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.

Scroll to Continue

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 confro