GENESIS 1: CREATION, the BEGINNING

© 2025.

The commentary below explains the unrecorded science behind the “beginning” in Genesis 1, v1 that includes modern astronomical discoveries about how the universe and our solar system began. 

A preceding section, Authorship of the Hebrew Law, 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. It also acknowledged explanatory editorial updates were made to these writings of the Hebrew Law, the Torah, after Moses by anonymous religious leaders, priests, and scribes. This section explains why later scriptural editing by others didn’t affect the message Moses originally recorded. 

Introduction to the Genesis 1, v1 commentary:

However, the Genesis 1 creation account that God evidently originated as recorded by Moses lacks explanatory information.  It is seen the creation events starting with the “beginning” in v1 progressed in a logical sequence so each supported those that followed, but they were described as isolated “snapshots” of what God did. Any interrelations between the creation events weren’t mentioned.  Some of the event descriptions seem cryptic and the entire account was written in a literary style without scientific descriptions so it is difficult to rationalize as many bible readers have complained. Explanations about why the creation account was described this way are offered in the commentary, Genesis 1: Origin and Authorship- Introduction to the creation account. And translators’ word choices into from Hebrew into English sometimes create additional confusion. A common complaint by bible readers is written Hebrew “rqio” that means “atmosphere” (or "expanse") in Genesis 1:6-8other * was translated as “firmament”, “vault”, and “dome” in different Bible versions and editions that is simply “sky” [1984 NIV]. Two specific examples are explained below that can lead to misunderstandings of verse meanings.

*Scripture4all Hebrew interlinear online Bible 

Many gave up trying to rationally understand this creation account and concluded it wasn’t intended to be understood factually. Some developed alternate interpretations for the Genesis 1 account that avoided conflict with prevailing scientific views (Topical note 2- gap theory, theistic evolution, day-age view). And various mainstream religious groups classify the early Genesis accounts as “myths and legends” of dubious value, or “fables” (non-factual stories) that teach spiritual lessons.  This confusion was the starting point for 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 present convincing evidence they as technically accurate.  This was surely intended by those who authentically originated these early bible accounts.

Beneficially, this independent research wasn’t limited by using the classic interpretations of certain scripture verses and one popular dating chronology. The common interpretations for Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:16-18, and use of Usher’s dating chronology have been adopted as doctrinal policy by many creation science organizations. While their policies were necessarily designed to maintain uniform doctrinal beliefs among staff they can block beneficial research. The classic interpretations for the above two scripture verses are protected and used by these organizations to give biblical support for perhaps a two-day creation of the universe like it is today (on Day 1 and Day 4 in creation week) several thousand years ago, and that the stars were created after the earth. These human interpretations of scripture make the biblical Genesis 1 account itself seem incompatible with trustworthy observational science and recent astronomical discoveries. So, a factual Genesis 1 is universally rejected by conventional scientists and many conservative bible believers who have a natural science college degree have difficulty believing Genesis 1 is literally true. 

While many conservative Christian pastors teach belief that the Genesis 1 account is literally true is a “matter of faith”, its factual record should agree with trustworthy observational science (but not the deep-time “consensus” sciences of evolutionary speciation, uniformatarian geology, and conjectural areas of modern astrophysics that conventional scientists and others force on the public as fact (Topical note 1). These “consensus” sciences are explained from a creation perspective in Topical notes 4,6,7,8. Agreement with laboratory science provides rational evidence for its literal correctness.  Seeing that Genesis 1 agrees with what we know is correct strengthens personal faith and will make sharing it much easier with others who are skeptical.                    

The independent research for Genesis Makes Sense that is normally not possible for organizational creation scientists provided freedom to explore corrected interpretations for these key scripture verses in English language bibles, and historically accurate biblical chronologies. Those interpretations chosen for Genesis Makes Sense are consistent with the original Hebrew text and they allow explaining the creation account events using trustworthy observational science.  And Josephus’ chronology for the key biblical dates of creation week and Noah’s Flood agree closely with verifiable historical dates (Authorship of the Hebrew Law).       

Starting with their explosive modernizations during the 1900s, the natural sciences have provided observational discoveries that verify 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.  This is all explained in the scientifically up-to-date creation commentaries and topical notes in Genesis Makes Sense. 

