GENESIS 1: CREATION, the BEGINNING
Updated: 6 days ago
© 2025.
After the following Intro, this commentary explains how the Genesis 1 account is literally correct by including clarifying observational science in its "technical summary". Later, the creation of the universe is described by using modern astronomical discoveries- not theories, that are consistent (or don’t conflict) with all five scripture verses below about the “beginning” that was introduced in Genesis 1:1. The Genesis 1: Creation, “Six Days” commentary explains the science behind the later creation events in vv2-31.
Intro
The Authorship of the Hebrew Law commentary presented substantial evidence from scripture, archaeology, Hebrew writing style, and ancient history that Moses originally recorded the biblical books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and much of Deuteronomy during the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt c1450BCE. Later explanatory additions by others didn’t detract from his original message.
Evidence presented in the Genesis 1: Origin and Authorship commentary explained why this account was originated by God who revealed it to a human before Noah’s Flood. Moses later compiled it into his Book of Genesis in Hebrew with God’s direction. The creation events were described as isolated "snapshots" of what God did in the “beginning” and during each of the “six days”. Some of the event descriptions seem cryptic and the entire account was written in a literary style that omitted technical details so it is difficult to rationalize that many bible readers complain about. Explanations about why the creation account was described this way are given in the Introduction to the creation account, in the Origin and Authorship commentary.
The Genesis 1 creation account only describes what God did and the time frame that He accomplished it. The Technical Summary below demonstrates that literal descriptions of what God did in Genesis 1 can be realistically explained by how He did them using sound observational science*. This importantly removes a barrier to successfully share the reality of the creation account with bible skeptics!
*Famous Christian (Lutheran) early-telescopic astronomer, Johannes Kepler (c1600CE) considered that “science is thinking God’s thoughts after him” (internet).
Translators’ word choices from Hebrew into English sometimes create additional confusion. A common complaint by bible readers is the use of “firmament”, “vault”, and “dome" for "expanse”[1984 NIV] in Genesis 1: 6-8. Other grammatically correct English word choices in Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:16-17 that led to confused interpretations of verses are explained below.
Many gave up trying to rationally understand this creation account and concluded it wasn’t intended to be understood literally (factually). Some even deliberately disregarded the entire Genesis 1 account to avoid conflict with prevailing scientific views and replaced it with the gap theory, theistic evolution, or the day-age view (Topical note 2). Certain mainstream Christian churches classify the early Genesis accounts as “myths and legends”, or “fables”- fictional stories that teach spiritual lessons. This confusion motivated researching and writing these commentaries and Topical notes that explain the early accounts in Genesis chapters 1-11 from a scientific and historical perspective. And they also present convincing evidence for their technical accuracy.
Beneficially, this independent research wasn’t limited by using the classic English interpretations of Exodus 20:11, Genesis 1:14-18, and Usher’s dating chronology (c1600AD) that doesn’t compare favorably with known ancient dates before Abraham. However, their use is doctrinal policy for some creation science organizations. While such policy importantly maintains uniform beliefs among their staff it isn't normally reviewed for currency, and if incorrect it can stifle beneficial research. These interpretations evidently incorrectly assume Exodus 20:11 refers to the original creation of the heavens and the earth and Genesis 1:14-18 means the sun, moon and the stars formed on the 4th day. They make the Genesis 1 account seem to state the universe was produced like it is today in one day several thousand years ago and the stars formed after the earth. So, they conflict with trustworthy observational science and recent astronomical discoveries. So, many conservative Christians with college education in the laboratory sciences can't understand that Genesis 1 is literally true. Creation organizations resist policy change. However, conventional scientists uniformly reject it mainly because of their belief in the consensus sciences of evolutionary speciation, uniformitarian geology, and deep-time astrophysics, and radiometric dating (see Topical notes 6,7,8).
The independent research for Genesis Makes Sense provided freedom to explore corrected interpretations for these two key scripture verses in English language bibles and historically accurate biblical chronologies. This academic freedom isn’t normally possible for organizational creation scientists. The revised interpretations for Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14-18 used in Genesis Makes Sense don’t affect the Hebrew or English bible verses, only their correct meanings (below). They importantly allow the creation events to be explained with trustworthy, observation-al astronomy without ”twisting” or disregarding any bible verses. The biblical dates for creation week and Noah’s Flood used from Josephus’ chronology agree closely with verifiable historical dates (Authorship of the Hebrew Law commentary).
The accuracy of these corrected interpretations for Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14-18 is well defended in this commentary. The two creation commentaries that use them to present scientific explanations that are consistent with the bible verses that describe the “beginning” and Earth’s 4th day in the “Six Days” creation commentary. So, the beginning importantly may be treated as a period before Earth’s 1st day. Naturally, these revised interpretations and the resulting explanations about when the beginning was and what happened then will be claimed to be “false ideas” by creation sources that use the classic interpretations for these scripture verses. Other topics in Genesis Makes Sense are clearly explained from mainstream creation science.
Conservative Christian pastors who teach belief that the Genesis 1 account is literally true say it’s a “matter of faith”. However, this record is explained to be factual (literally correct) so it should agree with the reality of trustworthy observational sciences! These trustworthy sciences don’t include the “millions and billions of years” spanned consensus sciences of evolutionary speciation, uniformatarian geology, and astrophysics that conventional scientists and others force on the public as fact (Topical notes 1,2). Why these are “consensus sciences” is explained from a creation perspective in Topical notes 6 and 7. And “agree” doesn't mean observational science is an accuracy criterion for the biblical creation account (“scientism”), rather both should be in natural agreement and "handshake", (without verbally twisting one or the other, or ignoring verses) because they both cover creation and both purport to be true.
Starting with their modernizations during the 1900s, the natural sciences have provided observational discoveries that confirm the technical correctness of the early Genesis accounts of creation, the global flood, and the worldwide migration of humans and animals to fill the earth. These discoveries are included in the commentaries and topical notes.
Introducing the Technical Summary of Genesis 1
A technical summary of Genesis 1 that follows inserts carefully researched, explanatory scientific descriptions in bold braces {} into direct quotations and accurate paraphrases of the 1984 NIV bible text that described the creation events. Equivalent words used in other bible versions appear in brackets [] so most English versions are covered. The insertions describe the science of how the creation events occurred so they may be rationally understood by today’s readers. These grammatical interpolative insertions into Genesis 1 are separated from the bible text by braces, yet they seamlessly blend in and are seen to be completely consistent with the creation account. Details of the inserted science is explained in the two Genesis 1 creation commentaries about the Beginning and the Six Days.
