thing I learned from it is that "resting" or "allowing," as in God's 7th day, is what gave us time. This is where persistence is added to the template or blueprint that was the first "6 days." So, from my own viewpoint, Genesis 1 was all about planning, not building.

And now, I have to take all that I've learned and put it on hold, because now I'm finding out that I've been wrong, too -- at least partially. Genesis and the other 4 books of the Pentateuch were written in code by Kabbalists. So, just about everyone has it all wrong (including me).

You say you strip away pre-conceived ideas. I love it. But there might be many layers to strip away. I've had to rethink my own "beliefs" many times. It's getting more and more fun being found to be wrong, because it feeds a growing hunger to learn more.

If you're interested, the following short film is a real mind-blast. It's by the same people who wrote the Bible in code -- Kabbalists (not the New Age wannabees, but the authentic wisdom).

Thanks for writing such an entertaining and enlightening article. And thanks for your cool-headed response to the know-it-alls with fangs. Nicely done.

God is love. And your kindliness approaches that quality very nicely. Keep up the good work.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on June 18, 2014:

I don't alter the bible. I just strip away pre-conceived ideas about what it says and read what it actually says against reality. There'd be nothing for me to say if it didn't match up so well. It's not like I could twist Alice in Wonderland to make it seem accurate. The accuracy has to be there for me to even have a leg to stand on. And clearly I do.

Rad Man on June 18, 2014:

Hey, Headly. I was just pushed to read a little about White Hole Cosmology. A creationist theory that the earth is actually near or at the centre of the universe and was in the beginning inside a black hole and everything outside the solar system was aging much much fast giving us an old universe in 6000 earth years. What make you right and they wrong? It seems they have taken a different approach, that don't change the bible they change reality to conform to the bible. You alter the bible to conform to reality. Thoughts?

Tom on April 11, 2014:

(First, I should clarify that some versions may read ‘asah’ though they are given the same number in Strong’s Concordance so it is a variant or shortening of way-ya-‘aś. This will be very important later.) This was a part of your theory that troubled me to begin with since it seemed strange to repeat the creation of heaven (Genesis 1:1) so much later. However if way-ya-‘aś follows the trend set by 1:7 then we should have no problem of this being a reference back to 1:1, a kind of ‘Remember when I made the heavens? This is what they were for.’ It’s also important to note that the original Hebrew has no additional verb for ‘made’ in ‘He also made the stars’ and would be more accurately translated as ‘God made (call back to 1:1) two great lights… also the stars.’

Genesis 1:25 confirms my theory of way-ya-‘aś since it is literally used to repeat 1:24 (although that has its own creation verb that needs to be discussed).

Genesis 1:24 'And God said, “Let the land produce (tō•w•ṣê) living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.'

Genesis 1:25 'God made (way-ya-‘aś) the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.'

We now need to deal with the problem of grounding the beginning of the creation of life in Genesis 1:20 which uses ‘yiš•rə•ṣū’ (“Let the water bring forth abundantly (yiš•rə•ṣū) living creatures”). And it turns out to be simple enough.

Yiš•rə•ṣū shares a concordance entry (is the variant of) the far more commonly used haš•šō•rêṣ and, indeed, yiš•rə•ṣū is only used this one time in 1:20. Haš•šō•rêṣ is never used to describe an actual creation, like bara is, only to describe the action of ‘creeping things’, including 4 times in Leviticus. So its use here can only be to describe the movement, the ‘teeming’, of the abundant life of the water as it is brought forth during the Cambrian explosion. It becomes a dynamic verb or perhaps an adverb.

Next, the use of ‘asah’ returns in a very exciting way! I worried at first over way•yiḇ•rā which is used twice, first in Genesis 1:21 and again in 1:27. My worry was because 1:21 referred to creation of Sea Creatures and 1:27 to the creation of Man in God’s image and since your theory has Adam and Eve as special creations, this might make sea creatures special creations as well. When I found out that ‘na•‘ă•śeh’ of 1:26 is a variant of ‘asah’ from before and thus just another occurrence of our old friend way-ya-‘aś we find a very different meaning.

First Genesis 1:26 which reads:

Genesis 1:26 'Then God said, “Let us make (na•‘ă•śeh) mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”'

Now has to read in light of way-ya-‘aś, used everywhere else to mean in reference to something that had come to pass. And indeed we find this in Genesis 1:26:

Genesis 1:25 'God made (way-ya-‘aś) the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.'

Which of course then means we have to read back to 1:24 where it describes the land producing living creatures, again reminding us of our need to define ‘towse’. Now with the definition of yiš•rə•ṣū as a description rather than an action and na•‘ă•śeh as way-ya-‘aś, we need to visit the implications on Genesis 1:27. I’m not too sure if this supports or opposes your present theory since the na•‘ă•śeh in 1:26 where God makes Man in his image is also synonymous with way-ya-‘aś and so wouldn’t necessarily be a special ‘new’ creation. I’ll leave you to decide how to best incorporate it into your theory, but if I made a suggestion it would be that in 1:27 they use the word ‘bara’ again which was used in 1:1 to describe creation ex nihilo. I understand this then to mean that Man in the image of God was the ‘telos’ of Creation, God did create (bara) Man out of nothing because Man was the final goal, so to speak. Aquinas’ analogy of an archer seems to fit here.

Finally we are left with a few last verbs unaccounted for. A final dusting for this very long analysis! The first is needed to justify the conclusions I just made, the definition of ‘towse’ from 1:24. You’re a sharp one so maybe you’ve already noticed it but towse from 1:24 is very, very similar to tadse from 1:11. Curious, I checked the concordance and sure enough they are simply variant spellings.

Of great interest here is that they both describe the land producing things:

Genesis 1:11 'Then God said, “Let the land produce (taḏ•šê) vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.’

Genesis 1:24 'And God said, “Let the land produce (tō•w•ṣê) living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.'

Now as you theorised about the land producing vegetation because the conditions were right and had to be right, and the authors would know this, I think the verb taḏ•šê in 1:11 sets a good precedence for 1:24, that the conditions were right at this time for animal life to begin on the land.

Finally, finally, the last two verses- Genesis 1:9 and 1:17 are left. 1:9 I find to be ambiguous as the ‘waters gathering into one place’ doesn’t seem like an act of creation so much as a movement. I know that this might attract attack on the premise, but if we remember that this has to contend with the creation of life and humans (originally thought to be spontaneous creation) and they have been shown lexically to be meant as developments over time, then I don’t see why we can’t interpret this to simply mean the waters gathered into one place.

1:17 is quite funny and is another example of the past tense. God made the Sun and Moon in 1:16, although we remember that this is another use of the call back language to 1:1 and so 1:17 is actually no more than describing where they were. Of course they couldn’t have at some time been somewhere else and nowhere in the text do we find indication of such a belief.

Extra notes: Definitions of ‘seed’ and ‘fruit’, like ‘cattle’ having much broader meanings in Hebrew, cattle for instance made up a large portion of those said to be on Noah’s ark but obviously there would still have only been two cows. The word for seed in Genesis 1:12 which I saw someone else giving you trouble for literally means ‘with descendants’ or which has the ability to produce children. Of course vegetation has always been able to do this and so there is no conflict.

Tom on April 11, 2014:

From the beginning of Genesis 1 to the end I will list all the creation verbs and then analyse them.

Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning God created (bara) Heaven and Earth'

Genesis 1:4 'God saw that the light was good, and he separated (vai•yav•del) the light from the darkness.'

Genesis 1:6 'And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate (badal) water from water.”'

Genesis 1:7 'So God made (way•ya•‘aś) the vault and separated (vai•yav•del) the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.'

Genesis 1:9 'And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered (yiq•qā•wū) to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.'

Genesis 1:11 'Then God said, “Let the land produce (taḏ•šê) vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

Genesis 1:16 'God made (way-ya-‘aś) two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.'

Genesis 1:17 'God set them (way•yit•tên) in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth'

Genesis 1:20 'And God said, “Let the water bring forth abundantly (yiš•rə•ṣū) living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”'

Genesis 1:21 'So God created (way•yiḇ•rā) the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.'

Genesis 1:24 'And God said, “Let the land produce (tō•w•ṣê) living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.'

Genesis 1:25 'God made (way-ya-‘aś) the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.'

Genesis 1:26 'Then God said, “Let us make (na•‘ă•śeh) mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”'

Genesis 1:27 'So God created (way•yiḇ•rā) mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created (bara) them; male and female he created (bara) them.'

A count of 14 creation verbs not including hayah and its variants may lead to scepticism about whether Genesis isn’t actually talking spontaneous creation (which would of course be unfavourable for your surface perspective theory), but I think a closer read reveals a lexis adamantly pointing towards your theory. I’ll go through them once again, clustering my points.

First we notice that several of these verses are using creation verbs in the past tense, referring to something that used hayah or another morpheme to indicate that it ‘came to be’ rather than being created already and then attributing that creation to God. We do this all the time today as well, owing our creation (birth) to God for starting the process but not meaning He literally intervened.

The word for ‘separated’ is used in three places, twice using way•yaḇ•dêl as a variant of the root ‘badal’- 914 in Strong’s Correspondence. Notice in all three uses of this verb, they come after a previous verb, in 1:4 and 1:6 this is ‘hayah’ again, so it’s referring back to ‘hayah’, came to pass, as the actual description and the ‘separation’ here is the consequence. In 1:3 Light comes to be (hayah) and the effect of this is that light was separated (vai•yav•del), not that He separated it Himself.

Again in Genesis 1:6 we have a previous act of creation (hayah) followed by the verb badal meaning to separate water from water, the consequence of the action. By the formation of a vault, naturally comes a separation. My theory here is supported by way•ya•‘aś in Genesis 1:7 which attributes the creation of the vault to God, which is nothing more than a recap of what has just happened- otherwise we would have to take it as a ‘second creation’ which is obviously not necessary.

Other examples of past tense creation verbs occur as well. One example that caught my attention was the thrice repeated way-ya-‘aś (Genesis 1:7, 1:16 and 1:25) which imparts some very interesting information.

We already covered way-ya-‘aś in Genesis 1:7 since it followed 1:6 as a consequence- but what does this mean for its next few uses?

Genesis 1:16 'God made (way-ya-‘aś) two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.’

Tom on April 11, 2014:

I have a couple of points to add to your excellent article Headly, which I think you'll find very interesting.

The Hebrew verb 'to create' - 'bara' - is only used three times in Genesis 1 and 5 times in the entire Bible. In Genesis 1 it is first used for 'God created (bara) the Heavens and the Earth which we have understood to mean a creation ex nihilo, something that could not have arisen naturally. However in the following days when more 'acts of creation' are being produced, bara is never used again until man and woman. Clearly we aren't supposed to take the next few days to mean ex nihilo:

Genesis 1:3 'Then God said "Let there be light" and there was light'

Here 'let there be' is one word- 'hayah', a verb. Strong's concordance defines it as something that 'comes to pass' and adds that this is always used emphatically, not as an auxiliary additional point. Interestingly it is used in Genesis just before this, such as in Genesis 1:2 'And the Earth was (hayah) without form and void', in this use of hayah we can see a repetition emerging. And the Earth was (hayah)... "Let there be (hayah) light"' Imagine if we swapped the English translation of 'let there be', so given since God was speaking with what it may have sounded like to the Hebrews, 'And God said "There was light"'

Hayah is used after this throughout the first chapter of Genesis, clearly being used to designate not something created by deliberate intention but something that simply came to pass. But it is used for most of the 'acts of creation' given, so I'll give them all here using brackets for every use of hayah.

I won't use the occasions where it doesn't specify creations, like in Genesis 1:5 'called night (and there was) evening (and there was) morning'. I will comment on the verses where hayah isn't the creation verb later.

Genesis 1:3 '(Let there be) light (and there was) light'

Genesis 1:6 'And God said "(Let there be) an expanse the midst"'

Genesis 1:6 'Let the midst of the waters (become) separate

Genesis 1:14 'said God (let there be) lights in the expanse'

So from hayah alone we know that these 4 events were things to come to pass. Let's examine the remainder.

Bino on March 26, 2014:

Loved the article!

Add Your Comment... on March 18, 2014:

Add Your Comment…

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on March 07, 2014:

Thank you, JRfromMilton, for reading and for sharing your thoughts. I read a little bit of Frederick's book on Amazon and can definitely see some similarities. I'm interested in going through it to see where we're the same and where we differ, but his explanation about the author only being able to tell the creation story from a perspective a human could contemplate is definitely on the right track in my mind.

Check out some of my other 'God Created Evolution' hubs that delve into Genesis 2-11 as well. That's where things get really interesting. The creation account just sets the stage.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on March 07, 2014:


A say something similar in my "God Created Evolution: Reconciling Science and God - A Project Overview" hub where I introduce the overall idea and link to the individual write-ups on each part. If what I'm pointing out is true, then it appears to be true that 'God created evolution'. That's a simple title that makes it apparent that this concept is about reconciling God and science, not picking or defending a side.

JRfromMilton on March 06, 2014:

I appreciate your effort to bring both science and Christianity together! I am a firm believer in both and feel that the two support one another if some traditional Bible interpretations are questioned. There is a new book called To Adam about Adam (author Jim Frederick) that also discusses the similarities between the Bible and science. He applies what is known in the science world to the Bible without adding anything to the science. Like you, he shows that the order of the Genesis 1 creations are similar to what scientists believe. Keep the conversations going!

Insane Mundane from Earth on March 04, 2014:

I know this is not my conversation, but I must make this remark about "gconeyhiden."

Your username is appalling unless it has God-given evolutionary justification.

If you are a true G (gangsta/gangster) that is hiding your last coney (beef hot dog topped with an all-meat beanless chili with diced or chopped white onions along with an ample amount of yellow mustard), then perhaps your username "gconeyhiden" is righteous.

Other than that, you are just blowing hot air towards the next sales pitch for a lone Coney Island Hot Dog that never sold! LMAO!