The biblical Genesis 1 creation account is introduced by its technical summary below. This consists of concise, accurate paraphrases and direct quotations from the Genesis 1 account in the referenced 1984 NIV bible.  Other English bible versions substitute the equivalent words enclosed in brackets [].  And carefully researched explanatory scientific descriptions are contained in bold braces {} so its factual meaning in English bibles is clearly understandable for today’s readers. These grammatical interpolative insertions into Genesis 1 are separated from the bible text, and they are seen to be completely consistent with the creation account.  The science for the inserted descriptions is explained in the two creation commentaries: Genesis 1, v1- the Beginning, and Genesis 1, vv2-31- the Six Days.

A technical summary of Genesis 1:

v1. “In the beginning God created the {celestial} heavens and the earth {from nothing}”.

{After the beginning that was mentioned without detail in v1, this creation account proceeded to the detailed events that made the newly created barren planet earth into a habitat with life as described in vv2-31 and occurred during six days of the earth’s rotation.  Earth’s preparation for life started in v2 on what God called its first day when it became different from all other planets. Then the earth was covered with a watery surface ocean, but where the water came from wasn’t mentioned. (For a scientific description of v2 see “Forming the waters” in the commentary, Genesis 1: Creation, The Six days, Introduction to the Six Days)}.

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 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 the 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 {cloudy atmospheric} water”. “God called the expanse ‘sky’ [vault, dome, firmament]”. {Previously, on the first day the continuous global rain merged the cloud layer and the sea together with rainwater. On this day the thinned cloud layer became entirely depleted. The rain stopped so clear "sky" formed under it over the sea, then 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, was made on this day but seed plants were specifically mentioned because of their importance as food 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 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 and birds.  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 {except, 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 only 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, and their seventh calendar day 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}.  Written Hebrew past-tense “bra”, meaning “created”* meant He made it from nothing. This was before the events recorded in vv2-31 (below). (Why God created the universe with intelligent life is explained after the Genesis 3 commentary).

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 physical universe. There was no ancient Hebrew word for the physical “universe” so “heavens” was used{20}.

* Scripture4All online Hebrew interlinear bible.

The “beginning” ended just before Earth’s 1st day began in v2. This is explained in the Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days commentary, in Introduction to the Six Days. 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.  God surely saw this, so v1 described them as having been created together. And Job 26:7 records this same concept: “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; He suspends the earth over nothing” [1984 NIV]. Yet v1 describes the celestial “heavens” as being separate from the earth (“the heavens and the earth”) because the heavens appear to surround the earth and they are seen as separate entities by earthbound humans. These “literary style” descriptions of 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.

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 including the stars, our sun (a star) and the moon were created in the “beginning”.  (See commentary for Genesis 1:14-16 below regarding the events on Day 4.) 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.  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.  

As was explained in Genesis 1: Origin and Authorship, when God described His creation of the heavens to an early human before the Flood and later to the ancient Hebrews in the scriptures 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”.

However, the discovery that new stars with planetary systems are still forming does provide scientific evidence that the “beginning” in v1 actually 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.

Another ancient account in Job 38:31-32 refers to the familiar Pleiades, the bears (the big and little “dippers”), Orion’s belt, and what some bibles call “Mazzaroth” (Hebrew for constellations of the zodiac){5}.  These verses describe the same approximately 2000 naked-eye stars that include the familiar constellation star patterns, and the nebulous glow of the Milky Way stars in the night sky humans see today. These have hardly visually changed since Genesis 1 was recorded evidently by Moses about 3400 years ago (that originated from an earlier pre-Flood account).

These ancient constellation star patterns move extremely slowly in the night sky due to the earth’s precession on its rotational axis. Over thousands of years this motion slowly changes the seasons when they appear overhead. However, their movement is not visually noticeable for many human generations, and the same “naked-eye” stars and constellation patterns continue to be recognizable since the creation account in Genesis 1 originated.