The Technical Summary of Genesis 1:
v1. In the beginning God created the {celestial} heavens and the earth {from nothing: ex nihilo. No details were given.} (This commentary illuminates omitted technical details.) {The Earth was introduced in v2 when it was covered with a watery surface ocean so it was then different from all other known planets. The water was part of its creation. (Where it came from is realistically explained in “Forming the waters” in the commentary, Genesis 1: Creation, The Six days, Introduction to the Six Days). Then the creation account proceeded to the events that God used to made the planet earth into a habitat with life, as described in vv2-31 and occurred during six days of the earth’s rotation.}
vv2-5. The earth was empty [void, desolate] {meaning without life}, and formless {meaning without shape because its ever-changing, wind-blown surface was a violent global sea, "the deep"}. Darkness was over the deep {due to a totally dark, evidently rainy cloud layer that covered it. Together, God called the cloud layer and sea “the waters”.} “And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters” {while global torrential rainfall filled the sea. The rain slowed when the cloud layer was nearly depleted and the sea was almost full.} “And God said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light”. {Then cloudy daylight appeared over the sea when sunlight penetrated the thinning clouds.} “God saw the light was good". {By using the earth’s existing rotation from the beginning} “He separated [divided] the light from the darkness. God called the light ‘day’ and the darkness He called ‘night’". And there was evening and there was morning- the first day”.
vv6-8. And God made a global expanse {a gap of clear dry air in the waters} between the sea and the cloud layer above it. This expanse of clear air “separated {sea} water from {atmospheric} water”. “God called the expanse [vault, dome, firmament] 'sky' [heaven]. {Previously, on the first day the continuous global rain merged the cloud layer and the sea together with rainwater. By this day the thinned cloud layer became entirely depleted. So, the global rain stopped and dry air (sky) formed under it over the sea, and the sea was filled.} “And there was evening and there was morning- the second day”.
vv9-13. God gathered the water under the sky into one place when He let dry ground that He called “land” {rise above it}. He called the gathered waters “seas”. Then the land produced vegetation {from seeds and spores He planted in the ground as implied by Genesis 2:8}- “plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds”. {According to their kinds meant a particular plant always reproduced its own species, never different ones: apple seeds always produce apple trees, never pear or orange trees. The same applied to living creatures in the fifth and sixth days below. Genesis 2:6 implied that sprouting land plants were first watered by streams from underground after the continuous global rain had stopped. Vegetation, including algae and fungi were made on this day but seed plants were specifically mentioned as fruit and grain foods for the ancient humans this account was first given to. Photosynthetic plants started to produce breathable oxygen gas that would support living creatures.} “And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning- the third day”.
vv14-19. {When the thin, depleted cloud layer finally scattered} God made the greater and lesser lights [the sun and moon] that govern the day and night and also the stars {that were all created in the beginning} to be in Earth’s sky. They were to serve as signs to mark seasons, days and years, and give light on the earth. “And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning- the fourth day”.
vv20-23. And God created all the kinds of living sea creatures to team in the waters and birds to fly above the earth. He blessed them to multiply and fill the sea and the earth. “And there was evening and there was morning- the fifth day”.
vv24-31. And God made {the bodies of} all the wild animals, livestock, and creatures that move along the ground {from the materials in the earth according to Genesis 2:19, and He created their consciousness from nothing- all similarly to the sea creatures and birds}. Then God {likewise} made one pair of humans {but their consciousness was created in His spiritual image and likeness} to rule over the sea creatures, birds, and land animals. God charged them all to eat from the green plants {that grew abundantly in the variable direct sunlight of Earth’s partly cloudy sky starting on the 4th day}. “And God saw all that He had made, and it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning- the sixth day”.
Genesis 2:1-3. By the seventh day God finished the work He had been doing. “Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy {for Himself}, because He rested from all the work of creating that He had done”.
{Several thousand years later God gave the Hebrews His Sabbath Law by His example described in Exodus 20:11 to abstain from all work on their seventh day of each week to observe His day of rest from their labor and to worship Him and remember His goodness. This was Hebrew practice since the time of Moses who gave them God’s laws. Today their seventh calendar day of each week corresponds to Saturday in English-speaking countries. (See Genesis 1, Origin and Authorship{2a})}.
********************************************************************
The Genesis 1 Commentary, The Beginning
v1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (NIV), or the universe. Written Hebrew past-tense “bra"* (“created") meant He produced them from nothing (ex nihilo). Evidence is presented below that the "beginning" was a lengthy period of unspecified duration before the events of the “six days” recorded in vv2-31. Why God created the universe is explained from scripture in Topical note 10. The bible mentions three heavens: So, the "heavens” in v1 might mean God’s dwelling place- the Heaven of Heavens (Hebrew shimim e.shimim*), or “outer space”- the celestial heavens (Hebrew shimim*), or Earth’s sky- the atmospheric heavens (Hebrew rqio*). However, elsewhere in scripture Psalm 33:6 refers to the “heavens” in v1 as the “starry host” (Hebrew “shimim”) which means the celestial heavens, or the universe. There was no ancient Hebrew word for “universe” so “heavens” was used{20}.
* Scripture4All online Hebrew interlinear bible.
Scripture gives no duration for the “beginning”, but Psalm 33:6 contributes that God spoke the “starry host” (celestial heavens) into existence which suggests its creation was brief. That this brief creation is consistent with observational astronomy is explained below. Outside of Genesis 1:1 and Psalm 33:6 other scripture verses that pertain to the “beginning” are Job 26:7, and Isaiah 40:22* and 42:5, and this commentary explains they are also consistent with modern astronomical discoveries.
* Some bible versions use “globe” instead of “circle”.
Modern astronomy shows planet Earth is immersed in and is part of the celestial heavens. Job 26:7b records this same concept: "He suspends the earth over nothing” [1984 NIV]. God surely saw this, and v1 described both were created in the beginning, but it didn't say at the same time. Observational astronomy provides evidence that stars were created before the earth, and the detailed study of Genesis 1:14-18 in the Six Days creation commentary explains this. And v1 describes the celestial “heavens” are separate from the earth (“the heavens and the earth”) because the heavens appear to surround the earth so they are seen as separate entities by earthbound humans. These “literary style” descriptions of the heavens and the earth in the beginning in v1 bypassed the humans’ lack of scientific understanding yet they are technically correct.
Creation of the universe by modern astronomy as compared with scripture:
Genesis 1:1 recorded the “heavens and the earth” had a “beginning” when they were created. However, no details were provided about what happened during their creation. Certainly God knew these details were too scientific for ancient humans to understand (See Genesis 1: Origin and Authorship commentary) but modern scientifically educated humans desire to know more. So, modern astronomy will be examined next to let us look behind this curtain of omission in the scriptures back to what corresponds to the “beginning” in Genesis 1:1. This will provide additional information of how the cosmos began according to scientific discoveries and theories. Astronomy has come a long way to understand the universe since early telescopes were developed and first used to observe the celestial heavens about 350 years ago. Fantastic space probes have now visited all the planets in our solar system. And huge complex telescopes, some that operate from space for crystal clear viewing outside of Earth’s shimmering atmosphere have observed and collected data from celestial objects at various wavelengths to the distant reaches of the universe.
The Genesis 1: Origin and Authorship commentary explained when God described His creation of the heavens to an early human before the Flood and later Moses recorded it for the ancient Hebrews in his Genesis account, He approached them on their educational level. So Genesis 1:1 surely referred to the celestial heavens that were plainly visible from Earth. However, sophisticated instruments that imaged these new stars used invisible radio wavelengths to penetrate their dusty surroundings to observe them, and humans can’t directly see them. So these invisible stars that are recently forming that humans can’t see don’t challenge v1 that the vast universe we can see today was created from the burst of star formation in the “beginning”.