I'm sure that statement made perfect sense to at least somebody out there. You're welcome! :))

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on March 03, 2014:

Hi, This statement minus its reference to me should serve as your hubs introduction because it places your hub in its proper light , I do believe.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on February 23, 2014:


See, you and I really aren't so different. I agree with your "belief". In my view nature is a much more accurate reflection of God than anything humans have ever come up with, including religion. Given humans are the only things in all of existence capable of behaving contrary to God's will/natural law, we are the least accurate reflection. I see accuracy in the biblical accounts that appear to be telling the story of how modern humanity came into being. It marries up right along with the key events that shaped us and brought about civilization. It's the moment in history when humans stopped living in harmony with nature and began to "own" land and "own" slaves. It's when militaries were born. The story told at the beginning of the bible, when read against the context of the history of that region as we now understand it, explains this to be the result of a God who created everything in the universe introducing 'free will' into the world. A will capable of behaving contrary to 'mother nature'/instinct/predisposition/natural law/God. A will more acutely self-aware, that develops an ego, and begins to see the world around them not as something they're a part of, but something foreign that they are disconnected from.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on February 22, 2014:

Hi again, OK I appreciate your willingness under pressure to make such a disclaimer. I know its not easy to be a "Christian" who's also into science. See I consider myself truly a non-religious person because if you asked me my faith I'd probably say art, even though my parents were conformist Jews. My "belief" is that the knowledge of how symbiotic relationships work in nature should serve to guide humanity in finding a proper balance in our lives and how we as a species should relate to nature. It's very possible in the future this type of philosophy will take the place of certain aspects of traditional religion. I'm kind of hoping it does. take care, nuff said.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on February 18, 2014:


The title really bothers you doesn't it? The main title, "God Created Evolution" is the title I gave to the overall project. That in itself is not a claim I'm making and looking to prove. It's just a catchy title that I feel conveys my overall purpose in all of this, and that's to show that science and God are not mutually exclusive. That you don't have to let go of one to accept the other. That's all.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on February 17, 2014:

Headly, It is safe to say that you were overly ambitious in your claims for this hubs title. You should take a page from Socrates. Your last response doesnt at all prove your statements of GOD CREATED EVOLUTION or GENESIS is scientifically accurate. In truth its accuracy is quite limited due to its simplistic nature and language. I have no intention in trying to undermine whats important about Genesis, Im just not going to swallow extremely subjective perspectives that dont jive w your titles and the bold claims they make. We might agree on maybe 70% but then you go off and show little respect for scientific methods and how they arrive at there conclusions. What is wrong w asking the questions you yourself admit to not even knowingthe answers to? what sense does that make. Every time you respond you diminish somewhat from your orig. intention of your titles. Well if I didnt know what chasing a greased pig in slop feels like I sure do now. Sure, sure there is "history" in Genesis but that is NOT the issue. I really have NO idea and only can wonder and try and keep up w the latest discoveries about the true nature of the universe and this is why I rather ask questions, because I value the truth more then statements that parade as the truth.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on February 13, 2014:


First off ...

"bold statements not really supported by facts"

You and your question marks. I'm making a claim. A claim that I invite people to refute/criticize/critically analyze. How many claims do you know of are posed as a question?

So because insects aren't mentioned all the rest of this mess isn't worth the trouble? It's all wrong or it would have said insects? Nevermind the very direct line accurately describing the earth nearly 4 billion years before humans existed, it didn't mention insects, so....

To be clear, I'm not a religious person and I'm not trying to convert anyone to Christianity or anything else. I find this hugely relevant information about our human history in general. If this is accurate, or even half accurate, then Genesis is much more in line with history than most give it credit for or seem to realize. If this is accurate then what it's describing are the events that set the modern human world into motion. The creation account is just a small part of this. The meat of this claim has to do with Genesis 2-11. These events, using a timeline built from the ages given, accurately lines up with a 2000 year culture that lasted the same length of time as pre-flood Genesis, a flood in 4000BC that really did apparently bring an abrupt end to that 2000 year old culture, a climate change that really did disperse large numbers of people in all directions and really did happen roughly a century later, just in time for multiple burgeoning civilizations, each with their own unique language, to be there during the Abraham portion of the story.

This claim isn't religiously motivated. This claim is all about better understanding who we are and where we come from.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on February 13, 2014:

So God says let there be vegetation and fruiting trees and thats it? So heady you have NO problem w this verse as it is written? What about the insects for christ sakes. So what God created evolution without understanding what he created? Not mentioning insects here is a very important oversight. Then God created cattle and the beasts and all creepy things. I do believe this mistake is intentional given the man's dominion motif. Obviously wild beast were around long before humans first domesticated animals but this story comes from a time when farming and domestication are changing the face of the world and allowing for the birth of civilizations. Genesis is clearly rooted in the birth of agriculture and farming more so then the creation of the earth. In another verse God creates the sun and moon at the same time it seems but gives no indication of how different in nature they are but instead refers to them as a great light for day and a lesser light for night. God also creates the stars without any indication he knows that sun are stars. This kind of thing may somehow satisfy your personal search for what you call truth. So you ask me with great bravado..what you mean if I put a question mark after my statements then everything would be alright? Not that it matters to you, but asking the questions rather then making very bold statements is just a much more intellectually honest way to go. As you yourself said...according to my beliefs I will one daybe given the answers. The problem is I dont wantthem just given to me. I want to figure it out all by yourself for yourself. Given this rational how is it you insist on making bold statements not really supported by facts. The weight of your arguments support questions much more so then statements of facts. Funny how you claim to be unreligious because your technique is very religious in nature and NOT up to statements of fact. Just because you have the balls to make bold statements as facts doesnt prove anything other then you have the balls to make such statements. Proving your statements isanother story. By the way I never said that the Genesis story is worthless bunk as you seemed to suggest. See this is why I'm not crazy over religion and its views. Religion is constantly sacrificing truth and the meaning and value of language. Genesis is full of contradictions. Does a bear shit in the woods?

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on February 13, 2014:

Hahaha... the green rock in your crotch comment paints a picture that can't be unseen. So, first off, thanks for that.

Without actually going to look at it, I believe my quote regarding Genesis was that its author's purpose was not to prove itself legitimate or accurate to skeptics. As in, the purpose of the writing was not so the author could prove they knew history beyond what humanity could have possibly known. The point was simply to show that God created all of it, and it breaks it out to show in what order each element that humans are familiar with were created.

So, where that first 9 billion years or so are concerned, not really relevant to humans, especially of the bronze age. These were just the 'heavens', which it says were created 'in the beginning'. The detailed portion of the account doesn't start until verse 2, giving a specific description of the earth at that point. It wouldn't do much good to explain anything beyond the heavens as most bronze age people thought it was just a tin dome anyway. This text was written by humans from a human perspective. What's significant is that each thing they mention really did come in that order. So I don't mean to give the impression that this is a direct quote from God, or written by God. According to the story told after, God interacted directly with Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Enoch, etc. So, the idea here is that while the authors of Genesis didn't necessarily have to have an in depth knowledge of creation, it is possible, if God really did interact with their ancestors, that they could know things that humans of that age would not have known otherwise. Like the order each element they were familiar with was created.

While there are quite a few verses throughout the bible you could certainly make a case for as being 'vague', I'm not sure Gen1:2 is one of them ...

Gen1:2 - Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Just in this bit it tells us the earth was empty, covered in oceans, and shrouded in darkness. That's pretty specific. So specific in fact that if there had never been an age of the earth that didn't match what it says then this conversation would be over. Yet, there really is an age when the earth was just like that. Not only that, but this age does in fact come before light reached the surface, before the atmosphere and water cycle, before land, plants, animals, etc. So both in what it specifically describes, and chronologically, it's accurate according to the standard scientific model.

And I'm not sure the 'surface' point of view is a matter of 'convenience'. I mean, does it not directly say, "God was hovering over the waters" right before the line, "And God said, 'Let there be light'"? So, verse two says this is where God's spirit is, then verse three says he said, "Let there be light." Does that seem pretty direct to you? How else should this be read?

As for the days, again, this is from a bronze age human perspective. The word they use for 'day' also means 'age' or 'era'. It can be a 24 hour day, the 12 hours or so of daylight during a day, or an age of time. Or it could be that this does mean a day, but not consecutive days. Each age would begin with an evening and a morning. But the key here is that the authors and readers probably didn't understand the actual timeline. It's simply told in a way that makes sense to humans from any age. They're talking about the ancient past. Even we, in english, use 'day' the same way. It could mean an actual day, or a span of time in the past.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on February 13, 2014:

I'm back. Again, if you or anybody else thinks that Pseudo-scientific conclusions can have anything to say about whether or not God was involved either doesnt understand God, science or neither. That's your quote but I added the pre-fix pseudo to make it more relevent. Another wonderful "quote" of yours goes something like, I have hundreds of comments and not one has made any valid critical points to refute my position or something like that. Wow, your a tough nut to crack alright. As I prepare myself to confront the impregnable heady fortress of solitude I shave my head and tuck a small glowing green rock into my crotch in case this gets ugly beyond reason. So you say you want to know by what standard is this Genesis story incomplete? What important details have been left out. Let me start off by saying even if I do throw some substantial crap into your well oiled gears I dont really expect you to conceed I made any sense at all. I however do hold out some hope for your more unbiased readers. OK..Well to start off with the first 9 billion years or so not dignified by any real facts of timeline or detail. Fortunately the people who created the Genesis stories created it like a roll, it seems to repete itself as it unwinds so like a good illusion it's not easy pinning anything down in terms of it's detail, It's as "God" says, GOOD and gooey. This is exceptionally true of the first 9 billion years or so. In the beginning Genesis had little to offer. Then you make the statement that the Genesis stories were"obviously" NOT made to be accurate or legitimate. Really? I have serious doubts about the truth of this statement. Funny how you make my points for me. Question is which parts of Genesis are not accurate. But right here you admit to Genesis special effects in play. But then dispite this revealing confession you go on to play footloose with your interpretations but before you do you state that the second verse gives just enough detail to provide the creation story with a starting point. IN OTHER WORDS ITS VAGUE and lacking great detail. You seem to be admitting that fact with your statement. You go on explaining that for your hypothesis to work the reader must understand that the spirit of God on the waters means God is now viewing earth from its surface the way a mere mortal would. Really. How convenient for the story to work that way. Seems expediency is key to your understanding the seemingly endless contradictions offered up in Genesis. I do not think any serious case can be made that a day in Genesis was in fact a regular day. It seems to go out of it's way and actually explains more clearly then almost anything else that a day is made up of an evening and a morning. It says this every time a day is finished in Genesis. It even goes on to explain that the days and nights were meant to be signs, to keep the seasons and the years. They knew perfectly well what a day was when the Genesis stories were created. In Genesis as in other creation myths the idea that God had the power to create the universe in just days was surely intentional. Strangly enough some people still believe this is in fact true even today. So dont doubt that people believed it way back

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on February 13, 2014:

Hi, you sould read your responses to my objections. So much for false pretenses. So your NOT religious are you? The fact that you make a pseudo scientific exercise out of all this ending with such statements not questions clearly reveals your motives, Im just trying to destroy the illusion that you arrived at any conclusion by any real scientific method. When I get back to you here I will list my objections to your non scientific method. Oh by the way, I bet many of the Christian scientists you mention were scared to death of the Church and it's ill informed ways of dealing with ideas that were not adopted by their power structure. This is why Darwins work took years to reach the public. HE WAS SCARED of his fellow Christians.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on February 07, 2014:

Hi Cruella,

I understand that from your point of view what I'm saying can't possibly be true, so the mind naturally searches for reasoning behind what I'm doing here. I get it. So you make assumptions about me and try to understand why I would say these things. Though this is the first time it's been suggested I'm doing it for attention. If you knew me, you'd know how funny that is.

Initially I didn't talk to anybody about any of this, much less write and publish hubs about it. I've just been fascinated by life and science and the natural world and history for as long as I can remember. I just want to figure out how and why things work. It's not even something I consciously set out to do. I just do it. But I never talked to anyone about it, never shared my thoughts. This was for me. My own personal understanding.

But once one particular piece of the puzzle fell into place all these other things began to snap into place as well. All of the sudden I had this concept that lined up with everything I knew about science and ancient history and even the bible that seemed to me to be incredibly consistent. So I began to test it. Based on this as a hypothesis I set out to break it. To find proof that this isn't right. But all I kept finding was more data that supports it. Through this hypothesis I found that not only do all the dots seem to line up evidence wise, no matter what direction I go, but this hypothesis consistently offers more reasonable explanations to many of those still unanswered questions about the most formative phases of human history. And it was making predictions. Things I had no idea about when I first put it together. Things I found while trying to prove this false.

That's when I began to share it. That's why I write about it. I can find no fault with it. What I do find is a more reasoned explanation for the onset of modern humanity and civilization than anything I've read that's been posed. This isn't a religious endeavor for me. As I've said, I'm not a religious person. This is about sharing something I feel is important, not just to the religious, but to the entirety of humanity. Maybe I'm completely wrong. I seriously doubt it at this point, but I always keep my mind open.

I know people throughout the years have used the bible for personal gain, to remain in power, to control the masses, etc. I'm not arguing that. I don't trust human input as it's the most fallible element in the equation. That includes religious institutions in general. I stick to the facts. I treat the text as an ancient text of unknown age and authorship written in an ancient language from an ancient culture that we are far removed from. I don't doubt God, but I do doubt the human interpretation of Him. So I'm looking for the truth. I believe I've found spiritual truth. This is apart from that. I want to know and understand how, and why, everything works as it does. That's what drives me. According to my beliefs I will one day be given the answers. The problem is I don't want them just given to me. I want to figure it all out for myself. I can't help myself.

Cruella Dville on February 07, 2014:

Hi Headly,

I's reading John Hennessay's response to your Hub - the one that speaks of you having a Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis - I think he may have a valid point - the point being that from the perspective of thesis - he's on your side. Hennassay was also trying to encourage you to keep up your 'Good Works' by whatever 'Faith' has lead you to write this Hub. Hennessey is also able to see how a combination of thesis and counteract thesis would lead you to your conclusion - which form the basis and title of your Hub. I wouldn't put it quite so eloquently. There's just something unsavoury and odd about this particular Hub of yours - (I've not read your others) - something so unsavoury that it's got everyone ranting, raving and pointing the finger at you.

It's almost like you've tried to deploy a bit of reverse psychology (Science).

Did you write the Hub to enlighten and enrich the lives and minds of others about The Truth or did write the Hub to heighten your own anxieties and awkwardness towards The Truth?

You claim to be a Christian, but when the heat is on, you take a defeatist and defensive attitude and declare you're only human - a human in search of Truth - all in the same breath - (i.e.the same Hub).

JC himself said (I've paraphrased it - i.e. it's not the exact bible quotation, so the order maybe wrong) - JC said 'I Am the way, the truth and the life. No one gets to the Father except through the son”. So Traditional Christianity already has the truth, so what more truth is there for you to search for - unless - you don't actually believe that Christianity is the truth?