Verse-by-verse coverage of Genesis 1:2-31 continues in the Genesis 1: Creation, the Six Days commentary.  But first, the following summary of “Big Bang” creation cosmology from modern astronomy is presented and then critiqued in the remainder of this v1 commentary. (“Cosmology” is the study of the large scale structure and formation of the universe by conventional astronomers.) Big Bang theory alleges to illuminate what scripture doesn’t record about the creation events in the early universe. This astronomy section of the v1 commentary includes an evaluation of Big Bang theory based on the most recent astronomical discoveries that actually limit what of it is trustworthy.  Then the commentary presents how our solar system began based on both astronomical discoveries and corrected interpretations of scripture (below).     

The Genesis 1 v1 commentary doesn’t support most of the newer features of Big Bang cosmology that were added to the “primeval atom” creation theory that originated it and is described later in this commentary. These newer details are also contested by conventional astronomers. Yet, Big Bang creation is currently the favored “cosmology” by conventional astronomers. It has survived many recent decades of critical thought (partly by adding more features to it) after the previous “Steady State” universe theory was abandoned in the 1960s.

The Big Bang creation scenario that is summarized below presents how conventional scientists claim the creation of the universe occurred. Because the Genesis record is factual it must pass the scrutiny of proven observational science. However, conventional astronomers claim they have disproved the Genesis 1 creation account. So after Big Bang theory is presented below, actual astronomical discoveries and the corresponding scripture verse coverage about the “beginning” will be compared and examined for their compatibility to evaluate these scientists’ contrary claim.

No attempt is made to critique or “twist” actual scripture to fit science, or vice versa during this investigation. However, apparently flawed human interpretations of Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:16-17 have set barriers to understanding how good observational astronomy and actual scripture are consistent.  The common interpretation of Exodus 20:11 is cited to mean the universe as it appears today was created in a single day, which is incompatible with observational astronomy.  This commentary carefully studies the Hebrew scripture text and provides a meaning for Exodus 20:11 that is linguistically correct and is compatible with observational astronomy.  Genesis 1:16-17 traditionally has been interpreted to mean the sun, moon, and stars were “formed” on the 4th day after they were created in the beginning, which is confusing. A newer interpretation of Genesis 1:16-17 was introduced in the technical summery of Genesis 1 (above). The meaning of this verse is fully examined and explained with evidence in the Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days commentary.  The Genesis 1 Creation commentaries provide newer interpretations for Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:16-17 that are compatible with the Hebrew scripture text and fit well with the recorded events of the previous 3 days of creation.  They are also consistent with observational astronomy.    

After Big Bang theory is presented it is critiqued to exclude features that are merely conjectural and identify those that are supported by observational discoveries. The upcoming section, What can be taken away from this presentation of Big Bang cosmology? uses these trustworthy features from Big Bang cosmology to compare with accurate interpretations of scripture verses that pertain to the "beginning". This comparison shows agreement rather than conflict regarding the events in the scriptural “beginning” (the early universe). Results of this analysis are summarized in the blue-highlighted Conclusion for Big Bang cosmology below. 

This leads to a description of how our solar system formed from the “beginning” to Earth’s 1st day that is based on both accurate scripture interpretations and trustworthy astronomical discoveries. It answers plaguing questions by creation scientists about why the planets have youthful features that seem to be only thousands of years old that conventional scientists insist are billion of years old.

The Big Bang creation of the universe summarized:

The following scenario describes how planets, stars, and galaxies may have gradually formed from an explosive burst of created matter, called the “Big Bang”. It was adapted from a recent article in a popular astronomy magazine{4} that uses concepts from Big Bang cosmology{11}- 

All matter in the universe was created instantly as an enormous all-directional shower of subatomic particles{16} by a sudden explosive event astronomers call the “Big bang”. Whether this matter was composed of both matter and anti-mater (that annihilates matter when they combine), and in what proportions is unknown.  The explosion caused the matter to rapidly spread out over the void of space.  The highly heated plasma cooled then free protons and electrons combined into high-temperature hydrogen gas as it spread.  Kinetic energy from the explosion necessarily separated the newly formed matter that prevented its eventual gravitational collapse into an enormous “black hole” having the mass of the entire universe!  The apparent 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. A few 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}, and localized denser regions in the matter slowly formed by gravitational clumping.  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 these revolutionary motions would counter their gravitational attraction toward the mass centers and enhance the stability and longevity of galactic and planetary systems by slowing their gravitational collapse.