Big Bang cosmology
“Cosmology” is the study of the large-scale structure and formation of the universe by astronomers. Big Bang cosmology is presented in this bible commentary because it scientifically explains both the sudden origin of the universe in Psalm 33:6, and the cause of its expansion that is plainly described in Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22b and 42:5. Big Bang cosmology is currently favored by conventional astronomers. It has survived many recent decades of critical thought (mostly by adding new features) after the previous “Steady State” universe theory was abandoned in the 1960s. However, most of its features are conjecture that aren't supported by observations!
Conventional astronomers claim they have disproved the Genesis 1 creation account. So astronomical discoveries and the corresponding scripture verse coverage will be compared to evaluate this claim. Big Bang theory will be critiqued to exclude conjecture and identify its “core” features that are supported by observational discoveries. Then its core features are compared with correct scripture interpretations to show that they actually naturally agree.
The upcoming section, What can be taken away from this presentation of Big Bang cosmology? also describes how our solar system formed from the “beginning” to Earth’s 1st day using only this fully vetted information. This realistically explains why our planets have youthful features that seem to be only thousands of years old that conventional scientists insist are billions of years old.
Summary of Big Bang creation theory for the universe:
The Big Bang creation scenario summarized below presents how conventional astronomers believe the universe originated. Its description was adapted from a recent technical article{4} that uses concepts from Big Bang cosmology{11}.
Creation of matter
All matter in the universe was created instantly in an explosive event. This initially produced an enormous all-directional shower of subatomic particles{16}. As the glowing subatomic plasma spread it cooled and free protons and electrons combined to form high-temperature hydrogen gas. The hot, high speed gas rapidly expanded that prevented its eventual gravitational collapse into an enormous “black hole” having the mass of the entire universe! The nearly uniform separation of clusters of galaxies in all directions from Earth is believed to have resulted from the briefness of the explosive event that initially created all the matter. Astronomers debate exactly how brief the instant of “inflation” was. However, careful studies seem to show there are some very large scale structures of clusters of galaxies that preclude a perfectly uniform distribution of galaxies in all directions from Earth. Many astrophysicists theorize an unknown “dark energy” is forcing distant clusters of galaxies apart because the expansion today (unexpectedly) appears faster at greater distances from earth. Dark energy is mathematically modeled as pushing apart the “fabric” of space and affects the shape of the “space-time grid”. They mathematically model “empty” space as expanding and material galaxies as being carried along with it. Some even suggest that multiple universes might exist that have different systems of natural laws. This scientific model is still under development by astronomers.
Swirling eddies developed in the rapidly spreading hot gas{4}. These eddies began the observed ubiquitous rotary motions of future celestial objects- rotating planets revolving around rotating stars, stars with planets orbiting centers of their galaxies, and galaxies orbiting around other galaxies in clusters of galaxies. Forces from their revolutionary motions would counter their gravitational attraction toward the mass centers and enhance the stability and longevity of planetary and galactic systems by slowing their gravitational collapse.
Forming stars
Irregularly-shaped rotating nebulae of hydrogen gas formed from gravitational attraction. The nebulae grew to become large and massive{4}. Gravitational clumping within the gaseous nebula produced localized denser regions that formed stars. Their continued compression produced immense internal heat and pressure that began nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium. Once started, stellar fusion continues nearly indefinitely until hydrogen is depleted.
Origin of heavy elements
Stars of all spectral classes have been determined to consist mostly of hydrogen and helium with less than 2% of heavier elements. The origin of the elements heavier than hydrogen and helium that rock and metal planets are mostly composed of is debated. Heavy atomic elements in stars and planets are proposed to have been produced by nuclear fusion of lighter atoms within older stars that were released into the interstellar medium at the end of their lifetimes (as supernovas) to be source material for a successive chain of new star formation. This theory would cause heavy elements to be produced long after the explosive origin of the universe, perhaps by billions of years. However, there is currently no general agreement on a detailed scientific mechanism for the production of the heavy atomic elements. Stellar systems (stars with orbiting planets) vigorously formed throughout the early universe while the cosmic supply of free hydrogen gas and trace heavy elements were plentiful.
Forming planets in stellar systems
The rotating nebulae of gas that surrounded stars naturally flattened into disks by their rotation-fed equatorial expansion. Eventually, countless huge rotating “accretion disks” of various sizes formed throughout the universe. The inner region of accretion disks near the central stars may have become enriched in heavy elements by action of the stellar wind blowing away most of the lighter elements there. Heavy elements then clumped to form dust-size particles that compacted into chunky debris. The disks became gravitationally stratified with the denser material orbiting near the massive central star and lighter material orbiting further out. So dense, rocky planets formed by gravitational compaction of the chunky debris closest to the star. The planets, like stars, became naturally spherical by their self-gravity and they grew in size by gravitationally absorbing more the disk debris until it was consumed. Astronomers recently discovered many newly forming stars that are each surrounded by an accretion disk of debris in dusty nebulous regions of our galaxy they call "stellar nurseries"{14}{17}.
Galaxies, black holes, and dark matter
Gravitational collapse of large local mass concentrations produced dense “black holes” (from which even light cannot escape). The most massive “black holes” provided gravitational centers for vast accumulations of stars to orbit around that formed the common spiral and elliptical galaxies (internet). Invisible “dark matter” in galaxies that might be left-over subatomic particles that didn’t form hydrogen gas{13} could explain the (unexpected) nearly constant linear velocities of stars orbiting galactic centers at various distances{6,12}. Since the outer stars further from the gravitational centers should orbit slower, additional gravitational pull by unseen (“dark”) matter in galaxies that would increase their linear speed is hypothesized.
Time in the universe
The initial creation of high velocity moving luminous matter began the concept of time in the material universe that apparently needs a changing process to sense it. Repetitive visible cyclic motions of illuminated planets orbiting stars, specifically the rotating Earth and other bright planets that orbit the sun in our solar system provided a convenient way for humans to mark seasons, years, and days. This would serve them to regulate their lives and visualize "time" as an aid to study natural processes. Notice these visible cyclic time-event markers (not the abstract human concept of “time” intervals) are described in Genesis 1:14. Time related issues are examined in Topical note 8 in connection with the age of the universe.
How do scientific and biblical universe creations compare?
The Big Bang scenario above describes that only the matter in the universe was created instantly but the celestial objects self assembled gradually afterwards as part of creation. This is consistent with Psalm 33:6. However, this verse may also be consistent with the traditional Christian creation interpretation- that the entire universe was created suddenly but complete, with the stars, planets, and galaxies several thousand years ago. So, this religious creation interpretation is examined next for consistency with observational astronomy.
The traditional Christian creation of the universe
Genesis v1 records that God created the “heavens and the earth” in the “beginning”. Verse 2 introduced the earth as a water covered planet with a dark sky on the 1st day of creation week. On the 2nd day light shined through the darkness, and on day 3 dry land and vegetation formed. Genesis 1:16-18 seems to state that on the 4th day the sun, moon, and stars (the celestial heavens) formed around the earth when they appeared in Earth’s sky. Then the stars all formed after the earth, in one Earth day. Creation week was in 4004 BC according to Archbishop Usher’s dating chronology that is used by traditionalists today. This traditional creation interpretation is religious so it emphasized God created the universe. And it teaches our solar system was created recently which explains why the planets have youthful features that are derived from their hot interiors.
This traditional creation interpretation doesn’t include the observed expansion of the universe. This expansion is described in Job 26:7a, Isaiah 40:22b and 42:5 [1984NIV] which implies God created it expanding (to prevent its gravitational collapse). However, Big bang cosmology explains it.