I think your sitting pretty on the fence and hiding behind Christianity.

You like what Science has to offer, you like what Christianity has to offer, you like what History has to offer but you also like what other world views are saying.

It’s not that long ago since God Created Evolution: The Genesis Creation Story Is Scientifically Accurate’ would have branded your views as religious heresy, or, would have earned you a place in the madhouse by the Scientists.

Today we have Hubs that can be used as an outlet for nonsense.

Infact I agree with GConey that THB is a book of "Creative Invention, Propaganda and History”. It continues to be so throughout many generations because it benefits the hierarchy of the ruling class or it benefits the rulers of this world. Each generation of rulers modifies the bible to suit themselves or updates it to represent the signs changing times and gives it a different name - i.e. The Bishops Bible, The Duoay Bible, The Geneva Bible, The Gideons Bible, The King James Bible, The King James Authorised Version Bible, The Tyndale Bible, The Wycliffe Bible etc, etc - and those are only the English bibles. That means there could be many more bibles with variations of The Creation Story written in other languages that never get considered.

King James VI - King of England and Ireland who later became King James I of the Union of England and Scotland (1566-1625) - who commissioned the printing of the KJV/KJAV bibles in 1603 respectively - since King James represents a growing line of 'monarchy' succession there's been little or no reason to alter the bible's state of existence. At the top end of the scale its all designed to control the masses and keep the monarchy in riches - or at the very least - the lower end of the scale - if the masses can't be controlled then a certain section of society 'will be controlled', and whoever rules the roost will benefit from immense servitude and loyalty from those controlled by this edict.

Again I agree with GConey that your Hub should have posed a question rather than imposed a statement. I can only assume you got the desired results - which was to demand attention. I also make GConey right when he says you need to more honest. I think you need to be more honest with yourself and get down from that fence.

It's a tough world out there when you 'don't belong'- a bit like 'the ugly duckling’ syndrome. However the ugly duckling did learn and grow and came to the eventual realisation that he wasn't a duck after all, just a misplaced swan - a lost soul - a lost soul that came to an ultimate conclusion and acknowledged himself and his place in the world by acknowledging The Truth - a lost soul that found its true calling - a lost soul that ensued its own nature. The ugly duckling was never a duck to begin with. The ugly duckling was in fact a beautiful swan. The ugly duckling was a swan in denial.

If you truly believed in the Accuracy of THB - or the Accuracy of The Genesis Creation Story and that God Created Evolution, you would not be writing a Hub - you would be challenging and championing the Faculties of Academic Disciplines - as these are the ones with the real powers of persuasion, the sovereignty to change, control and influence rationale - whether it's believed or not is irrelevant.

That is exactly where we are today.

KJV/KJAV bibles with old english and middle english text are more popular than modern english bibles because Church and State have convinced the masses that those bibles are more authentic than modern english bibles. People forget that whatever bible you use - it’s a translation, of a translation, of a translation, of a translation that is based on an interpretation of the original scriptures - ‘IF' indeed 'an original' ever existed- for which there is no proof of that either.

Thank You!

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on February 02, 2014:


Incomplete according to what standard? What important details are left out? It's speaking of things relevant to humans. Familiar to the human audience it's intended for. The elements familiar to every human reader whose come across it in the past 3000+ years. It describes each of these elements and in what order they came about. The heavens, the earth, the oceans, daylight, the atmosphere, land, plants, animals, us. For only being 31 verses it manages to correctly describe six major eras in earth's history. The primary events that shaped the world as humans are familiar with it.

So you'd be fine with all of this if I had simply appended a question mark at the end of the title? I'm making a claim and I'm inviting anyone and everyone to weigh in. While I've got hundreds of comments on this one hub alone speaking much like you are, not a single one has raised a legitimate objection. Just personal feelings. Which is fine. But don't you think that if this were nothing more than one of the first examples of human propaganda dreamed up by bronze age people with very little understanding of the natural world as we have now that it would be simple to refute? If it wasn't so on point we wouldn't have so much to talk about. I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I'm simply trying to point out its accuracy. No the author or authors clearly didn't have an in depth understanding of the natural world. They still describe things in terms they understand. But what they describe is insightfully accurate. Whether or not you buy into the God aspect of it, the creation account and subsequent 11 chapters are much more on point than they're given credit for. With Gen2-11 accurately describing a span of over 2000 years of southern Mesopotamian history. It's only a matter of time before this is more widely recognized. This texts offer relevant insights into arguably the most pivotal events in our human history. I understand your knee-jerk reaction to reject it, but your rejections seem to be coming more from an ill will towards religion than anything. Which is warranted considering religion's heavy-handedness over the centuries. But if you're going to reject something that holds the potential to enlighten us about our past, then you should do so with factually-based objections. It shouldn't be hard to do if what I'm saying is completely false.

And let's not forget the vast majority of science's forefathers were themselves Christians. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Pascal, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, Kelvin. They saw scientific inquiry as the study of God's creation. And the early forefathers of the church used much the same approach. St Augustine, for example, whose seen as an important voice to both Catholics and Protestants said way back in the 4th century that biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge. The belief was that God reveals His nature to us both through the 'book of scripture' as well as the 'book of nature'. Science is not the sole domain of the non-believer. Science is the study of the natural/material world. God, a soul, anything spiritual, was designated by those same texts long ago to be something other than physical/material. Long before it was understood that such a designation would be so relevant.

So please, I invite you to show me these details in Genesis that don't jive. Give me some substance to refute this if you're so certain. Because it's when people inject certainty where it doesn't belong that learning stops. Religion has done it in the past by speaking as if they know something the rest of humanity does not. Now atheists do the same through materialism. Injecting certainly about what can and can't be true with no solid reason to do so. It's the same mistakes of the past being repeated, only under a different banner.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on February 01, 2014:

God created evolution, Genesis creation story is scientifically accurate.

Sure it is. what is missing did happen apparently but is left out from your piece because it runs contrary to your effort or maybe it didnt happen. If you dwell on the important inconsistences it shows that Genesis creation story is in fact incomplete. Never mind. Genesis is well, Genesis. Dismiss this fact if you will. If you were more honest instead of making your title a statement of fact it should have been a question. You do use evidence from science to correlate w Genesis but do not actually use science to prove your statement. Much of Genesis was derived from previous sources and it probably had more then one author. The heavens are made like the ceiling of a disco club. In millions of years or a day who really cares, if you over look this and that its all there. Sure it is. yeah I made up my mind..your title is meant to decieve people, to get them to believe what you want them to believe.You set too high a bar for yourself then you do a limbo number. "God" created evolution. Again not a question but a statement. Your in the habit of making outragous statements w.o blinking an eye. No I dont appreciate arguments veiled in science to aid in making dubious religious statements as fact when the actual result is not determined by scientific means just personal opinion bolstered by some interesting correlations that rely on vagueness as much as anything. If that means Im close minded hey that really hurts coming from you of all people.. I also may be more honest then you. What make Genesis so compelling to me isnt the creation story so much but that it just maybe the first evidence of collective guilt being expressed by a "civilized people" no less in a monumental work.This is my own humble uninformed opinion. I do believe this ran contrary to the typical propaganda of the times. The stories of Genesis are full of details that do not jive w reality. So in short Im very critical of your method due to its overall vagueness and your unabashed over the top statements as proven fact. You very well maybe right in your assumptions, but you sure as hell dont prove it to anyone w a critical mind. To you "God" informed the ancients of the secrets of the universe. Why then would" he" just leave out so many important details. This in a nut shell is the difference between religious knowledge and scientific knowledge. Religious knowledge nowadays relies on science of all things to prove its points. well well.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on January 31, 2014:


Vague? I'm not sure how much you've read to this point, but to describe my ideas as 'vague' isn't exactly accurate. They're actually quite the opposite. It's a very specific idea that traces a very specific span of time in a very specific place, siting very specific evidence that shows the impact of these events can actually be seen. The creation account is just a small part of it.

I believe I acknowledged the Toba volcanic eruption as 'possibly' being the cause, but in the context of what I'm speaking of the cause is irrelevant. What is relevant is that bottle-neck. Also, life existing elsewhere does not 'upset my apple cart'. There certainly could be life elsewhere. And if there is it still wouldn't change any of this.

Again, as I've asked before, please give me specifics as far as this scientific data that I'm ignoring due to it being 'troubling'.

(1) I'm dealing with the original Hebrew text as closely as possible

(2) If I'm detailing how the Genesis narrative fits the actual history of the earth then of course I'm only going to be talking about what's in Genesis.

(3) As far as I can tell there has been no demonstration of free will. Humans, like all other animals in the animal kingdom, for tens of thousands of years, were incredibly consistent across the globe, in behavior, in lifestyle. Though there are certainly differences in relation to environment and such, a cow is pretty much a cow where ever you may encounter one, a bear is a bear, a duck is a duck. You know what to expect. Well, for most of human history a human was a human. When that changed, it happened in a very specific place and time. When we stopped living in harmony with nature and began to instead destroy it, cut it back, bend it to our will. Even today, if you look at indigenous cultures, unless prompted to change because of interactions with 'civilized humans', indigenous tribal cultures are pretty much what you'd expect them to be behavior wise. They're physically the same, same brains, same capabilities, only they're not as fundamentally discontent as we are. So they behave differently.

(4) Regarding 'proof' that God played an important hand in humanity's development, I'm not sure you've read much of my stuff just yet. I think you'd be surprised and encourage you to read on.

(5) I never said God created science or any of our ideas. In fact a major piece of this whole concept is that what we do really is of our making. It's free will that I believe led to us building civilizations, inventing writing, adopting mathematics and astronomy, etc.

I encourage science to 'chug along'. I'm simply pointing out some possibilities that line up surprisingly well with the evidence that could very well lead to better understanding, that could steer investigation, if there's truth to it. The difference is you seem to have already made up your mind, prematurely, about what is and isn't possible. You've closed your mind and are apparently suggesting I do the same.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on January 30, 2014:

In summation of my responses to vonNoggin ideas (1) he is dealing w no exact translation of Genesis (2) if its not mentioned in Genesis it's NOT important even if it did happen (3) Humans are only one of many intelligent species on earth, some it seems can demonstrate the free will vonNoggin only credits to humans. Gorillas and chimps CAN speak when taught sign language and can create weird combinations as the writer does. A gorilla even picked her future mate by video w much thought as almost a human would.. Whales have been observed saving lost baby whales of other species from predators. Octopus have proven they can problem solve. Squid and cuttle fish demonstrate amazing intelligence. If humans dont destroy the planet first there is no reason given time other species cannot continue to evolve their intelligence to the next level. So the superiority of human intelligence is limited as is the rest of the biological community, even more so if you go back thousands of years before humans started asking all the right questions religion had NO answers for. Humans as smart as they are might still destroy civilization as we now know it. We may not only be the smartest species on earth, we maybe also the dumbest. (4) dispite all the writers says he doesnt give any proof whatsoever that "God" in fact played an important hand in the developement of mankind. (5) his idea that "God" created science, evolution, the universe and everything in it including all our ideas is w.o any scientific merit. First religion gave us "God" and dispite this great gift we lived in mostly ignorance for thousands of years. Now the writers aim is to show NOT prove that "God" gave us science not the devil or superstition or at the very least a way to discover 'God". right now this is way outside the realm of science. Science chugs along fine w.o talk of "God".We think therefore we are with "God" thats it in a nutshell. Is that kind of talk NOT found in church these days.

As for me I'm off to another universe.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on January 29, 2014:

hi again, your able to defend your ideas because they are so vague. Religion thrives on such vagueness of knowledge, real scientific investigation seeks to destroy such vagueness when possible w irrefutable data. This whole exercise you have w Genesis is more religious then scientific. So what, it just so happens it took your all powerful"God" not a day to create the heavens as Genesis describes but oddly enough a time frame described by science NOT GENESIS. This may not seem all that important to you but it relates to the nature of "God". In Genesis many important figures are described as being hundreds of years old. They were not average mortals but mythical heroes and they supposedly lived many human generations to heighten the supernatural effect of the story. This is the special effects of mythology at work. Religion is chock full of these special effects. In other words Genesis describes a "God" that fits into their preconceived notions of what they want an all powerful humancentric "God"to be. A "God" that takes unimaginable amounts of time, more time then most humans can easily comprehend obviously didnt "DO IT" for them. If science couldnt tell time you would have no trouble w "God" creating everything in short order because religion unlike science has a ready explaination for everything. By the way the Mt. Toba explosion as far as I know is NOT universally accepted as a done deal as far as the human bottleneck is concerned. Your ideas are given a scientific like framework laid over an ancient text that was edited then translated over and over. Then you claim an accuracy that only exists in your mind."God" does exist merely because you need it to exist. Other life doesnt exist in the universe not because it doesnt (WHO KNOWS) but because it upsets your apple cart. Your just picking bits and pieces of scientific data if they seem to prove useful to your argument and ignore the more troubling aspects. Oh your religious alright..the NEW BREED.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on January 27, 2014:


When I say I'm not 'religious' I'm referring to organized religion. A man-made institution based on man-made interpretations. I personally have no issue with having ideas. Ideas can change and evolve as you progress. But religious institutions are built on ideologies that form their foundation and are therefore not malleable, but rather are stagnant and cannot change without weakening the ideological foundation. I am not religious, but I would say that I am spiritual.

I'm not sure what you mean about my willingness to 'dispose of the Genesis time frame'. I actually use the time frame established in Genesis to form this concept around. Using the ages given in the lineage lists in Genesis 5 and 11 I first built a template timeline to then place against actual history to see if there's cohesion. And it's the cohesion I do see where that specific timeline actually matches up with the actual history of the region that led me to writing about my findings and discussing it with others. The timeline given in Genesis is, in my mind, an important piece to this whole thing.

As for the formation of the moon, this happened before the formation of the earth's oceans. So in the context of what's described in the Genesis creation account, this would have happened along with the formation of the heavens and the earth in verse 1. Verse two actually begins the creation account, and at the beginning of its description the heavens and earth have already been formed and the earth's oceans already exist. So, according to the geological model the moon would have already been there.