After the explosive creation of matter irregular-shaped rotating gaseous nebula formed. Eventually, the gaseous matter formed solid dust-size particles after it cooled, which became gravitational “nuclei” for larger chunks to form. These nebulae naturally flattened into disks of gas and dust by their rotation-fed equatorial expansion. Eventually countless huge rotating “accretion disks” of various diameters and thicknesses formed throughout the early universe. Each consisted of gas and larger chunks of solid matter from clumping and growth became faster as their size increased. The disks became gravitationally stratified with the denser bodies at the center and lighter ones orbiting further out. The bodies became naturally spherical by their self-gravity and they grew in size by gravitationally continually absorbing the solid and gaseous disk debris until it was consumed.  Their final masses determined their internal temperatures and whether they gravitationally compressed into extremely hot luminous stars, or planets after they cooled. So each accretion disk formed a stellar system that consisted of one massive central star (or a few) many with smaller orbiting planets. Accretion disks are shown have lengthy lifetimes so each planet has physical features with a range of ages (below). 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 gas at the end of their lifetimes. This was source material for accretion disks that formed more recent “populations” of metal-rich stars and planets, such as our solar system. However, there is currently no general agreement on a detailed scientific mechanism for the production of the heavy atomic elements.  Stellar systems vigorously formed throughout the early universe after the creation of matter while the supply of cosmic hydrogen gas was plentiful. Later, star formation slowed as the rich gas clouds became depleted, and observations today show accretion disks are limited to certain dusty, gaseous nebula.

Astronomers recently discovered many newly forming stars that are each surrounded by an accretion disk of debris in dusty nebulous regions of our galaxy{14,17}. The massive central star may be surrounded by a 1 or 2 other stars and up to several less massive planets. The disk material is stratified by gravity with the densest debris closest to the center so the densest planets developed closest to the central star, as is the case with our solar system.  Astronomers refer to these nebulae as “stellar nurseries”.  These newly forming stars in our Milky Way galaxy are buried in dust clouds about 300-10,000 light years away, so none are naked-eye visible from the earth. Images made of the accretion disks by a dust-penetrating radio telescopic interferometric array shows orbiting planets are apparently gravitationally sweeping out lanes in debris of the accretion disks as they grow while they orbit around the dense central body.  

The “asteroid belt” in our solar system is now believed to be the left-over debris from the sun’s ancient accretion disk that the planets self-assembled from by gravitational compression{23}.  It contains rocky debris down to dust size particles between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars. The large spherical asteroids Ceres and smaller Pallas (both called “dwarf “planets”) orbit the sun in the center of the belt where German astronomer Johann Titius’ equation predicted a planet’s orbit should be based on the layout pattern of the other known planets. Astronomers claim that chaos theory predicts Jupiter’s gravitational tug-of-war with the sun’s gravity prevented a planet from forming there by causing it to disintegrate after it reached only a modest accretion size.  So only scattered debris and “planetesimals” (dwarf planets) can exist in the asteroid belt.     

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. 

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 cyclic motions of illuminated planets orbiting stars, specifically the rotating Earth and other bright planets orbiting 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 events (not the human concept of “time”) are described in Genesis 1:14. The problem of time is 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 all of the newly created matter in the universe expanded rapidly and the forces behind the descriptive mathematacal laws of science (eg., F = ma) were in effect at its creation. This is consistent with Psalm 33:6* that records “By word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth” [1984 NIV]. That God apparently spoke the celestial heavens into existence implies brevity.  Isaiah 42:5 recorded “he who created the heavens and stretched them out…”, and Isaiah 40:22b is similar [NIV], so scripture affirms an expansion followed their creation. An extended period for the celestial bodies to self-assemble afterwards according to modern astronomy{4} would have been a seamless part of the biblical creation of matter, because it was accomplished automatically with no separate intervention needed by God. This self-assembly occurred according to the processes behind by God’s physical laws of nature that are observed and described by science (including gravity, F=ma, and PV=nRT), and were in place since the creation. These “mindless” physical laws appear to govern the cosmos today and evidently they were important during its creation according to modern astronomy.  However, Psalm 33:6 is also consistent with the traditional biblical creation interpretation (below) where the entire universe was created suddenly and entirely in a single day with its stars and planets, and galaxies like it appears today. So the traditional Christian creation interpretation is examined next.