An observational objection to this view is that layered impact and volcanic craters on many planets and moons in our solar system suggests their formation was chaotic that is hinted by Mark 13:19. This destruction didn’t occur in just part of one day; fresh new craters overlap older washed out ones that were caused by chaotic collisions and volcanism over a long time period.
How does evidence for new star formation today affect the accuracy of the Genesis 1 creation account?
Genesis 1:1 records that the celestial heavens that includes the stars, our sun (a star) and the moon were created in the “beginning”. However, astronomers have recently imaged what they determined are accretion disks of matter that surround newly forming stars in certain dusty nebulous regions in our galaxy they call “stellar nurseries”. This is scientific evidence that new stars with planetary systems are recently forming{14,17}. Evidently, then stars weren’t all created in the “beginning” so bible critics argue these modern discoveries contradict Genesis 1:1,14-16 and Psalm 33:6.
However, the discovery that new stars with planetary systems are still forming does provide observational scientific evidence that the “beginning” in v1 had a long duration. How both the brief creation (above) and a lengthy duration for the “beginning” fit into scripture and science will be explained below.
Although star formation began in the biblical “beginning” according to Genesis 1:1, any continued star formation until recently is conclusive scientific evidence the universe was not created entirely and suddenly in the beginning long ago. So, a major flaw of this traditional interpretation is it isn’t compatible with observed new stars and planetary systems forming today{14,17}. The traditional creation interpretation instead specifies the cosmos was entirely created in the “beginning” several thousand years ago.
The classic interpretations for Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14-18 were originally designed to support traditional Christian church doctrines but eventually they became inexplicable with observational human science as it progressed. Trouble began after the telescope was developed when medieval European astronomers challenged the scientifically incorrect church doctrine (according to observational science today) that the sun and planets revolved around the earth. So, well-meaning classic scripture inter-pretations are not necessarily also scientifically accurate. Yet they remained agreeable with the weekend worshiping public in the western world through the mid-1900s, but not with the secular scientific community who use them to try to show the public the bible is wrong.
The availability of modern telescopes, microscopes and a host of other scientific lab instruments have greatly broadened human scientific knowledge. Some of this knowledge improves the understandability and confirms the accuracy of the Genesis 1 account as is shown by its technical summary (above).
So, the sound observational sciences can be useful tools to probe the correct interpretation of certain puzzling scripture verses, specifically Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:16-18. (Observational sciences aren’t what creation scientists refer to as the “consensus sciences” of evolutionary speciation, uniformatarian geology, and deep-time astrophysics covered in Topical notes 6 and 7.) Likewise, the scriptures can be useful tools to probe the correct scientific understanding for a biblically reasonable age of the universe (below).
Does Exodus 20:11 mean the universe was created in one Earth day several thousand years ago?
Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day” [1984 NIV]. Exodus 20:11 is believed by religious conservatives to refer to the original creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1. So God made them on Earth’s 1st day. But evidently “the sea” finished forming over the earth on its 1st Day and our solar system was already operating then (see vv2-5 in the Technical Summary of the Genesis 1 account above). Recent images taken of accretion disks with new stars and orbiting planets that are still forming in our galaxy is convincing scientific evidence a one-day creation of the universe long ago can't be true. These scientific telescopic discoveries (that are not just theories!) seem compelling, yet scripture must be factual. So, the Hebrew and English translation of Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 14-18 are carefully examined to check if a one day creation was their intended meaning using different lines of scriptural and scientific evidence.
The two root verbs, “create” and “make” also have the following definitions in their past tense usage throughout Genesis 1 according to the cited references above in this Genesis 1 commentary:
Created and made have different meanings in Genesis 1, and necessarily also in Exodus 20:11- if it refers to Genesis 1. When describing the origin of “the heavens and the earth” by God, Genesis 1:1 used “created” (Hebrew bra) while Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 that were quoted to seemingly refer to it instead used “made” (Hebrew oshe). Those who quote these verses in Exodus to support a one day creation of the universe assume “made” in Exodus 20, 31 is used to mean the same as “created” in Genesis 1:1, as synonymous words. However, Genesis 1 was explained to be God’s own creation account and both words were used in it because they have different meanings there. “Created” meant God produced something “out of nothing” whereas “made” meant He “formed it from previously created materials”. The following distinct definitions of “create” and “make” that were introduced in the Created and Made section above with references{1,2} are restated and analyzed below for their application to Exodus 20:11 and 31:17-
“’Create’ which always has the Creator as its subject refers to God calling entities into existence {from nothing}. ‘Make’ refers to “systems constructed {usually meaning formed} (by either God or men) {intelligent beings} out of previously created entities” {materials}. The heavens and the earth were both created and made [by God].” Bold braces { } indicate explanatory insertions for clarity. Words in parentheses ( ) are part of the original quoted text.
Notice that Moses evidently penned Genesis, and also Exodus with God’s input. So he should have preserved the correct usage of “created” and “made” from Genesis 1 in his Exodus record.
These verb definitions necessarily impact the interpretation of Exodus 20:11 (and 31:17). Because the same English sentence structure is used in Genesis 1:1, the Exodus verses seem to refer to “the heavens and the earth” that were “created” in Genesis 1. However, the use of “made” for “the heavens and the earth” must mean these verses in Exodus 20 and 31 aren’t referring to the original creation of the heavens and the earth. The classic interpretation of the Exodus verses mixes God’s “creation” event in Genesis 1:1 with the other clearly “made” events in the six days. The definition for the root word “make” stated above usually means to form something from preexisting materials. So, the Exodus verses must refer to “the heavens and the earth” as somehow being “made” after they were “created”. With the other evidence presented below this suggests the accurate interpretation of Exodus 20:11 (quoted above) is as follows and explained in more detail below-
>> For in six days the Lord made the heavens {appear**} and the {land*}, the sea, and all that is in them… <<
Braces { } enclose explanatory insertions that clarify the meaning of this verse. The footnotes below explain why Exodus 20:11 (and 31:17) should have this meaning-
*Hebrew “e.artz” may be validly translated into English either as “the earth” (the planet) or “the land” (dry ground) in Genesis 1. In Genesis 1:10 “e.artz” clearly means “dry ground, but only a few bible versions (including the NIV) record God calling it “land”; most use “earth”. This shows the reader must infer the accurate meaning of "earth" (from Hebrew “artz”) by reasoning the English bible text. Its accurate meaning as “land” presented above in the corrected interpretation of Exodus 20:11 both correctly describes dry ground appearing on Earth's 3rd day and clears up the objections noted below. Use of “the earth” for e.artz in Exodus 20:11 in all English bibles problematically causes this verse to have the same sentence structure as Genesis 1:1- it deceptively leads readers to assume the Exodus verse refers to the original creation of planet earth as being during the “six days” instead of raising its dry land then! Why this assumption is flawed is explained in the objections section below.
**The Genesis 1: Creation, the Six Days commentary for vv16-18 [1984 NIV] provides substantial evidence from correct written Hebrew word usage and observational science that a gradual clearing of Earth’s initial dark cloud layer starting on the 1st day caused the sun, moon and the stars to appear in the sky (Hebrew “rqio”) by the 4th day. Evidently, God “made” (Hebrew “ioshe”) them appear in Earth’s sky by scattering its cloud layer instead of actually forming them in the celestial heavens (Hebrew shimim) then. Notice no commas were used in the Hebrew text. (See Creation commentary for The Six Days, The 4th day).