While you are correct that our human reign over the earth is but a fraction of the time other species have dominated the planet, our now being the dominant species is significant. We managed to do so without the teeth and claws, but rather through our intellect. The rise of homo sapiens is an incredible thing. Roughly 70,000 years ago homo sapiens were nearly wiped out, most likely due to the Toba volcanic eruption. Homo sapiens were reduced to less than 10,000 mating pairs according to genetic study. But out of those survivors of north-central Africa came the entirety of the human race. By roughly 20,000 years ago homo sapiens had not only populated every continent on the planet, including north/south America because of their ability to cross the Bering land bridge, but they had also managed to push both the neanderthal and all the world's megafauna (wooly mammoths, dire wolves, sabre-toothed cats) out of existence. So in just 50,000 years we went from less than 10,000 mating pairs in Africa to worldwide domination.

In my mind a big part of life is in regards to how we choose to live in the face of the adversity this existence pits us against. Like diseases and viruses and everything else. To me this is all about forging free will. And what better place to forge something like free will than an environment like this? it's the dangers in life and the inevitability of death that makes life urgent and it's the possibility of failure and harm that makes our actions and decisions crucial. There's a saying that says, "Calm waters do not make good captains." It's the challenges and dangers in life that shape who we are. Have you ever seen a tree grow in an environment where it's not exposed to the winds and the environmental conditions? it just grows straight and flimsy. It's the wind pushing and breaking its limbs that gives a tree its shape and its strength.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on January 27, 2014:

hi, It seems to me you are very religious person but that you dont go so much for what i term "BIG RELIGION". The fact that you call yourself a Christian and readily read and start off scientific enquiry into world history by reading Genesis is very revealing about your thought process. Religious works like Genesis are a combination of creative invention, propaganda and history. The fact that you are very willing to dispose of the Genesis time frame as almost irrelevent means you go around your first imposing hurtle. Where do you address the real time frame and sequence of perhaps the most important event in earths history, the formation of our moon. Apparently there is now enough evidence to conclude that the moon was formed from the earth. this was after the primordial earth was formed, so it APPEARS "God" didnt create the HEAVENS in total in a moment of unrivaled unlimited power. our moon is but a result of a tremendous meteore impact and it appears that unrefutable data is at hand. to give you an idea of how ingrained religious thought is in the minds of humans one only need to look at the expression, oh my God. Even I who has never seen compelling proof that indeed God exists, or even more that God gives a damn about us, will let out with an... oH my God if i see something horrible happening. this is an unconscious, ingrained,brainwashed effect. within a second even i envoke the name of God to seek help and intervene. Genesis says in effect that God gave man earth and that in effect man was to be master of the earth. during the black death in europe almost 50% of the population died at the hands of unseen parasites and microbes. God went on vacation. it will not be Gods first or last vacation in human history. Humans as a species may yet prove to be a flash in the pan. we as a species have to go a long way yet to match the survival longevity of those we supposedly are masters of. As a species we are composed as much or more of symbionic microorganisms then our own cells. the whole humancentric tone of the Genesis story is wrong it seems.well as you already said "God" created science, but my question is did your "God" create science fiction rather then science .I ask you, if humans had NO FEAR at the dawn of human civilization would the creation myths have been created the same way? do you really think so. now science has collected enough datato suggest that life can arisew.o. outside intervention. it seems life can happen also seems that matter can and does appear seemingly from "nothing". you are not so much explaining how factual Genesis is but your showing us your internal gear box and providing an explaination of how the idea of "God and Genesis work for you in context of the science you know. Well at least i give you credit for saying evolution does took me hours of conversation w a Christian friend of mine to get him to admit he was in fact an animal.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on January 25, 2014:


Religion is a man-made institution. What humans have said about what/who God is and what they've done in the name of Him is the most fallible part of the equation. I am not religious. I am a Christian, but I don't associate with any specific denomination or attend a church. This is not some tactic to achieve some religious agenda. I know and recognize there's a lot of blame at the feet of religion. But I also recognize that religion, just like anything else, is simply humans being humans.

I'm just looking for truth. And to do so I use the most accurate information available. I too am interested in the various religions for much the same reason. It's a case study in and of itself of human history, psychology, and culture. And I study those ancient civilizations that first set the modern world in motion, as well as the geological and biological history of this planet. I'm just utterly fascinated by life and I want to figure it all out. How it all works. I began at Genesis because it's an ancient text of unknown age and authorship that originates in the cradle of civilization, and it's had an obvious and significant impact on the entirety of Western Civilization's history. With the level of knowledge now known about this age and region, if there's any legitimacy to these ancient texts then we should be able to see it. I invite you to point out the 'inconsistent parts' I 'carefully ignore'. That's why I do what I do. If this is wrong, if this is totally off-base, I want to know about it.

What I see are ancient stories, well-known in the ancient world, that describe events that actually set the modern world in motion. I see a biblical story describing beings who were created, not as the first humans that existed, but as the first beings capable of behaving contrary to God's will, being introduced into an already populated world through Adam and Eve. A capability that then passed on to all those 'of Eve'. When these descendants began interbreeding with naturally evolved humans, us, they introduced free will into the naturally evolved human line. There is a dramatic change in human behavior that came just before the emergence of multiple advanced civilizations. Sumer/Akkad/Babylon, Egypt, the Indus Valley, Greece, Rome. And all of these have ancient stories describing ancient gods who lived immortal long lives, who were male and female, human in form, who were moody and unpredictable and who interbred with humans. I think these stories could very well be based on ancient beings as described in Genesis who existed in their distant past, roughly 1000 years before writing. Faint memories of a truly fantastical beginning to modern civilization. The earliest of those were the Sumerians whose stories directly claim that they were taught the ways of civilization by these gods. The very same gods that Genesis says were worshipped by the people in the land Abraham's father was from, Ur, which is a Sumerian city.

I thought for sure this crazy idea simply couldn't be true. But it all lines up across the board and I've yet to find a good reason to dismiss it. Free will makes sense to me. If I try to really consider the atheist/materialist viewpoint it just falls apart for me. It just ultimately means that everything that's happened or will ever happen was set in motion roughly 14 billion years ago and will simply continue to play out like the dying waves of a ripple. If there is no non-physical/spiritual element of the self, if there is no soul, then our wills cannot actually be free as we are nothing more than matter and our behaviors are bound to the laws of physics. Which means that everything in human history, from the most deprived actions to the most important achievements, were not actually willfully made decisions, but rather were determined long ago when the dominoes were first tipped. All of it as much in humanity's control as a waterfall is in control of where it flows.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on January 24, 2014:

hi again, I have read some more of your hubs and have discovered some more untruths or distortions. first off you claim to being not very religious but your writings proves otherwise. the newest tack by intellectual christians is to promote their faith by whatever means and so now disassociation of the faith is mingled w science in an obvious attempt to get their religious views accepted as science. The result is unfortunately religious pseudo-science not science. you carefully ignore the inconsistent parts or just give explainations that gloss over the troubling inconsistent parts. I am similiar to you in regards to my intense interest in science. i also study comparative religionbecause its so much a part of human history and culture, but since im REALLY unreligious i have no interest in confusing the two by mixing them into a "stew". actually i have considered forming a new age ONE "religion" w.o the need for "God"that would do away w all the rest and maybe finally bring peace and stability to the world but im also wary of tom cruze. far too often religious christians remind me of drug addicts that scoff at rehab. its all the other drugs that are hell. its like they want you to stand in front of a fun house mirror w a bag over your head w tiny slits cut in it. hmmm havent i seen that somewhere? Texas is known for being a very bible toting state yet they find ways of executing people w IQs of an 8 yr old. Im not suggesting you would support such a thing but just trying to demonstrate the failure of religion. as an artist i take great pride in being a non conformist and this is one reason why i dont like BIG RELIGION and fear it. religious views are not worthy of scientific discussion outside of sunday school or theology class because it will just dumb us downby watering real science down. your religious-scientfic exercise is very much akin to this. real science trumps religion and if your exercise was bound by true scientific method im guessing it would ruin your attempted obfuscation of "reality". think about it...what has religion given us but fantastic stories. since big religion was invented man has continued to destroy fellow man at even greater pace and was often the actual cause of such strife. Christianity is NOT innocent in this. mans moral and ethical failures are attributed to the devil and his evil influence.what a profound explanation as to whats wrong w the world. the devil did it. in comparision science offered extraction of dangerous parasites discovered in the human brain as opposed to religious exorcisms of imaged devils. you just cannot compare the two in terms of knowledge systems. in short real science is our way into the future, religion our connectionto our past imaginations.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on January 24, 2014:

Hi again, there is some truth to your statements about how some people view science but nothing is perfect. Compared to religion which historically dealt w opposing viewpoints by seeking to wipe them from the face of the earth usually by the most inhuman violent means, the study of nature through science in comparison is quite tame and results not in bloodshed but lively discussion. I find it very unfortunate that much of cutting edge science today is directed to the military efforts of nations, such is mans shortcomings when it comes to good and peaceful relations between humans. I imagine if "God" was pissed off w humans in Noahs time enough to want to rid the world of all people good and bad and all life too except for a few chosen few what would "God" be thinking now in this day and age. Im going to check out a few of your other Genesis hubs so i can comment on them, but generally speaking and w all due respect i think there is perhaps better use you can put your intelligence and considerable creative efforts into that would be more fruitful. humans i admit seem to have a propensity for creating donuts but a chocolate donut as good as it is wont save your life if your drowning. i recently came across a christian commentary on intelligent design and reef cleaning stations. the writer went on to say intelligent design must be at work because otherwise the predatory fish would just gobble up the smaller cleaner fish feasting on its parasites. this commentator was showing just how little knowledge of parasites they possessed. In short i think there is a real downside to mixing religionw science other then perhaps its ethical use.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on January 22, 2014:


Well, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. If you want to get into the 'next level' of the story, check out my other 'God Created Evolution' hubs. They cover the Adam and Eve story, Cain and Abel, and others. All through the flood through to the tower of Babel, and even into Abraham's time. It goes well beyond just the creation account.

Cruella Dville on January 22, 2014:

Hi Headly, Hi Gc,

I think I've said enough now.

In sticking with the Hub Title - 'God Created Evolution: Genesis Creation Story Is Scientifically Accurate', I shall leave you guys to take the discussion to the next level - Noah & 'The Flood' (Genesis 5-9), whilst I think about how to start my own Hub.

Headly, I maybe outta my depth here but I don't think Mathematics is real. I've got nothing to back up my statement with - except to say that if clothing and shoe sizes vary from country to country, region to region - then to me - and I stress - to me - this is an indication that Mathematics is not real. It's a formula invented by man. I mean, a 15ft bridge is a 15ft bridge - (yes, sorry - I'm still an imperialist). A 15ft bridge doesn't change its sizing because it's built on another side of town. So I don't' think Mathematics is part of The Natural Order of things - (unless someone can enlighten me on that score).

The worldview of Science is cultural. We live in an era where Science - the Material world is all around us, but there was a time in History where the religious view was the only view to be heard.

The conflicts in Science is natural. As we probe further and further into the unknown there will always be conflict - conflict within ourselves and conflict within the order/disciplines of Science - the stuff that sci-fi movies are made of. This is the stuff of love, peace and war.

Love, peace and war - the stuff that was always carried out in the name of God.

Thank You!

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on January 22, 2014:

Cruella and gconeyhiden,

When it comes to better understanding the natural world and how it works, I agree, simply dismissing it all as something "God created" leaves you ignorant of, and unable to fully appreciate, the natural world's workings and intricacies. I have always been fascinated by this planet and what we've learned through scientific inquiry and often found myself at odds with the religious people in my life on many points. But I also do not see a fully adequate explanation of all that this life, and this reality, is through a purely material viewpoint. I think it's possible that we sometimes take it too far the other way by 'faithfully' assuming purely physical/material explanations will always suffice. As if this one method/approach we've clumsily put together, and have found success through, could ever actually apply to all that reality is.

Kind of like what you said, "Occasionally those ‘Bearing Gifts & Talents' might come into the limelight and revolutionise our societies. For a long time The Earth was deemed ‘flat' until someone came along and said ‘Duh! - It’s Round’!" We humans tend to get stuck on an idea. We find some success with a particular approach or viewpoint and we stick with it, sometimes blindly. We develop a kind of faith in a method or ideal that's proven successful in the past. And that way of looking at things tends to ultimately do the same thing as when one assumes "God created". It leads to one set way of thinking and looking at things, closing the mind to other possibilities and explanations. Your assessment that 'evolution is for the faithful' rings true to me, but not in the way you mean.

Materialism, in my mind, is the new dogma of the 21st century. Rupert Sheldrake in his "The Science Delusion" TEDTalks said it well...

"The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in. This is a very wide spread belief in our society. It's the kind of belief system of people who say, "I don't believe in God, I believe in science." It's a belief system which has now been spread throughout the entire world. But there's a conflict in the heart of science between science as a method of inquiry, based on reason, evidence, hypothesis, and collective investigation, and science as a belief system or a worldview. And, unfortunately, the worldview aspect of science has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry, which is the very lifeblood of the scientific endeavor. Since the late 19th century science has been conducted under the aspect of a belief system, or worldview, which is essentially that of materialism, philosophical materialism."

Intelligence is a 'natural product' in this universe. It's not something we understand fully, as the brain is something we don't fully understand, but what we do know is that this bundle of matter in our heads, the way in which it's configured, in some way results in producing intelligence and reason. And it's something that exists in spite of us. It's not of our doing. It's something we discovered. So I don't understand why it's deemed 'out of bounds', inadmissible, or even inappropriate, to suggest intelligence could have been involved in the formation of this reality we all share. I get that we've progressed beyond the more traditional ideas of a God, who in our modern view is often the equivalent of an invisible cartoon magician, but I think it's a bit premature to toss out the baby along with the bathwater where this concept is concerned.

Mathematics. Is it really possible that something we humans (who came along so late in the process) contrived, can so adequately retrofit and make sense out of all this universe is? Or is it really that mathematics is something else that exists beyond and in spite of us? Something we discovered rather than being something we invented? The same goes for genetic information. This is a system that in many ways resembles things we intelligent beings have created. It's a means that makes possible the retention and passing on of information. It's what takes what would otherwise be a purely random/chaotic process and makes it progressive and accumulative. It's a form of accumulated knowledge. Much like what we use and benefit from today. Accumulated knowledge. Something that is 'intelligently' created that shares qualities with 'natural' processes we see at work.