Conclusion for the interpretation of Exodus 20:11-
Notice this commentary isn’t “rewriting” the Exodus 20:11 bible verse this way! It merely presents a corrected interpretation for it that is supported by- proper English meaning of Hebrew “iosh” as “made” (not “created”), proper English meaning of Hebrew “e.artz” as “the land” (dry ground), and that the heavens appeared in the “sky” (Hebrew “rqio”) on Day 4 instead of God actually forming them in outer space then. Knowing that Earth’s sky cleared during its first four days helps to understand this corrected English meaning of Exodus 20:11.
Three objections to the classic interpretation of Exodus 20:11 from Hebrew linguistics, scripture, and science are summarized-
1.If the Exodus verse referred to the original creation of the heavens the writer (Moses) should have properly used the word “created” instead of “made”. Because Moses authored both Genesis and Exodus and he had God’s direction to write them he would have been consistent with word usage. So Exodus 20:11 must refer to the heavens after they were created as being “made” (to appear) during the six days.
2.Scripture doesn’t record that God worked in Genesis 1:1 when He merely spoke the heavens into existence (Psalm 33:6). So it’s pointless to refer to the original creation of the heavens in Exodus 20:11 as reason to not work on the Sabbath in God’s 4th commandment to the Hebrews.
3.Translating Hebrew artz as “earth” (“planet earth”) in Exodus 20:11 places its creation during creation week. Together with forming the heavens then describes a one-day complete creation of the universe several thousand years ago that conflicts with astronomical discoveries. The above corrected interpretations of the two verses eliminate this conflict.
What scriptural evidence supports when the “beginning” was?
Many religious conservatives adamantly claim that the “beginning” when the “heavens and the earth were created” was on the 1st Day of creation week, but evidence from scripture for this is actually lacking. Three pieces of alleged evidence (1-3 below) that are cited to support the “beginning” was during “creation week” are explained to be invalid. Other evidence (4-6 below) either suggests or mandates the “beginning” was before “creation week”.
1. The previous paragraphs explained the definition of “made” implies its use in Exodus 20:11 doesn’t refer to God originally “creating” the heavens and the earth during the “six days”.
2. Some believe the written Hebrew conjunction “u”* that was translated “And” [1984NIV] in English at the start of v2 appears to grammatically connect the 1st day of creation week with the “beginning” in v1 (“WAW linker”). However, scripture study of the use of Hebrew “u” shows it may be translated as “and”, “now”, “so”, “thus”, “but”, “that”, or “also” in English bibles (or even omitted). The Scripture4All online Hebrew interlinear bible shows that Hebrew “u” is also used to start nearly every new topic sentence- throughout the book of Genesis and the other books of the Torah (Law) and much of Deuteronomy, regardless whether or not the previous and new topics occurred closely in time! So, this repeated use of the Hebrew conjunction “u” throughout the Torah merely appears to be Moses’ unique writing style when he recorded these books. Perhaps He intended Hebrew “u” (as English “and”) to link content together into continuous accounts. The continuous use of “u” in the Torah finally ended before the end of Deuteronomy with the death of Moses. It wasn’t used in the historically later books of the Hebrew scriptures starting with Joshua that had different authors after Moses died. So, the use of Hebrew “u” (English “And” [1984NIV) at the start of Genesis 1, v2 of creation week isn’t evidence that the “beginning” in v1 was grammatically linked to and therefore part of vv2-31.
3. New Testament verses from Christ’s teachings where He uses the term “the beginning” (like in Genesis 1:1) is sometimes cited to allege that creation of the heavens and the earth (as they are seen today) suddenly occurred together several thousand years ago. An example follows.
In the Gospel of Mark 13:14-24 Christ described the end times on the earth, and in Mark 13:19 He stated then “distress will be unequaled from the beginning when God created the world” [1984 NIV]. The beginning in this verse certainly refers to when the barren earth and our solar system were completed, before humans existed. Scientifically, our early solar system was rich in debris that collided with the early earth. So this era would have been extremely distressing for humans had they been present and fortunately only God saw this. However, according to Genesis 1:1 both the celestial “heavens and the Earth” were created “in” the beginning but Mark 13:19 quotes Christ referred specifically to when God created the Earth. But this verse doesn’t mention the heavens or imply they were created at the same time as the earth. The Genesis l: Creation, The Six Days commentary provides evidence from observational astronomy the "beginning" was a lengthy era before Earth’s 1st day that had no recorded scriptural date or duration. It evidently extended from the "Big Bang" to when the dry, barren planet Earth (and our solar system) were completed from the solar accretion disk, at the end of the “beginning” just prior to Earth’s 1st day. The “starry heavens” were evidently created early in the “beginning”, well before the earth. Earth’s “1st Day” in scripture was defined by God as when it first had a watery ocean, and creation week was dated as 7454 years ago according to Josephus’ biblical chronology.
4. Two word choices in Genesis 1, v1 suggest the “beginning” was in the past at the time when v2 introduced the start of creation week. First, Hebrew past-tense “bra” (for “created”)* was used for the creation of the “heavens and the earth” in the “beginning” in v1. This is the only use of past-tense Hebrew “bra” until the end of the creation account. Present-perfect tense Hebrew "ibra" (is-creating) is used for other creation events in the Genesis 1 account (but all were rendered as past-tense “created” in English). Second, the creation period in v1 was named the “beginning" that differentiated it from the following numbered six days in v2-31. This also suggests the “beginning” and the “six days” were different periods, and the “beginning” in v1 logically preceded the six days in vv2-31.
*Scripture4All online Hebrew interlinear bible.
5. The cited scholarly Hebrew linguistic study in Genesis 1 ({11}Genesis 1: Origin and Authorship) found that the “beginning” in v1 and the events of the Six Days in vv2-31 were sequential periods. So, the “beginning” logically was before the six days.
6. The cited scripture verses Psalm 33:6, Job 27:6, Isaiah 42:22, and 44:5 described events from the beginning that imply they preceded the Earth’s 1st day in Genesis 1:2.
What can be taken away from this presentation of modern astronomy?
Most features of Big Bang cosmology that were presented earlier in this astronomy section are not supported by observational discoveries! These hypothetical features include the created matter-vs-antimatter ratio, inflation, dark matter and dark energy, the origin of heavy elements, details of galaxy formation, black hole theory, and the possibility of “multiple universes” with differing physical laws.
However, the following core features from Big Bang theory have observational and biblical support (or they don’t conflict with scripture). These vetted features are used to describe the creation of the universe (below) during the scriptural “beginning”-
1.A gigantic explosive event suddenly created all matter in the universe in the beginning. It was initially a high-temperature glowing plasma of subatomic particles.
Biblical support that the entire universe had a definite beginning
comes from Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. And the brief explosive origin of the visible heavens is consistent with Psalm 33:6- God made the starry heavens “by the breath of His mouth”, meaning He suddenly spoke it into existence.
2.Rapid expansion of the subatomic matter in all directions followed. This prevented the ultimate gravitational collapse of the celestial bodies that later formed.