I'm simply trying to find real truth. And I'm trying to be mindful of the lessons of our past in doing so. I know we modern humans tend to look down our noses at our ancestors of the past as not being as informed and knowledgeable as we are. While we do have a much better grasp of the natural world, I do not find it justifiable to assume all they thought, all their reason and intuition arrived at through their observations, is completely obsolete as far as having any value. I think there tends to be a natural ebb and flow to these kinds of things, and I think we'll ultimately find, as is often the case, the actual truth lies somewhere there in the middle.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on January 22, 2014:

by the way the regional flood was more likely aworld event brought on by the end of the last ice age. it did alot more then just float a big boat.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on January 22, 2014:

I want to thank you Cruella for saving this kids time on this almost absurd subject. it is quite evident to anyone reading the hub w any knowledge of science that so many details are left out of earths history the writer's only real intention is to reveal how the story of Genesis in its simplicity jives with a very abbreviated version of earth history that is supported by science. I guess this is the new Christian way of accepting the science it used to reject. over time we will surely see more acceptance of science by religion because there is really no other alternative that makes sense. Noggin did you ever hear of the term unintelligent design in nature. i think science is a way of collecting relevent data that over time stands up. it is a humans way of getting at the truth.

Cruella Dville on January 21, 2014:

Hi Headly,

There are 4 Points I’d like to make:

1. You’re right - The Creation Story is only one aspect of life and only one aspect of focus in The Holy Bible (THB).

2. Yes! For Evolution to work it does depend on many sources and forms of life to ‘jolly things along’ , change and move with the flow. For me - as an adult - Evolution is the best explanation to give, as it explains 'Law' as well as ‘Order’. ‘God Created' … for the less imaginative.

3. Whilst Genesis 1 & 2 sets the stage - sets the scene for man to walk on and take centre stage throughout THB, on top of everything else I mentioned previously, us humans we’re not very imaginative and can’t see past the end of our noses. Occasionally those ‘Bearing Gifts & Talents' might come into the limelight and revolutionise our societies. For a long time The Earth was deemed ‘flat' until someone came along and said ‘Duh! - It’s Round’!

4. Generally speaking it is argued that Evolution is for the sceptics and atheists. I think it’s more the other way around. Evolution is for the ‘faithful’ - those who have a 'deep' respect for Law And Order - i.e. Those who believe in and nurture The Laws of Nature - Nature being of the Highest Order in the structure of The Universe ((TU). 'God Created’….is for the ‘faithless’ - those that can't/don't/won’t accept that Law And Order is all we have. Law and Order is all there is to life. They want so much more for/from/of life. Religion offers much, God offers more via religion.

Thank You!

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on January 20, 2014:


I think you're right in that Genesis only really focuses on what's most relevant to the human age, so there's quite a bit it simply doesn't mention. I think what is described is for a particular purpose. To convey the more relevant aspects of the story. The creation account, for example, its purpose is not to prove itself through the detail it gives. It's simply describing how this God these stories are speaking of is the creator of the heavens and the Earth. So it describes this God creating all the primary components of this Earth that humans, the intended audience, would be familiar with; the seas, the land, the atmosphere, the animals, etc. The primary point of the story, I think, is just to show that this planet and everything on it is the result of God simply willing it to be and it becoming. Like, for example, the 'days' thing. I just don't think the point of the telling had anything to do with how long it took, but rather had more to do with showing it happened in six phases. Beyond that, as you pointed out, the focus is on the patriarchs. It's the particular things the authors focus in on that guide me in how I read and interpret this. It clearly doesn't cover everything, so what it does cover is what's most relevant to the overall story it's conveying.

The title I chose is very much in line with how I view God. I think the way in which the natural world works as we've become aware through science IS the method in which God works. He doesn't manually mold things with physical hands and He doesn't just miracle, or 'poof', things into existence. I think He simply created an environment governed by laws, then introduced matter/energy into that environment, which 'naturally' took the form of what He willed it be. His will is carried out in the interplay between matter/energy and those fundamental laws. I think the primary focus of these early stories in Genesis, and really throughout all the rest of the bible, is the distinction between the natural world, which behaves exactly according to God's will, and beings who have a 'free' will and do not behave exactly according to God's will.

Evolution doesn't work if living things aren't compelled to survive, thrive, and procreate. I think it's God's will, His command that life come forth, that compels it. Life was indeed shaped through evolving to survive and procreate in its environment, but without being compelled to do so none of that would have happened. Through science we see a natural world that seems to have formed itself. In my view, what we see is exactly what you should expect to see.

Humans weren't always in a "constant and permanent deprived and depraved condition of greed, need, want ,sexual and sensual gratification and self-glorification". In fact, we can actually see in the historical/archaeological record where and when, exactly, these behaviors first surfaced. And it turns out this actually happened in the very same region and timeframe in which those early stories of Genesis are set. In fact, I think it's the introduction of Adam, the first of God's creation capable of behaving according to his own individual will apart from God's, and the intermingling that happened between descendants of Adam/Eve and naturally evolved humans (Gen6:1-3) that resulted in the behavior you're talking about. Then, after the (regional) flood, God dispersed the descendants of Noah into an already populated world, each carrying with them a 'free will' that then propagated throughout the world.

This series, the "God created evolution" series of hubs I've done and will do more of in the future, goes far beyond the creation account. But the creation account is an important part of it as it sets the foundation.

Cruella Dville on January 19, 2014:

Hi Headlyvonnoggin,

I do commend you for always trying to address the individual and their comments and for giving everyone an opportunity to read previous comments and see what went on before.

I find that there’s nothing worse than joining a conversation in mid stream and repeating the views of previous comments - but you must draw the line somewhere.

My Overall Conclusion to your Hub, is that whilst I Agree with you on some level, it must be said that I don't Agree with the body of your Hub 'God Created Evolution'.

‘God’ Could ‘Never’ Have ‘Created’ ‘Evolution’.

Evolution is Real whilst God is a dictatorship.

Evolution brings forth life, whilst God ‘invented’ life (heaven).

Evolution does not destroy life it changes lives - i.e. the theories on the Evolution of man:

(a) from monkey to man

(b) from sea creatures to mermaids to human;

(c) the land of the ’giants’ - Goliath (the David and Goliath story recorded in THB).

Then there’s the Evolution of solids:

(a) the formation of crystals, gem stones/precious stones and sand - the results of broken rocks;

(b) the formation of glaciers - which - Evolution is about to change again as many glaciers are melting and falling into the sea.

Evolution changes lives, but god destroys lives (hell).

Evolution serves The Whole Truth/The Whole Story, - A Whole Community & Host of Beings, whilst God serves himself and made himself Whole (Holy), under the disguise of serving humanity.

As part of my ‘Overall Conclusion’ I must state that although my religious education, knowledge and up-bringing is limited to one source - the ‘umbrella’ of Christianity, as a mature Student of Life, Christianity is the one that makes sense to me.

The Holy Bible - The Good Book - for me this is not just a book that serves Christians and the Christian community, this is a book that serves 'all' of humanity regardless of the beliefs - but of course - it helps if you believe in the ethos of what you read.

For me THB is the only religious artefact to read.

It is a wealthy source of information and incorporates edifices from other religious practices.

Thank You!

Cruella Dville on January 19, 2014:

God Created Evolution - mmm!!!

In the Nature/Nurture Debate - What Came FirstThe Chicken Or The Egg?

The question/debate is 'not' the authenticity of biblical events, the debate is more the inaccurate 'style' of reporting 'The Good News'.

The Holy Bible (THB) - The Genesis Creation Story has a complete disregard for the Process of Evolution and misses out quite large chunks of Historical Data - the Age of The Earth, the Age of The Universe, the Age of humanity, the Age of 'pre-history', the Age of The Matriarchs, the Age of 'Goddesses', 'The Land of The Giants - (these are the periods that resonate with me - there's probably more accounts of life that THB has completely missed out).

THB writers concern themselves with one particular period - the Age of the Patriarchs.

Not only do the bible writers miss out important factors, they insult the human intelligence and offend professors of other Academic and Non-Academic Disciplines by simplifying the info into terms of 'God Created…….in 6 Days…' - as if it were The Whole Truth. By contrast, Science, History and Mythology prove that THB's account of 'The Truth' is not The Whole Story.

This is further complicated by the fact that there are those that belong to the same institutionalised faculties that agree/disagree/contradict their 'Order'.

Eg: 1 - There are Scientists who are Christians.

There are Christians who are Satanists.

There are specialist IT (information technology) Consultants that don't posses modern gadgets and gismo's.

Eg: 2 - I always find it strange when I see a priest who smokes or an overweight doctor.

Us humans get very disgruntled when we feel we are not loved, appreciated and listened to.

We get even more defensive when 'our side' of the story has been not been portrayed truthfully/correctly or has been misrepresented, mistreated or disrespected in some way, shape or form.

Comments made by previous Huber's took an aggressive tone because you didn't bring anything new to the table.

It 'appears' is if the Hub was written to try and prove the links between Science and Religion. But like I said the dispute is not the lack of evidence that prove the links between Science and Religion, the dispute is what came first Science or Religion?

You did not define 'who' or 'what' is God, or what the term 'God' means to you.

'Evolution' suggests a Natural Forcefield of Events, 'Creation' suggests 'an invention' - the control of Nature.

You drew no distinctions between the two and therefore did not clarify those parts of 'The Creation Story' which evidence shows 'Evolved', and those parts of 'The Creation Story' which 'you' believe to be Created by God - 'your' god.

All you've really done is announce your beliefs in the Christian ethos, feature what many scholars, experts and 'ologists' already know and source material already available to those who keenly look, listen and learn with 'both' ears and eyes.

Basically all you've done is just state 'the obvious'.

It's no different to bible writers telling The Creation Story from an outside perspective.

You've not even bothered to show the relevance of your 'accuracies' to today's culture.

We live in a world which evolves, involves, revolves and resolves itself around a vibrational Process of Seasons - i.e. the Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit - time, space, energy - past, present, future - Good, bad, ugly (or) indifferent - birth, life, death - life, death, life - the head, the body (or) torso, the 'bottom' half - part blood, part water, part matter.

The actor Yul Brynner who plays the lead role as The King of Siam in the 1951 film 'The King And I' always said etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

We live in a world that allows us to kill 'our' brother in an instant fit of rage, but once killed this world does not allow us put 'humpty dumpty' together again. Our brother remains dead. We cannot in an instantaneous, spontaneous and suddenness, turn back the hands of time in an emotive 'adrenalin rush' of shock, horror, calm, reflection, joy, love and laughter - we cannot bring that person 'Back To Life, Back To Reality, Back To The Here And Now' (Soul II Soul 1989).

Surely a powerful God would Create a world where the trillions of prayer requests - Good, bad or ugly - is simply a matter of clicking/ticking the Mark 'All' button/box - regardless of the consequences - as we see in the 2003 American Religious Comedy Film 'Bruce Almighty'. If things get outta hand, God can fix it in an instant - much the same as the 'imaginary play' of a child who has dolls, teddy bears, cars (matchbox size and pedal power), toy soldiers and train sets.

If God Created Evolution - why would God allow children to exercise their 'free-will' knowing humanity could be extinct in the next millennium - because of a lack wisdom?

That makes no sense to me.

'Evolution' is a Scientific way to explain the Disciplinary Laws of Nature - the birth of 'ALL' life form.

'God Created….' is just a simple way to cut across Science and explain the arrival of 'human life'.

The arguments are that in the Law of Physics you can't do that. You can't just arrive at the birth of humanity. Humans would not exist if were not for Evolution.

Religion is formed of a subterranean culture that levies on behalf of the ruler of Church and State to exercise control over the masses. History shows that this was the duty of ''the ruling class' or the king/queen, now it's a confederation of peoples.

Online Users are subjected to the subterranean culture of control via 'registration' - divulging personal details 'to an unknown god' called 'cyber space' - clicking the button/ticking the box that states that you understand/agree to/are bound by 'the small print'/the 'terms and conditions' - when sometimes there are things we'd prefer to keep locked and hidden away in the deep recesses of the mind - we just wouldn't talk about them or release the words into the air because 'Walls Have Ears' and there is a Law of 'come-uppance' (Karma - the Law of Come Backs).

THB writers address the issues and get away with the errors by recording singular incidences.

The 6 Days of Creation is explained as - 2 PETER 3: 8 ……….WITH GOD, A DAY 'IS LIKE' A THOUSAND YEARS AND A THOUSAND YEARS 'IS LIKE' A DAY (NIV).

All of 'the Ages' I mention above are explained as - GENESIS 1 /JOHN 1 - IN THE BEGINNING (NIV).

Evolution is explained as - GENESIS 1: 2 - FORMLESS, EMPTY AND DARK (NIV). How else would you describe Evolution - unseen Forces of Nature?

As a writer you use the descriptions available to you, in the present-day language, knowledge and style you are accustomed to.

In terms of Numbers and Digits, we understand the concept of the more noughts there are on a lottery win, the bigger the win, the more enriching we think our life will be. Bible writers simplified this concept by saying '6/7 Days…..'.

In the meantime, History supports the Science view - the inhabitants and habitations of The Earth/The Universe - past and present - Evolution 'could be' older than 'infinity', whilst THB and it's Creation Story only goes as far back as the evidence of History will allow.

As we have seen in many 'war games' i.e. world wars/civil wars and battles' etc, high profile notoriety cases and also the cases presented before Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown (two really great Reality TV Shows based on the Court Proceedings of American Arbitration in the Small Claims Court) - as we can see by all of these cases, if the law of the land did not seek to protect aspects of humanity, some people would think it ok to take 'the law' into their own hands and kill their neighbour.

My conclusion is that Man Created God - the results of an Evolved mind.

God was Created from the figments of human imagination, because humans are in a constant and permanent deprived and depraved condition of greed, need, want, sexual and sensual gratification and self-glorification - the same emotional wreck, bully, form, likeness and image of God - who demands that we worship him only - cos if we don't fear him and do as we're told, God'll have temper tantrums and banish us from the Kingdom - etc.

Thank You!

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on January 18, 2014:

Thanks Cruella.

I generally don't like to delete comments because I like everyone to have their say, and for anyone reading along to have all the information. But, then again, I never expected to have 350+ comments either. I might have to consider trying to thin it out a bit, removing the repetitive/argumentative stuff, and maybe trying to boil it down to just the more relevant bits of actual discussion.

Personally, I don't mind, and completely understand, the emotionally charged responses. I guess some of it could be seen as bullying, but I just see that as the natural result of being bullied. Perhaps by churches or family members who were heavy handed religiously. But, in my mind, that's to be expected and has to be allowed for. I'm just trying to keep the conversation going and on track because I think it's an important thing to hash out. I just want to show that the atheist view does not have the intellectual, or even factual, high ground. That the only difference between a believer and a nonbeliever is a difference in subjective philosophy.