Biblical support for the continued expansion of the celestial heavens comes from Job 26:7a, “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space”, and Isaiah 40:22b (and similarly in 42:5), “He stretches out the heavens like a canopy and spreads them out like a tent to live in”. (Italics were added for emphasis to the 1984 NIV text).
Isaiah 40:22b used an illustration that was understandable to the Hebrews: The earliest Hebrews were nomads who lived in family-sized tents. Later generations who understood their scriptures but lived in cities still knew about unpacking tents and spreading them out on the ground before they set them up on posts to live in.
As the expanding matter cooled copious atomic hydrogen and trace quantities of the heavier natural atomic elements{29}(below) formed by God’s physical laws. Swirling eddies developed in the expanding nebular gas that eventually caused the ubiquitous rotary and revolutionary motions of all future celestial bodies.
3.Non-uniformities in the sparse gas caused its gravitational clumping that self-assembled by compression to form massive stars. Their high internal temperatures produced exothermic nuclear fusion that maintains their high temperatures and internal pressures that enriches their helium abundance. Astronomers believe this nearly endless fusion cycle continues until hydrogen is exhausted and internal pressure falls, then stars finally collapse to produce novas and supernovas.
Cecilia Payne determined elemental abundance in the top reversing layers above the photospheres of stars that produce their absorbance (dark line) spectra. She importantly used star temperatures to mathematically correct her spectroscopic absorbance measurements and the new concepts from quantum physics in her PhD thesis research of 1925. This showed that stars of all spectral classes (O,B,A, etc) are composed mostly of hydrogen and helium and their heavy element abundances are below 2%{29}. Her results were eventually accepted by other astronomers.
The similar trace % abundances of the heavy elements in all star classes is evidence for how they formed:
Cataloged absorbance spectra show that most terrestrial heavy elements are also present in stars but those of the heaviest rare earth metals are mostly absent. Powerful stellar gravity would trap the heaviest ones deep inside stars so their absorbance spectra are not present in the top reversing layers.
Conventional scientists proposed that heavy elements were formed gradually by fusion of lighter elements in successive generations of stars, each billions of years old. However, this process would produce stars with large variations in heavy element content in different parts of our galaxy. Yet all observed spectral classes today, even of the believed “oldest” stars in globular clusters have under 2% heavy element content. And no hypothetical older “population III” stars have been found that consist of only hydrogen and helium without any heavy elements (internet).
The simplest explanation for the observed ubiquitous non-zero but under 2% abundances of heavy elements in all classes of stars is that a tiny amount of these elements were also produced by the explosive creation of matter that began the universe- not by fusion of small nuclei into larger ones in a lengthy series of star generations.
Guidance from scripture:
It seems unrealistic that God would make His physical universe need “billions of years” to prepare planet Earth for His creation of intelligent life in only six days. This shorter, direct origin of heavy elements would accomplish God’s creation in a timely manner for His purpose explained in Topical note 10. So the entire universe would then be much younger than conventional theory insists!
(Perhaps conventional scientists chose a time-consuming mechanism to produce heavy elements that agrees with the requirements of the evolutionary speciation, uniformitarian geology, and deep-time astrohysics “consensus sciences”. (see Topical note 7).
Formation of stellar systems with planets from “accretion disks” of particulate material:
Equatorial expansion of rotating nebulae produced disks of cosmic medium that each orbited a central star in its equatorial plane, including the sun. The disk material became greatly enriched with heavy elements apparently by action of the “stellar wind” of EM radiation and high energy particles from central stars that blew away most light hydrogen and helium gas from the star’s neighborhood (internet). This compacted into solid, particulate material composed almost entirely of heavy elements. Planets grew by gravitationally compressing this chunky material in the rotating accretion disks while they orbited the central star until the material was consumed. This is actually observed in dusty nebulae (above). The densest material orbited closest to each star so the denser planets formed there and all indigenous planets formed close to its equatorial plane, like our solar system. This process formed stellar systems{4) which in turn became gravitationally bound into galaxies (below). These stellar systems with orbiting planets self-assembled systematically according to God’s physical laws, not randomly. The single exception in the cosmos was our solar system that God arranged special details of to suit unique life on Earth.
Age of planets:
According to discoveries about accretion disks, planets are the most recently completed celestial bodies. The age of a stellar system is partly the age of the accretion disk that formed its planets. Accretion disks that form stellar systems have lifetimes that may be from 5-10 million years to as little as thousands of years depending on the compaction mechanism involved that produced them (Topical note 8{4}), and presumably also their size. So, some of today’s visible stellar systems with planets formed during as little as many thousands of years.
The most recent features of our planets are their magnetic fields and active surfaces (eg., volcanism). These are caused by their hot interiors from internal gravitational compaction and natural radioactivity. Magnetic fields also require rapid rotation of a (hot) molten core. All of the sun’s planets except atypical Mars and Venus have a magnetic field. Mars is a tiny planet (only twice the diameter of our moon) and far from the hot sun so it cooled quickly and lost its molten core early. Venus is earth-size and closer to the sun and has a molten core, but it rotates very slowly- only once in 2/3 of an earth year. Our small moon also lacks a magnetic field, but studies show it initially had one that was lost due to core cooling (internet). This suggests that all planets will eventually lose their magnetic fields as they continue to cool. (The “dynamo theory” for perpetual planetary magnetic fields is hard to defend scientifically.) That most planets in our solar system still have hot interiors is shown by their magnetic fields and active surfaces. This is evidence that our planets completed their creation (when they finished consuming the solar accretion disk material) shortly before the water-covered Earth’s 1st Day in “creation week”. This was c7454 years ago according to Josephus’ scripture chronology. The solar accretion disk may have formed from its nebula under 20,000 years ago.
The asteroid belt in our solar system is apparently the remnant of the sun’s accretion disk{23}. Jupiter’s gravitational shear with the sun prevents any sizeable planets from forming there. Before the discovery of accretion disks the asteroid belt was believed to have been caused by the disintegration of a sizeable planet between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars that broke up due to the tug of Jupiter’s gravity.
Formation of Galaxies:
Stellar systems of stars with orbiting planets apparently each gravitationally clustered around a central mass center to form a huge rotating galaxy. Galaxies then associated into gravitationally bound “local groups” of mutually orbiting galaxies. These local groups formed “super clusters” of galaxies that continue the universal expansion in all directions. However, recent observations by the new James Webb Telescope (JWT) that is positioned in deep space for crystal clear viewing question current details about galaxy formation. They problematically show the brightest of the most distant and supposedly oldest galaxies on the edge of the observable universe are actually similar in size to those much closer to Earth{19} that are presumably much younger. Their estimated star counts were 10 billion to 100 billion solar masses, and are similar to our Milky Way galaxy of 60 billion solar masses{19}. Researchers note according to theory these galaxies seem to be too massive to have formed during their assigned first 700 million years after the big bang 13 billion years ago{19}. No “baby galaxies” were seen at this distance and presumed age. Some astronomers now suggest these expected small newly formed galaxies must lie further away beyond the view of the JWT, and the universe is even older than 13 billion years (internet source). However, the Tolman effect predicts the dimmed surface brightness of rapidly receding galaxies would prevent imaging them at such great distances{25}. This seriously questions galactic recessional velocities, distances, and age determinations, that have no reality check as was noted previously.
How galaxies that are many millions of light years away can exist in a universe this commentary presents is be perhaps only thousands of years old is explained using special relativity in Topical note 8.
The history of Big Bang cosmology
The originator of what became the “Big Bang” theory was Fr. Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian cosmologist and a religious Catholic priest in 1927{21}. He had strong interests in both his religious beliefs and scientific studies. Although he kept them separate, he said there was no conflict between them. He taught physics at a Catholic university in Belgium and received his PhD in physics from M.I.T. He worked with Einstein’s new general relativity equations, and his thinking was influenced by new astronomical discoveries that galaxies were rapidly separating from each other so the universe was expanding. He developed a theory to explain the new astronomical findings by using the accepted “scientific method” that tests them with predictive measurements (below). (Although some creation scientists who oppose the Big Bang origin complain this method is “reverse engineering” that is designed to arrive at anticipated results). These observations led him to reason there was a time when all the matter in the universe was packed closely together in a tiny, extremely dense state. He described the physical universe was then a single particle he called the “primeval atom” that exploded and gave rise to space and time, and that its expansion continues to this day. He actually estimated the “Hubble constant” for the expansion of the universe based on his calculations that predicted Hubble’s experimental measurements two years in advance (Wikipedia)! Today, the IAU refers to this expansion rate as the Hubble-Lemaitre Law. In 1931 he predicted the expansion was actually accelerating, that was confirmed in the 1990s by observations of supernova with the Hubble Space Telescope.
Pope Pius XII later endorsed Fr. Lemaitre’s new theory for the origin of the universe as a “scientific validation of the Catholic faith”{21}, although this came as a shock to Fr. Lemaitre{21}. This new scientific creation theory described the universe had a definite “beginning” that was consistent with Genesis 1:1 and suggested God created the “primeval atom” and the universe with its natural laws. The sudden explosive creation of matter is consistent with Psalm 33:6, and its continued expansion is actually described in Job 26:7, and Isaiah 40:22b and 42:5 [1984 NIV] as was explained above. Although the pope wasn’t a scientist, Fr. Lemaitre’s new astronomical creation theory must have come as a theological relief because the then prevailing astronomical “Steady State” theory pictured a universe without God or a beginning, that was simply always here. In 1949 Fred Hoyle, then a leading astronomer and proponent of his Steady State theory, deridingly called Fr. Lemaitre’s theory the “Big Bang” on a BBC radio broadcast (internet). So, Hoyle unknowingly coined the popular name for the theory that became a coffin nail for his own Steady State theory. In the 1960s Fr. Lemaitre’s “primeval atom theory” replaced Hoyle’s Steady State theory and it became popularly known as the “Big Bang” theory, but many hypothetical features were later added to it by other astronomers. Only the core features from Big Bang cosmology that are supported by observational discoveries are used by this commentary.
Concluding remarks about modern astronomy
Why does this Genesis 1 commentary use selected concepts from secular Big Bang cosmology to explain the creation events in the “beginning” instead of the traditional religious creation that was described earlier?
The Bible is a correct information source but it provides very little information about the beginning, and flawed interpretations of certain verses interfere with its correct understanding. Modern astronomy provides a wealth of details but currently it’s a mix of actual discoveries and conjecture. The Intro above explained why observational science and correct scripture interpreta-tions should agree about creation. So, this commentary about the creation of the universe analyzed both the scriptures and their interpretations and the concepts of Big Bang cosmology from modern astronomy and selected their correct features to compare for successful agreement and to produce an accurate description of creation of the universe and its age.
Some will object that the Big Bang creation and its self-assembly scenario seem to describe the universe created itself, or it randomly “evolved” into something more complex appearing than the uniformly expanding hydrogen gas cloud that it originated from.
God’s role as prime mover isn’t mentioned in the purely scientific Big Bang cosmology, so those who have religious convictions should be alert for others who use it to actively promote their godless world view. The universe didn’t randomly "evolve” into a more ordered state than its initial energetic plasma from the explosive creation event, it systematically (non-randomly) self-assembled according to the “blueprints” of God’s physical laws{17}. The Entropy’s Rainbow article{4} strives to explain that after subatomic matter was explosively created, rapidly-moving, sparse hot hydrogen gas formed and irregular flow eddies naturally caused gravitational clumping. God’s other physical laws caused stellar systems with planets, and galaxies to form. So, these forces both self-assembled and governed the universe after its completion. Scientists mathematically model these forces in solid, liquid, and gaseous states of matter with formulas such as F=Gm1m2/r2 and PV=nRT that are trustworthy, predictable observational science.
Some creation scientists criticize scientific commentaries for Genesis 1 that attempt to “harmonize scripture with science” like its Technical Summary above. But they seem to forget a goal of their own organizations is to do just this! These critiquers say Big Bang creation is bad theologically because it incorrectly has stars created before Earth’s 1st day but Genesis 1:14-16 recorded stars were made after the earth (on its 4th day). However, the two Genesis 1 creation commentaries resolve this conflict by carefully analyzing the original Hebrew and English translations of both Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14-18 and correcting flawed English interpretations.
Some will object that the Big Bang creation and its self-assembly scenario seem to describe the universe created itself, or it “evolved” into something more complex appearing than the uniformly expanding hydrogen gas cloud that it originated from.
God’s role as prime mover isn’t mentioned in the purely scientific Big Bang cosmology, so those who have religious convictions should be alert for others who use it to actively promote their godless world view. The universe didn’t randomly "evolve” into a more ordered state than its initial energetic plasma from the explosive creation event, it systematically (non-randomly) self-assembled according to the “blueprints” of God’s physical laws{17}. The Entropy’s Rainbow article{4} strives to explain that after subatomic matter was explosively created, rapidly-moving, sparse hot hydrogen gas formed and irregular flow eddies naturally caused gravitational clumping. God’s other physical laws caused stellar systems with planets, and galaxies to form. So, these forces both self-assembled and governed the universe after its completion. Scientists mathematically model these forces in solid, liquid, and gaseous states of matter with formulas such as F=Gm1m2/r2 and PV=nRT that are trustworthy, predictable observational science.
This automatic “self-assembly” process of the heavens and planets was a seamless part of the sudden supernatural creation of matter by God because He didn’t need to intervene later to make this matter into stars, planets, and galaxies. This intelligently designed self-assembly spared God the burden of managing its development, aside from showing His great cleverness!
Some object to the alleged 13.5 billion year age for the universe by modern astronomy.
The commentary doesn’t endorse this great age. And it seems irrational that God would cause his creation wait for billions of years before creating intelligent life in only six earth days! Yet Big Bang cosmology clearly implies a lengthy period was required for the universe to form after the instant, explosive creation of matter. The theoretical basis for this derived age by conventional science came from cosmological spectral redshift measurements for the most distant galaxies and the thermal microwave background measurements of space. Also, radiometric dating of meteorites and space rocks give ages of billions of years. However, Topical note 7 explains that radiometric dating uses flawed assumptions. The data workups for the above two methods involved selective collection and use of the data, subjective corrections, and lengthy calculations- that were all certainly influenced by researchers’ beliefs about the great age of the universe. This circular reasoning certainly influenced the results.