I look forward to reading your further comments.

Cruella Dville on January 18, 2014:

Huh1 Children Please! Stop Fighting!

Put aside your differences and Agree to Disagree.

Everyone seems to be attacking the Huber with their oversensitive defensive comments and personal views.

No one has posted any real constructive arguments For or Against this Hub.

Headlyvonnoggin, it would help those of us who really want to learn - even if the conclusion is still disagreeable - but at least we're able to see where your arguments stem from - if you could clear the backlog of negative comments.

I think it's your title that got every so wound up, and certainly, it's your title that caused me to comment (I have further comments to make).

You did a great job in standing up to the bullies.

Thank You!

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on January 13, 2014:

Thank you, gconeyhiden, for reading and sharing your thoughts.

To be clear, this is not about furthering any sort of religious cause. I myself, while I am a Christian, I do not consider myself a religious person or a "church-goer". This is about reaccessing these ancient texts in the light of modern knowledge. Ultimately its about finding real truth, and I feel I have good reason to think there's much more historical relevance to these texts than they're often given credit for.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on January 13, 2014:

To be honest even if I find your claims a bit far fetched in that your title states God Created Evolution based on the "facts" you have, it is only one example of ancient experiences being either misrepresented or worse used by religious people to further their cause. I would suggest that even if some great creator does exits it would not fit neatly into humans traditional religious ideas of what God is or what it's intentions are as far as humans are concerned. for religious Jews God is a great mystery. This is as honest an interpretation as one can find. any less or more interpretation of God is a form of deceptionby illusion. If I had a choice wether to live in a universe with a loving creator or one without that would make me pretty powerfulbut I value "truth" over blind faith. In short your hub falls short of PROVING that God created evolution or wethera God exists at all.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on December 12, 2013:

Thank you, tt, I appreciate that. It's not often that I get a positive/supportive response, as you've seen, so it's encouraging when it happens.

tt on December 12, 2013:

HeadlyvonNoggin - I am stoked that you have gotten such passionate comments from people that do not accept your views! I concur that as I read through much of the comments, I am amazed I did not see one single well-articulated point of contention. For a group claiming your views are illegitimate, it would seem that they might have qualified several specific points of fallacy rather than just name-calling. It is amazing to me that how the more we learn about science, the more we see the accuracy of the Bible.

Thank you-

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on December 07, 2013:


Do you have anything more than your word that my statement isn't true? You go from making that statement to then criticizing me for making stuff up to try to justify my Genesis timeline, rather than referring then to what it is that makes you certain that I'm just making this up.

"In fact, the primitive Earth long remained covered in darkness, wrapped in dense burning clouds into which continuously poured water vapor from volcanic emissions." -

It's not hard to find the transition from an opaque to a translucent atmosphere. The beginning of the Archaen eon as the oceans were first forming the atmosphere was most definitely opaque. Between everything spewed into the atmosphere by outgassing and volcanic activity, combined with an abundant level of trapped water vapor, cut off all light to the surface. So, when in the bible it says 'let there be light', this is an incredibly on-point statement. Not just because this was the first time sunlight was allowed to reach the surface since the planet had a surface, but also because light played such a major role in everything else that came later.

The largest chunk of our earth's history has to do with the formation of the oxygenated atmosphere we have today. This took billions of years. The sun's brightness over much of that time was only about 70% what it is today and the atmosphere for much of that was drastically different than what we know today. I suggest studying the evolution of our atmosphere as its a fascinating thing in its own right, apart from this. Just the transition from a reducing to an oxidizing atmosphere is crazy. The delicate balance that allowed dangerous gases like ammonia and methane to escape, but retain water vapor, due to a delicate balance between the size of the planet and it's gravitational pull, its distance from the sun, the temperature of each stratosphere over time, combined with the mass of the molecules of these elements and its escape velocity is what determined what escaped into space and what didn't. And the formation of each subsequent stratosphere and the various components that make up the atmosphere we know today, like an ozone layer, incredible. Each thing happening in a very particular order to allow for life to flourish.

Even after the passing of the earth's (technically 2nd) atmosphere there was quite a bit of Co2, which of course is a green house gas, and causes very humid conditions. Over time, changes in conditions, stabilization of the air temperature and pressure, consumption of carbon dioxide by plants, and a decrease in volcanic activity, all would have contributed to a breaking in cloud cover and dense, humid conditions near the surface. Combine with that the fact that the sun wasn't as bright, but getting brighter, plus the fact that all the continental land mass of the planet during that time went completely beneath the planet and back up again between the poles, means what's described during 'day 4' is very much on point with what an observer would see if they were standing on that land mass where humans would eventually live.

But I think the bigger point here is the full progression of everything mentioned. We get bogged down in the details of this and that, but the overall arc of the story is very telling. Specifically in the order in which things are mentioned, and which things in particular were mentioned. Just the fact that these bronze age writers made a distinction between 'light' and 'the sun' is significant. They had already said the 'heavens' were created, which of course in bronze age language IS the sun/moon/stars, but then they specifically say 'light'. Light was a major factor in all the things that followed, though a visible sun was not yet necessary. Defused light through a thick atmosphere still allows for photosynthesis and for playing a pivotal role in the earth's water cycle, but would only visibly be 'light' defused in the atmosphere during the day and 'dark' at night. Then it talks about, not land or animals or trees, but the atmosphere, or the "firmament". This WAS the next major development. And not just a 'firmament', but it goes on to say the water from above was separated from the water below (ie. the earth's water cycle). And, like light before it, the atmosphere/water cycle was pivotal to all that followed. As was land, which came next. And it really was in that order. First the seas, then the atmosphere, then land. Then the emergence of life on land, which was of course facilitated by all that came before, the seas, light, the atmosphere, and land.

Maybe it's just my imagination, but I see a lot more here than you'd think someone with a bronze age level of knowledge would even be able to guess at.

Methodskeptic on December 06, 2013:

{{{As for the grass/herbs/fruit trees, a visible sun is not required. In fact, in the earth's actual history, the sun would was not visible for millions of years after plant life grew on land. In fact, its the plant life on land being in direct contact with the atmosphere that aided in changing the atmosphere from translucent to transparent.}}}

This statement isn't actually true. I know you need it to be for your imaginary genesis timeline to hold together, but as I said months ago, you don't actually have any sources to support your assertions about opacity and translucency and transparency. It's just a story you're making up to support the conclusion you assumed at the outset.

{{{So, in attempting to prove/disprove it, I have reviewed each word and phrase within these first 11 chapters in multiple translations, and have researched each word and phrase in its original Hebrew meanings to see whether or not it conflicts with my hypothesis.}}}

And any apparent or obvious contradictions you'll cavalierly distort or disregard, as you have already done at every stage, because you've already decided it's true, and you're doing nothing but gathering whatever confirmation bias you can scrape together.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on December 04, 2013:


I agree with you and do look to what the great Jewish thinkers say. They're the closest to these stories in a cultural sense and speak the language natively. But I also recognize that the Torah, and especially the books of Moses, were a mystery even to at least the post-exile Jewish people. This is why there were people in Jesus' day and before, Pharisees, who were dedicated to deciphering and properly understanding the Torah. Those first 11 chapters of Genesis are the oldest of all the books in the bible, with the possible exception of Job. They were ancient times even to them.

I agree and do not view the bible as the inerrant word of God. I believe its stories are inspired by God and events that involved God. And if there's any legitimacy to what its saying then we should now, given our modern knowledge of our history, pinpoint the events its speaking of. I believe science is the best approach we've yet to find to establish objective truth, but I do not believe the natural sciences are adequate to understanding the entirety of existence. Science deals purely in the material. The distinction was made long ago in these ancient texts between physical/material and spiritual. If the stories are true, if the God they describe is real, then a universe and a planet and an animal kingdom that appears to have formed on its own is exactly what you should expect to see.

You're right that the Homo sapien brain was fully developed. They've been at least the same shape and size for more than 100,000 years. I have studied and even wrote an extensive article on the evolution and emergence of the modern human mind. That's a key part to what I'm pointing out here. Just when exactly the most significant of changes happened and where. If these stories happened as I'm claiming, in the same time and place as I'm specifying, then they explain the significant advances and changes in behavior that happened in our history.

Here's the article I referred to about the evolution of the human mind if you're interested ...

I'm using science as a tool to establish the proper context and setting and I'm not deeming anything immaterial out of the question. I'm considering this a real possibility. These ancient texts have had a significant impact on the vast majority of our human history. And no matter the power of those who may seek to advance it, nothing has the staying power of 5000 years if there's not something significant about it. These texts have remained relevant in every age since they were first written. I believe this is because there's real truth to them and I think they may actually be describing when and how the modern human world was first set in motion.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on December 04, 2013:

Hi, To be honest and meaning no disrespect I think to fully understand Genesis in its proper context and at it's most enlightening one must study Jewish thought on the subject not Christian based concepts derived from them. My understanding is great Jewish thinkers like Maimonides understand the stories are "Godly" inspired works but not actually words of "God". Historically Christians thinkers have been totally carried away, like the Muslims even to this day that these are literally the spoken words of "God" then get into defending them as such when in fact the people responsible for these stories may not have intend it that way at all. I can agree that years of translations from the original Jewish script has gone far to distort accurate meanings this is why only enlightened Rabbis or Hebrew Scholars are in any position to discuss the matter with any real clarity. Apparently religious Jews are much less concerned then Christians with how the Genesis story jives with modern science in minute details and are more concerned with the morals laid down by divine inspiration and the "God" they give credit to for such inspirational thoughts. I dont trust many Christian thinkers on the subject because they make what seems to me horrible excuses to justify their arguments. One site claims the time spans of creation were framed as days because humans at that time were too stupid to comprehend vast stretches of time. Yet the Hindu thinkers had no such problems with expressing vast time spans during the creation. Science now knows that Homo Sapiens had fully developed brains well over 10,000 years ago and were capable of fairly complex thoughts. Yet some christians would have us believe that humans were all basically cave men just a few thousand years ago. Many people today cannot read but we dont judge human intelligence by the dumbest but by the smartest minds of the times and Im guessing there were some very smart people around even 5,000 years ago capable of putting some pretty serious theories together. In fact the Genesis story is very simplified and leaves much room for reading in unwritten details. The problem with religious people making claims is that historically the last thing they were interested in was scientific like verification and instead used brute power to squash opposing views. This let them free to wreck havoc on any "subversive views" and create the "truth" in a most ungodly manner. Religion like science can be a double edged sword, but it is religion that can be a very dull sword whereas science seeks the ultimate "truth" and over time accepts nothing less. Religion CANNOT make this claim, if it does it just being deceptive.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on December 03, 2013:


Because this is such an ancient document, it's imperative to understand the differences that come from a clunky translation from ancient Hebrew to English. Like referring to God as 'He'. In the ancient text He is only ever referred to as YAHWEH or Elohim. 'He' is a later addition. Just as 'cattle' is a later addition. The original Hebrew doesn't say 'cattle'. The closest translation is probably closer to 'beast'.

The creation account isn't intended to prove itself through details. It's simply explaining how each thing came about and that God made it happen. What it manages to do is list, not just random facts about the earth's history, but it accurately describes major eras in the proper order. The formation of the earth's water cycle and oxygenated atmosphere was a major era. And two of the key components that made it possible are two elements specifically named in the verses before; the seas(v2) and light(v3). The next major development was land, then of course life. And just as is described, plant life was the dominant species for its era, then came moving life from the seas and birds that were dominant for a major era. Then come the mammals. What's particularly interesting here is that specific mention of birds also makes it apparent that there's a line of distinction here that is recognized scientifically today; syropsids (reptiles and birds), and synapsids (mammals and humans). And just like plant life before, then reptiles and birds, the mammals then had their era peaking with megafauna like giant cats and mammoths. Then came humans. First they were food for giant mammals, but then, over time, they became the new dominant species.

The 'us' is a difficult bit. When it says humans were to be created in 'our image and likeness' I think its speaking of the original storytellers. If you read my other 'God created evolution' hubs you'll see this is a whole project, of which creation is just a piece. What I think it's saying is that the earth was created first and populated with humans, then came Adam and Eve. And unlike naturally evolved humans (the Gen1 humans) Adam and Eve were not mortal, but lived much longer lives. I think they were the introduction of free will into the world as it describes them as breaking the one rule given to them by the creator who spoke everything else into existence. He made humans in the same image as these (Adam/Eve), the same likeness. And in Genesis 6 it says the 'sons of God' (descendants of Adam) found the 'daughters of humans' (naturally evolved humans) beautiful and began to procreate with them. This is when it says God 'regretted putting humans on the earth'. Then He sent the flood. A regional flood that would only be intended for the small group born of this intermingling.

This is a much larger story and it lines up with science and history and the rest of the bible and even alternate mythologies incredibly well. I understand your objections based on this anthropomorphic deity seeming more likely to be the imaginings of a more primitive people, but I think there's much more to the story here. There's little we know about those first civilizations like Sumer and Egypt. We just know they were incredibly advanced unlike anyone who came before. This offers an explanation. It's these stories in Genesis that set it all in motion. A behavioral change, an expected result if what I'm proposing is true, can actually be seen in the evidence. And every civilization of that region (Sumer/Akkad/Babylon, Egypt, the Indus Valley(India), Hittites, Greeks, Romans, etc) they all speak of these immortal beings in their ancient past, male and female, who were moody and unpredictable, and who sometimes mated with and had children by humans. And in the case of Sumer in particular, the first of all the civilizations, they specifically say they were taught 'civilization' by these gods.

When laid against the proper context of modern knowledge through scientific inquiry, the bible tells a very different, very relevant, very cohesive story. Again, maybe I'm totally off-base, but there's a lot of ducks that line right up when viewed through this lens, from every angle you come at it. So it's something I employ others to consider and pick at. It could be pure poppy-cock, or it could be an important key to what made us humans who/what we are.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on December 03, 2013:

Hi, What you are now saying in this response and the claim you make in your title God created Evolution:Genesis Creation Story is Scientifically Accurate; is it seems to me actually two different things. It's only seems accurate when all the stuff that doesnt jive is left out, and curiously enough that is how you formed your argument. I do believe it is science that is informing the bible creation story much more rather then the other way around in terms of important factual details in your case. The errors are not even given a second thought by you such as God created cattle. Actually it was civilized man who created cattle as cattle are domesticated not wild. So if the use or translation of this word is correct it is a silly error. To start off with I have big issues with the Genesis story right from the start. First you must accept the concept of "God" as it appears in Genesis and the trouble is like cattle it appears to me this "God" was created by civilized man NOT the other way around. This is why "God" is NOT refered to as an "it" but rather curiously enough as a HE. I for one dont believe in "God" but I dont rule out the possibility of such entities until it is proven absolutely otherwise but in any case I certainly would bet if "it" is the great creator of everything it probably doesnt need to be male or to look like a human man for that matter. This is the ancient human mind at work that you refer to in your response. If by some chance "God" does exist your hub doesnt really prove "it" created evolution. It may have created life with the ability to evolve but the actual evolution of species seems to have been played out without any thought of it being "GOOD" and seems counter to the Genesis story of static ready made species appearing at the dawn of creation. Your hub is very intelligently written but I think it fails to leave the gravity of religious thinking attempting to turn the tables on real science which oddly enough you now holy embrace. Yes I agree that the first bibles are interesting reading especially because they are so ancient but they could not shake off the shackles of ignorance that binded them and so it is fascinating but also horribly dated and well kind of silly in its pretence. I cannot even figure out from Genesis just how many "Gods" they are writting about as it says let us make man in "our" own image as if "God" was having a conversation with other "Gods" Can it be the people who wrote the bible or who first invented these stories actually thought they were the 'Gods"? It's very possible they were sitting around a fire either drinking or smoking some pretty strong stuff.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on December 02, 2013:


I think it's important to try to understand the creation account as an ancient document from an ancient culture. To try to understand its purpose, its proper context. The creation account in particular is its own thing, meaning it was edited together with the rest of Genesis sometime later. This particular piece, because of its structure, is thought by some to maybe be a song. It's a story likely told (or sang) around the fire for generations. It most likely existed as an oral tradition long before it was committed to written form. There's no telling how old it really is.

We modern folk try to apply our modern reasonings to it assuming that if it's 'God's word' then it should just be 'right'. So we set in our minds what we should demand of it, what would make it 'right'. What's 'missing' that we think should be there if it were 'right'. It's simply a telling of how each thing humans would be familiar with came into being. The sky, the ground, the sea, the animals, us. And when read from a human point of view, it's incredibly accurate to how it all really played out.

The seas really did come first. Then the earth's water cycle and oxygenated atmosphere, then land. Once there's land, which is where humans would ultimately dwell, it first says plant life came first, then animals from the sea, the mammals, then humans. All correct. But what I think is really significant is it pauses between plant life on land and the emergence of animal life on land to talk about the positioning of the sun/moon/stars in the sky. Because it actually is between those two events, plant life on land and animal life on land, that something truly significant happened. Not only did plant life on land help speed up the process of changing the atmosphere from translucent to transparent, where you'd actually be able to see the sun/moon/stars rather than just light and dark, but this is also when the entirety of the earth's continental land mass actually moved from beneath the earth to the sides, between the poles. So, not only did the sun/moon/stars become visible, but they also became 'positioned' as they are today because the majority of land mass was now positioned so that there would be 12 hours of day and 12 hours of night, rather than 6 months.

If the stories are true and the God who created all of this actually interacted with these people as they, for whatever reason, claimed, then it's possible these people had a knowledge of how creation played out. I employ you to read my other 'God created evolution' hubs. It goes much further than just the creation account. I may be completely off-base, but what this story appears to be describing may have actually happened. And if it did then it's an important part of what made us humans who we are. It's an important part of our history. I think it's important to examine all possibilities and not be so quick to dismiss anything until we know for sure.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on December 02, 2013:

You have obviously spent a good deal of time trying to do what few people would care to do, that is justifying religion by way of modern science. Under your wing days become eons of vast time. The Hindu religion which probably predates the bible has a must better grip on the vast time frame of the making of the universe and solar system. You dont mess with the inconsistences of the story. No mention is made of the important movements of the heavens in relation to the seasons. Important life forms are rolled into the creepy category while great whales are used as iconic life forms. Man was made in "Gods" image yet undergoesungodly transformations from animal to God like human beings. Man is told he is the master of earth yet we are our own worst enemy and continually are falling prey to"lesser life forms". can it be that animals came from the water hole because that's where most go to drink and eat? You may have shown that there are similarities but it really doesnt go much farther then that.I'd say your related to the kind of mind that wrote such myths in the first place.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on December 01, 2013:

What is NOT written in the bible, what is missing is more telling then what actually is written. What is there is inconsistent and if you wished you could take these points of inconsistency and run w them. You ignor many facets for whatever reason., such as and God said let "us" make man in "our" own image. then he makes man in "HIS" own image. nOT BY THE WAY "HER" IMAGE. it goes from plural and being more then one "God" to his being only one AND IT SEEMS "IT" HAS BALLS. The dating of life on earth just doesnt jive w the creation story and thaTS A BIG PROBLEM. THE CREATION STORY OF THE BIBLE HAS MAN AT FIRST SEEKING TO HAVE SEX W OTHER ANIMALS THEN "gOD"REALIZES OH OH. THE CREATION STORY reminds me of how when i was young kid i set up my first aquarium. it took about a week for me "GOD"to get it all right. actually man and all more complex creatures are in fact a symbiotic conglomeration of creatures. why doesnt the bible explain this important concept of complex life forms?

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on November 26, 2013:


I appreciate you reading and sharing your thoughts. One issue with reviewing the Hindu creation myth would be knowing which one to go with. The one that says 'being' came into existence via a cosmic/golden egg according to the Rigveda, the one that says all things were made of the mangled remains of Purusha, a supernatural man, who was sacrificed by the gods like it says in the Purusha Sukta, or the one that says Vishnu, in the shape of a boar, plunged into the cosmic waters and brought forth the earth like it says in the Puranas?

I did consider multiple other creation myths, including all we know about how old they are and where they originate. There's really only one that's based in the same region/timeframe where civilization first sprang up, that tells such a specific chronology of each element of this planet, and that's the Genesis account.

I can understand how you could see what I've done here as taking liberties, but I by no means rewrote, or changed, anything. All I did was I took the source texts itself, in its oldest known form, clearing away all pre-conceived ideas I or anyone else held as to what it was describing, and simply held it up against the actual geological and biological formation of this planet as we now understand it to see if there was anything there. Personally, I didn't expect to find what I did because, basically, if some nobody schlub like myself can piece something like this together, then it would have already been done. I didn't change a word. In fact I painstakingly matched up each piece of this interpretation with the original Hebrew, phrase by phrase and word for word, to ensure it didn't conflict. Then I published it so that it could be reviewed by others and exposed to be total drivel if that's what it is. And while I've found plenty of people who don't agree with it, I've yet to have one person who can say for certain that this is wrong for any concrete reason.

gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on November 25, 2013:

why not review the Hindu myths of creation? you take great liberties in trying to make your point. so much so its like you have rewritten the bible.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on November 18, 2013:


"The information in the Bible whether people believe in it or not, is parallel with science."

"I believe He created the male and female side by side. Somehow they were able to multiply. But God separated them, maybe through evolution, but not at first, the evolution of man and woman as separate beings came after the initial separation."

"There were only a few humans created and their job was to multiply, but died out to a new separated species. Science is finding more and more humans they didn’t know about, and are aware there are more to find."

This view is not parallel with science. Humans are mammals, and mammals procreate through sexual intercourse between males and females since long before they had taken human, or even mammalian, form. Now if this were looked at in the view of the full process of evolution, including all precursors to what eventually became humans, all the way back to single-celled and the first multi-celled creatures, then I can see how that works because that is ultimately the truth. But there's nothing to support the idea that these beings were physically tethered to one another while in the age of having a human form. For one thing this would make natural child birth very difficult, if not impossible, much less the act of copulation itself. And if this were true of humans across the board until the separation then not only would this be found in all human remains that predate, but would also be consistently so in all precursor species that humans evolved from.

I think there's some merit to your statements in regards to males and females basically being split-aparts of one another, made whole again when brought together. But I do not see how any of this merit is gained or lost based on whether or not humans were physically connected at one time. It just doesn't seem relevant to me, and because it is also inconsistent with science, seems erroneous and unneeded.

Deborah Sexton on November 16, 2013:

You have missed every point I have made. Read the story of creation again

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on November 16, 2013:


I'm not sure I understand why it's meaningful or purposeful whether or not Adam/Eve were joined. I have no issue with whether or not it was his rib or his side. You're right that we're all a bit of both. It's determined by a single chromosome which sex you become. I think God made a creation, that He first 'tested' by bringing the animals to Adam to see what he'd call them. The act of giving a name in itself was Adam creating something of his own will. Something that was not 'of God', but was 'of Adam'. Then he took from this creation to make a companion. But when in the garden it was Eve who was talking to the 'serpent', then after eating the fruit, gave it to Adam. It wasn't that they were both 'beguiled' by the 'serpent'. It was Eve. If they were joined at the side, physically, would it not have involved them both?

GEN 2:22 - And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And because God made Eve from Adam, she was basically a part of the same creation. It was Adam, not God, that named her Eve. That's what I think when I consider what you're saying in reference to Gen 5:1-2. They were 'one flesh' in the sense that they were made from the same physical form and together made future generations. But I don't think this requires they still be physically joined. Just one of the same at one point and still companions.

Like you pointed out, these ancient texts, and how to properly interpret them, was a mystery even to ancient Rabbis. Even in the post-exile age interpreting and properly understanding the law was a challenge because these stories were ancient even to them. There's not much in the way of context to flesh out these stories being told, so our minds fill in the gaps in wildly different ways, seeing largely different possibilities in how it's interpreted. This is why context is so important. Science provides us context. It helps describe the setting in which the stories are taking place. And if properly placed in history, it can help us better understand these stories and the impact the events of these stories had on the world around them.

Through this lens, there is no conflict between the two creation accounts in Genesis because they are two separate events. There are the naturally evolved humans who have existed for 100,000 years and who have populated the world since around 20000 years ago, then there's Adam/Eve and their descendants. I believe Adam/Eve were created around 5500 BC and I believe they were unlike any other being on the Earth at that time. Unlike the naturally evolved humans who populated the landscape at that time who only lived mortal lifespans, I believe Adam/Eve really did live for centuries. And I believe we can see the impact these beings had on humanity in our human history. Historically, scientifically, even mythologically.

Gen6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

I read your sons of God hub. You're right that there is a definite distinction made here. But I do not think they were the offspring of the serpent/Eve. I think they were the humans created in Genesis 1, who unlike Adam/Eve and their bloodline, continued to behave just as humans had for hundreds of thousands of years. They did not wear clothes for functional reasons. They did not exhibit behaviors typical of a 'modern' human that signifies such a prominent individual ego. They were selfless, tribe-minded, males and females were equal, there was no social or class stratification, and there was little to no violence. They lived in harmony with the natural world very much much like the rest of the animal kingdom. It's only after the introduction of free will into the world through Adam/Eve/Noah/Shem/Ham/Japheth that we begin to see the emergence of the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations, wars and armies, laws and cities, and everything else. Humans no longer living in harmony with nature or anything else.

I think the flood was because God had introduced a volatile element into His creation that, unlike everything else, behaved according to its own will and not His. That's what I think the beginning of Genesis 6 is talking about. After Cain was banished, it says he built a city, then talks of his family through seven generations. Then Genesis 6 begins with explaining that the 'sons of God' began mating with the daughters of humans when human increased in number in the land. I think they increased in number because Cain built a city. And it makes the distinction that, unlike Adam and his descendants in Genesis 5 who lived for centuries, they only live 120 years. It is because the beings were acting of their own will and not God's that God then 'regretted' putting humans here. That's why I think the flood was necessary. This free will, free of His will, had been introduced into humanity and they became wicked.

Even Satan did not have free will, like it says in Job. Satan had to have God's permission to do what he did to Job. Only humans have this. Only humans behave contrary to God's will, unlike any other creation in this universe. It's these descendants of Adam and Eve who I think were the sons of God. It's only humans who are referred to as 'sons' by God throughout both the old and new testament. They're never specifically said to be angels. I think the 'sons of God' were those who did not interbreed, initially. Then I think it was those of the lines God chose; Abraham's descendants. Personally, from my Christian perspective, I think the entirety of the old testament, the Mitzvah laws for the Jewish people, what to eat and who to breed and not breed with, was God working within the confines of free will to create the 'son of God'. Because we're all capable of behaving contrary to the creator's will, God created one capable of doing what no one until him was able to do. Live an entire life without ever conflicting with God's will. Without ever sinning. The ultimate untainted sacrifice for all of mankind.

When placed in the setting of actual history, this is how it reads to me.

Deborah Sexton on November 15, 2013:

By Ariela Pelaia

There are two versions of Creation that appear in the biblical book of Genesis.

This presented ancient rabbis with a problem because they believed that the Torah was the Word of God and therefore it was not possible for the text to contradict itself. As a result, they came up with an explanation to reconcile the apparent contradition

In the first account, which appears in Genesis 1:26-27 and is known as the Priestly version, God creates unnamed male and female beings at the end of the creation process:

“’He took one of his ribs (mi-tzalotav)’… [‘One of his ribs’ means] one of his sides, as you read [in an analogy from the similar use of the same word elsewhere], ‘And for the other side wall (tzel’a) of the Tabernacle’ (Exodus 26:20).”

What the rabbis mean here is that the phrase used to describe woman's creation from man's rib – mi-tzalotav – actually means an entire side of his body because the word “tzel’a” is used in the book of Exodus to refer to one side of the holy Tabernacle. A similar discussion can be found in Leviticus Rabbah 14:1 where R. Levi states: “When man was created, he was created with two body-fronts, and He [God] separated him in two, so that two backs resulted, one back for the male and another for the female.”

In this way the concept of the androgyne allowed the rabbis to reconcile the two accounts of Creation. Some feminist scholars also contend that the creature solved another problem for patriarchal rabbinical society: it ruled out the possibility that man and woman were created equally in Genesis 1.

Deborah Sexton on November 15, 2013:

Genesis 5:1

God created them male and female and called their name Adam

Genesis 5:2

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

The Hebrew word translated as “rib” is “tsela” but really means “side” In Jeremiah the word tsela is used meaning side

In Jeremiah 20:10 It says "For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side…” Would he have been saying “fear on every rib”?