A major reason that Big Bang proponents can claim this great age is they hypothesize heavy elements were formed gradually by fusion of lighter ones in successive populations of stars over billions of years. These heavy elements were allegedly released into the cosmic medium by their supernova explosions that became the newer stars and planets of today’s universe. This lengthy formation of heavy elements is one of the conjectural features of Big Bang cosmology that doesn’t have observational support (above). As was explained earlier, scientific and biblical reasoning better support that all natural elements formed suddenly in the initial highly energetic explosive event that produced the matter in the universe. This would produce a “billions of years” younger universe than conventional scientists claim and is consistent with God’s purpose to create it in a timely manner (Topical note 10). Scripture study and accretion disk lifetimes (Topical note 8) suggest the universe age is thousands, not billions of years.
It’s important to notice there’s no reality check on the resulting 13.5 billion year age calculations. Topical note 8 uses a historical illustration to explain the importance of a reality check to verify the results of calculated methods. So, the only way to try to verify this calculated age is to compare it for agreement with results from different calculated methods. Although astronomers claimed the resulting ages from redshift and cosmic microwave background calculations closely agreed, even this agreement can be flawed because the same deep-time assumptions were made to work up the data. Incorrect assumptions made before mathematical calculations can cause huge errors! Topical note 8 also explains that recent astronomical research shows the cause of the cosmological redshift is actually not a "Doppler" down shift of wavelength, and why it occurs is now not known with certainty! Yet it’s used to claim an age for the universe. Topical note 8 provides recent redshift research details, and evidence for downsizing the age of the universe.
Would a universe that is actually “billions of years” old conflict with the Bible?
Apparently not. The alleged billions of years all occurred in the “beginning”, that was a period before what God called the earth's “1st day” when He introduced it with a water covered ocean. The two creation commentaries provide evidence the “beginning” was a period of unspecified duration before earth’s 1st day. The bible doesn’t reveal how old the celestial heavens are. (Those who believe the beginning was on Earth’s 1st day use the classic interpretation of Exodus 20:11 that was explained to be flawed.) However, the preceding “billions of years” seems unreasonably long because the earth was made into a habitat with life in only six Earth days. The bible that was shown to be otherwise in agreement with science (Intro, above) provides input that limits the reasonable time duration for the creation and age of the universe to perhaps thousands of years.
Main points of this commentary about the "beginning"
Scripture was explained to be consistent with astronomical discoveries:
Genesis 1:1 states the universe had a definite beginning, and Psalm 33:6 implies its creation of matter was brief. Its continued expansion was described by “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space” in Job 26:7, and “He stretches out the heavens like a canopy and spreads them out like a tent to live in” in Isaiah 40:22b, and 42:5 [italics were added to 1984 NIV text]. Its gradual self-assembly into stars with orbiting planets and galaxies we see today was a smooth continuation of the creation of matter by His natural laws because it didn't require a separate intervention by God and showed His engineering cleverness. Mark 13:19 implies creation of our solar system was chaotic and gradual, not complete and perfect in one Earth day.
The discovery that invisible new stars with planetary systems are forming today in obscured dusty nebulae of our galaxy was explained to not conflict with the bible because God implied He referred to the visible heavens that He created in the “beginning”. However, that any new stars are forming today is conclusive scientific evidence the universe is still being created. So its creation evidently spanned a lengthy period, and wasn’t completed in one Earth day several thousand years ago.
Apparently flawed interpretations of the English translations for Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14-16 were cleared up in the creation commentaries. So, astronomical events in the scriptural “beginning” that occurred before Earth’s 1st Day are not inconsistent with scripture. The two creation commentaries eliminate roadblocks to the agreement between modern observational astronomy and biblical scripture. The creation commentaries show what some bible verses record are different than what they are commonly interpreted to mean!
The claim by conventional scientists that modern astronomy has “disproved” the Genesis 1 creation account shows a lack of understanding of the account as is described in its Technical Summary above.
Commentary coverage for Genesis 1 continues with Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days for vv2-31.
Click on active links to read internet references:
{1,2,3} appear in Topical note 4{49,50,51}.
{4} Hester, Jeff, Astronomy magazine, October 2017, Entropy's rainbow, p16.
{5} Kennedy, James, 1989, The Real Meaning of the Zodiac, Coral Ridge Ministries, p7 (book). Also, Job 38:31-32 [Complete Jewish Bible].
{11} Kay, et al, 21st Century Astronomy, 4th ed., 2013, Chapters 19-23 Galaxies, the universe, and modern cosmology.
{12} ibid, Rubin, Vera, Fig 20.13, p623
{13} Temming, Maria, 2020 ‘Missing matter’ may be found, Science News, June 20, p6. Source article is in Nature, May 28. The article indicates Dark matter’s composition is contested. Some astronomers believe it is composed of subatomic particles, that might have been left over from the creation of matter in the “Big Bang” event that didn’t combine to form hydrogen gas.
{14} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation#Stellar_nurseries. New stars forming in our Milky Way galaxy apparently have been detected by their unique spectra. Current modern astronomy texts also cover this topic.
{15} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_star-forming_regions_in_the_Local_Group Star forming regions in the local group of galaxies.
{16} Odenwald, Sten, Astronomy magazine, April 2022, Imagining our infant universe, pp16-23. This easily read review article describes current particle physics as applied to astrophysics.
{17} Rimmer, Arwen, Astronomy magazine, June 2022, The very hungry universe, pp16-23. This article explains how observed accretion disks of matter that surround newly forming stars produce planetary systems. The image on p22 of an accretion disk that surrounds a star shows concentric gaps caused by orbiting planets that are gravitationally accreting material from it. An image collection on p26 from a sky survey of protoplanetary accretion disks that each surround a central star and some disks show one or more dark planetary rings.
{19} Grossman, Lisa, Science News, March 25, 2023, Early Galaxies have a lot of heft, pp14-15.
{20} https://isgenesishistory.com/product/feature-film/ (click on the link to your web browser to open it, scroll down and select “Are the early chapters of Genesis history?”, then click arrows to start video.) This short creation video that is presented by the organization, Is Genesis History? explains why the early chapters of Genesis were meant to be historical.
{21) https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/georges-lemaitre-big-bang#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Big%20Bang,of%20the%20Big%20Bang%20theory Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre was the father of what is today called the Big Bang theory.
{23}Wikipedia, Asteroid belt. The following information was taken from the “formation” section of this lengthy article: The differing chemical compositions of asteroids in the belt in part is taken as evidence in favor of it being the remnant of the accretion disk that formed our solar system instead of a single planet that broke up there.
The Tolman effect explains why surface brightness is constant for nearby galaxies but not for distant ones.
{26} 2021, Timm, R.C., Astronomy Magazine, June, ASK ASTRO
{28} Prillaman, McKenzie, Astronomers unveil a new Milky Way portrait, Science News, January 2026, p26-27. This article includes a recent edge-on color-coded radio telescope image of our Milky Way galaxy that highlights stellar nurseries and supernova remnants.
{29} COSMIC HORIZONS: ASTRONOMY AT THE CUTTING EDGE, Steven Soter and Neil deGrasse Tyson, ed, New Press. © 2000 American Museum of Natural History. This publication includes a scientific biography of Cecilia Payne. Her book, Stellar Atmospheres that promoted her PhD thesis research is a recently reprinted paperback on sale.
W.Cook
Independent researcher September 2026
Contact: genesismakessense@gmail.com
Please do not use web links in comments.
Comments