Deborah Sexton on November 15, 2013:

This has nothing to do with Kabbalah. It is the Jewish belief (I am Jewish). It is in the Jewish Bible and translated almost the same in the English Bible. It is right there to read and understand. You’re thinking it does not go along with science, yet we are all still a bit male and female today. We all have the X and Y Chromosomes (I am also a nurse) Most believe God took a rib and made Eve, why is it so hard to believe man and woman was joined at the side? There were only a few humans created and their job was to multiply, but died out to a new separated species. Science is finding more and more humans they didn’t know about, and are aware there are more to find.

by Rabbi Yisroel Shaw

The Rashba, a 13th century commentator, explains that when the Talmud says that at first Hashem thought about creating two and then created one, it means that the creation of Man was carefully planned out to be executed in the most effective way. Hashem carefully planned out whether to create the male and female entities as one (that is, having one creature with both male and female attributes) or as two (having one creature with male attributes, and another with female attributes). It does not mean that He changed His mind, but rather that His creation was done with forethought and thorough consideration. Why, then, did He later end up making two humans? The Rashba offers two answers:

(1) The two that were eventually created were not the same two of His original plan. Originally, Hashem, in His Divine deliberation, decided not to create two types of beings and instead He created one being, which included both Man and Woman in one body.

(2) Alternatively, Hashem originally considered creating Man and Woman from the start as two individual entities (of the same species), but in the end He decided that both Man and Woman should come from one body.

The reason for this decision was so that Man and Woman would feel eternally bonded to each other. When they would come together as man and wife, they would feel as though they were always intended to be together as one, for that is how they were originally created. Again, Hashem never changed His mind, so to speak. Rather, His infinite wisdom pondered all of the possible ways of creating the human being before deciding to do it in one particular way.

The Vilna Gaon, an 18th century Torah giant, offers another explanation.

Hashem created them as one body to begin with, and not two bodies, as a step towards creating them as two. Man and Woman, as husband and wife in every generation would feel an eternal bond with each other, as though they were created at the beginning of time as one.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on November 15, 2013:


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have to accept anyone's 'babble' and if we didn't have the right to laugh at 'hooey' then I just wouldn't want to go on living. This is just something that occurred to me about your particular point of view while reading through this most recent exchange. It seems almost contradictory the more I think about it. I mean, genetically/physically we know we're all connected. But even beyond that, you and I both seem to hold the view of consciousness itself being something interconnected between all living things. Yet, your whole approach seems to be the total opposite of your philosophy. You've got this deep intellectual viewpoint juxtaposed with this 'you guys are all morons' demeanor. Not that I'm complaining or criticizing. I just find it more interesting than anything. You're an enigma, Insane.

Insane Mundane from Earth on November 15, 2013:

Not really... I don't have to readily accept the brick-packed Kabbalah babble, now do I? That is a bunch of Kabbalah hooey, and I have the right to laugh at it if I so desire. LOL!

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on November 14, 2013:


I hope we can continue this conversation because I'm intrigued by some of your statements. Feel free to just ignore the others if you don't want to engage in those discussions because I think your input has value in this discussion. If you feel others are being rude or hateful, then just let their statements reflect that to others who read along.

What I find interesting is that you agree that there is cohesiveness between what we now know about the history of the earth through science and the description of creation through Genesis, yet in the way you read the creation of humans you seem to depart from known science.

With your acknowledgement of the transition of the atmosphere and the various stages of the Earth throughout history, consider this as well. The creation of humans in Genesis 1 continues to stay right in line with what's known scientifically. If I'm understanding correctly, you acknowledge that the humans created male/female came before the creation of Eve, so you agree there were humans who existed apart from/before her, right? Think about those specific commands given to these Gen1 humans by God. 'Be fruitful and multiply', 'fill/subdue the earth', 'establish dominance in the animal kingdom'. These are all things that naturally evolved humans actually did leading up to the age in which the Adam/Eve story of Genesis is set. Humans really did populate the entirety of the planet, adapting to various climates and conditions along the way, and really did become the dominant species. So, if seen in that context, these humans God deemed 'good' right along with the rest of creation accomplished His will without fail. Things that took numerous generations to carry out they did, without question or defiance in any way. So, they 'functioned' as desired.

Then comes the story of Adam/Eve, and from that point forward the entire theme of the story has everything to do with these two, and their descendants, often behaving contrary to God's will. If Adam/Eve, in just one generation, were not able to obey the one rule God made, then how could they be expected to carry out these commands given by God that took numerous generations and be deemed 'Tov'?

In my thinking, the creation of Eve as a 'companion' had more to do with the fact that Adam lived such a long life. I think of Eve's creation as a companion as being a partner that is equal to Adam. Someone who will live alongside him and not just die like everything else. In fact, it's said that only after they ate from the forbidden tree would they die. And only after did Eve have to bare the pains of child birth. Procreation of this line wasn't necessary for them until then. The perpetuation of life is only necessary because of death.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on November 14, 2013:


As much as I have enjoyed your particular brand of jaggedness, I have to ask .... If it's as you say it is, if we're all of the same collective consciousness divided into individuals, then what good does it do to ridicule and laugh at those who are essentially a part of you? In the context you speak of, is this not a very real scenario of cutting off your own nose to spite your face?

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on November 14, 2013:

Come on Rad, we're talking about plant life that predates animal life. Do you really think apples were apples then? Just think about this. I know you know better. Everything changed and evolved dramatically. Some found ways to reproduce within their environment, others did not. You're speaking as if fruit trees as we know them now have always been that way and that the interplay between insects and fruit trees has always been as it is today. There's still much we don't know, or that we are left merely speculating about, because we're talking about how things were 300-400 million years ago.

Besides, what you're arguing isn't specific to the creation account. We're talking about known history here. These things really did happen. Plant life really did appear long before animal life on land, and managed to thrive just fine. There's only 31 verses to the creation account, where it's describing to humans how the things that humans are familiar with came about. And it does so accurately.

Rad Man on November 14, 2013:

LMAO! I'm with Insane this time.

Insane Mundane from Earth on November 14, 2013:


Deborah Sexton on November 14, 2013:

Well HeadlyvonNoggin I'm leaving I can't stand the rudeness, stupidity and hate here. Please delete my stuff

Deborah Sexton on November 14, 2013:

Seeds germinate without being fertilized.

Deborah Sexton on November 14, 2013:

It's not metaphysical, it's Bible. And people do care about my opinion.

Why are you so full of hate? Doesn't anyone love you? I can see why not

Rad Man on November 14, 2013:

"Why would the seed need to be fertilized?" You're killing me.

LOL. Why do fruit make us poop?

An apple falls from a tree and the wind blows it elsewhere? Where is slowly decomposes and the seeds go into the ground to make a new fruit tree?

Insane Mundane from Earth on November 14, 2013:

@Deborah: Welcome to the world wide web of Kabbalah; ha! Nobody actually cares about your metaphysical babble, just saying.... LOL!

Deborah Sexton on November 14, 2013:

Genesis 2:24. Here is something most interesting. God seems to interrupt the ancient history, as given by Moses, and steps forth, as it were, in His own person, to address humanity directly and impressively in the words, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife." Some have attributed these words to Adam, who was speaking in the previous verse, or to Moses, but Yahshua ( Jesus) speaks of them as God's own language, in Matthew 19:4, 5, saying " And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh?" Metaphorically the same as when they were created. Many commandments are promulgated in masculine terms, though meant equally for both sexes, but in this instance the case is different: One man and one woman stand before the Almighty, on the very occasion of their differentiation into two sexes, and God enunciates a law as lying between those two just formed, which indicates for all time the duty of husband to wife, not of wife to husband. And then, in the Hebrew original expression, "for this cause ought the man," the word for "man" is not the generic term meaning "man-kind," it is ish, "husband," corresponding to isha, "wife, in the expression "his wife" of this verse. When man and woman marry, there must be created a line of cleavage, on the part of one or both, between parent, or parents, and children. This Scriptural marriage law declares that the line of cleavage shall separate the husband from his parents rather than the wife from her parents.

Deborah Sexton on November 14, 2013:

I am posting this again to explain where I stand on this. I believe God created mankind not just two people and not one million either. I believe He created the male and female side by side. Somehow they were able to multiply. But God separated them, maybe through evolution, but not at first, the evolution of man and woman as separate beings came after the initial separation.

What I posted before

From reading the following verses when God created mankind he created them both male and female. Not someone with both genitalia but people connected side by side.

Remember God created them male and female before he created Eve.

Before Eve when God spoke of the female, He was not speaking of a separate female, because although He had already created humanity as male and female, at that point Eve didn’t yet exist.

Genesis 5:1

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

God created them male and female and called their name Adam

Genesis 5:2

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

The Hebrew word translated as “rib” is “tsela” but really means “side” In Jeremiah the word tsela is used meaning side

In Jeremiah 20:10 It says "For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side…” Would he have been saying “fear on every rib”?

Genesis 2:20

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an *help meet for him.

*Help meet does not mean someone to wash clothes and cook, it means someone to have marital relations with. This was impossible with them being side by side.

If God had taken only a rib from Adam, he would not have said “she is flesh of my flesh," he would only have said, "she is bone of my bone." 

Insane Mundane from Earth on November 14, 2013:

Dear gentle readers: This entire planet represents Genesis; duh! It is like the ultimate growing substrate for lunatics, as it doesn't get much better than that. LOL!

Deborah Sexton on November 14, 2013:

This speaks of the seed in its self so no pollen is needed. Seeds just dropped by the parent plant and some blew a little further away. Why would the seed need to be fertilized?

End of plant discussion

Genesis 1

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (or worked the way it was suppose to)

Insane Mundane from Earth on November 14, 2013:


Did the bees evolve with the flowers? It is a good thing they paralleled, eh? LOL!

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on November 14, 2013:


This is completely irrelevant to the creation account as it does not talk about insects. And 'maybe this or maybe that' is the cornerstone to science. It's what anybody does when trying to figure out how/why something works. The fact is plant life was on land long before animal life. This isn't only what Genesis says, this is fact. Animal life is not one and the same as insect life. In actuality, both plant life and insects came about on land at roughly the same time, toward the beginning of the Silurian Period (443.7 to 416 mya).

Rad Man on November 14, 2013:

Think about it. There would have to be something eating the fruit for the tree to evolve. Otherwise the fruit would simply fall under it's own tree unfirtilized. Even if it were able to pollinate it's own flowers it would have no way transporting the seeds to new places.

This is what you guys do. Maybe this or maybe that.

Deborah Sexton on November 14, 2013:

David Hennessey you are not using correct premises

Here's faulty premises and a faulty conclusion

Premise 1:David Hennessey has read some of the English Bible

Premise 2 David doesn't fell the Bible is scientific

Conclusion: Therefore the Bible isn't scientific

Logical premises and conclusion

Premise 1:David Hennessey has read some of the English Bible

Premise 2 David doesn't fell the Bible is scientific

Conclusion: He needs better reading material and he needs an open mind because he has a lot to learn

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on November 14, 2013:


You realize there were many ways fertilization happened along the way, with things evolving different ways of doing things in accordance to what was available in the environment. Whether or not there were bees, which the text does not specify, is difficult to say.

But, if you think about it, there'd have to be seed-baring fruit trees in existence before bees could evolve to do their thing.

Deborah Sexton on November 14, 2013:

Radman, Scripture doesn't tell us when bees were created. Wind also carries pollen. I am sure God knew how to sustain that which he created.

Deborah Sexton on November 14, 2013:

From reading the following verses when God created mankind he created them both male and female. Not someone with both genitalia but people connected side by side.

Remember God created them male and female before he created Eve.

God was not speaking of a separate female, because although He had already created humanity as male and female, at that point Eve didn’t yet exist.

Genesis 5:1

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

God created them male and female and called their name Adam

Genesis 5:2

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

The Hebrew word translated as “rib” is “tsela” but really means “side” In Jeremiah the word tsela is used meaning side

In Jeremiah 20:10 It says "For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side…” Would he have been saying “fear on every rib”?

Genesis 2:20

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an *help meet for him.

*Help meet does not mean someone to wash clothes and cook, it means someone to have marital relations with. This was impossible with them being side by side.

If God had taken only a rib from Adam, he would not have said “she is flesh of my flesh," he would have said, "she is bone of my bone." 

Rad Man on November 14, 2013:

Ha, you guys really do a lot of stretching to make this work out. Fruit trees without bees and anything to eat the fruit to fertilize the seeds.

Deborah Sexton on November 14, 2013:

Yes, I said:

How are you

What’s new

see you later

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on November 14, 2013:

Hey Rad,

Deborah may be able to confirm or refute the validity of this, but keep in mind that the way you're reading this is very much an 'english/latin' thing. Because it says this in the 'day 4' portion, we english speakers tend to think of it as meaning this is when the sun/moon/stars were created chronologically. But in Hebrew, it is not at all uncommon for this statement to be made like this but not mean this is 'when'. It just means that now that it's addressing these objects specifically, it's simply making a statement that these two were created by God. Verse one says God created the 'heavens' in the beginning, and the 'heavens' in that age were the sun/moon/stars.

As for the grass/herbs/fruit trees, a visible sun is not required. In fact, in the earth's actual history, the sun would was not visible for millions of years after plant life grew on land. In fact, its the plant life on land being in direct contact with the atmosphere that aided in changing the atmosphere from translucent to transparent.

Deborah Sexton on November 14, 2013:

I have on my thinking cap and I am going by the Hebrew Bible, better get your thinking cap

Christians say that the Bible teaches the Earth was created before the Sun, stars and other planets. They also state there was light on Earth before the Sun was created. This is tied to the events of the fourth creation “day” (Genesis 1:14-19):

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning–the fourth day. (NIV)

Verse 16 tells us God made the Sun, Moon and stars on the fourth “day.” Most creationists focus on the English translation and interpret this verse to mean God created the Sun and Moon that instant. The Hebrew does not support that interpretation. The Hebrew word for “made” (asah) refers to an action completed in the past.7 Thus, the verse is correctly rendered “God had made” rather than “God made.” This indicates God “had made” the Sun, Moon and stars earlier than the fourth “day.”8

This view of the fourth “day” has much support. For example, Gleason Archer, one of the foremost evangelical Hebrew scholars, states: “Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day...9 Likewise, Protestant theologian Wayne Grudem states: “[Verse 16] Can be taken as perfects indicating what God had done before … This view would imply that God had made the sun, moon, and stars earlier …”10

So, when were the Sun, Moon and stars created? Genesis 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha’ erets) refers to the entire universe, entire creation and everything that can be seen or has physical existence.11 This indicates the heavenly bodies–the Earth, Sun, Moon, stars and other planets–were created “in the beginning” prior to the six creation “days.”

Related Articles