*Psalm 33:6 was attributed to King David long after Moses lived.  Notice in this verse he apparently used “made” to mean the same as “created”, contrary to its original usage in Genesis 1 that Moses recorded. However, these distinctions of word usage aren’t important here.

The traditional Christian creation of the universe:

This traditional interpretation of Genesis 1:1 is- God created the “heavens and the earth” with perfection, suddenly and entirely like they appear today early on the 1st literal day of creation week.  This was in 4004 BC according to Usher’s dating chronology that is used by traditionalists today. Exodus 20:11 is used to support this interpretation. (However, evidence from the Hebrew and recent astronomical discoveries presented in this commentary about the beginning challenge the traditional interpretation of Exodus 20:11.) Also, Genesis 1:16-17 is interpreted to mean the sun, moon, and stars formed on the 4th day of creation week when they appeared in Earth’s sky.  So apparently they weren’t completed during their creation in the “beginning” as recorded in Genesis 1:1. (This Genesis 1 commentary provides a different explanation for their appearance on the 4th day that better fits the biblical Hebrew and science.) This traditional creation interpretation is religious so it emphasizes 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. 

The traditional creation scenario doesn’t include the observed expansion of the universe, but God certainly could have created it expanding to prevent its gravitational collapse. However, it seems to be incompatible with observed new stars and planetary systems forming today{14,17}, because the cosmos would not then have been entirely created in a single Earth day several thousand years ago, and stars supposedly formed after the earth as this view specifies. Just one 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 and gradual and didn’t occur in just part of one day. Fresh new craters overlap older washed out ones that appear to have a wide age range.

This older creation interpretation is still promoted today by organizations that adhere to fundamentalist religious beliefs as doctrinal policy. These beliefs include strict orthodox interpretations of the meaning of certain scripture verses. Orthodox scripture interpretations were designed to support traditional Christian church doctrines but eventually some became inexplicable with observational human science as it progressed. Trouble began when medieval European astronomers challenged the scientifically incorrect doctrine that the celestial heavens were Earth centered. So well-meaning orthodox scripture interpretations 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 show the public the bible is wrong.

Exodus 20:11 is often cited as scriptural proof that the universe was created entirely in one day that is incompatible with observational astronomy (below).  And Genesis 1:16-17 is interpreted to mean the sun, moon, and stars “formed” on Earth’s 4^th day that appears to conflict with them being created before that in the “beginning” in v1 (that this commentary explains below preceded the 1^st Day). The correct meanings for Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:16-17 are important to understanding that the Genesis 1 creation account is scientifically correct even though it was written in a literary style.  So, the meaning of Exodus 20:11 is examined below and that of Genesis 1:16-17 is examined in the Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days commentary, both using the standards of correct Hebrew word usage and observational science.

The Creation commentaries for v1 and vv2-31 present convincing evidence the Genesis 1 account is technically accurate so it is part of reality and therefore is not entirely a matter of religious faith. Because the creation account touches on trustworthy observationally proven science and history it should also pass their scrutiny. So, the observational sciences and history can be useful tools to probe the correct interpretation of certain puzzling scripture verses, specifically the two mentioned above.  Observational science doesn’t include what creation scientists refer to as the “consensus sciences” of evolutionary speciation, uniformatarian geology, and deep-time astrophysics. Conventional scientists teach these are the real sciences despite conclusive supporting evidence for their principles is lacking.  And these scientists deride creation science as “pseudoscience” (Topical note 1) so these disciplines and their dating methods are critiqued in detail in Topical notes 6-8.

Was the entire universe as it is seen today created suddenly, or over a lengthy period? 

Psalm 33:6 recorded God spoke the celestial heavens into existence that implied its sudden creation (above). However, this scripture verse is actually consistent with both the traditional biblical creation interpretation that the universe was created suddenly like today in part of a single day, and the Big Bang scenario from modern astronomy above that described the brief, explosive creation of matter that contained the entire universe. This explosive event was followed by a gradual gravitational self-assembly of the newly created matter into stars, planets, and galaxies afterward that was still part of the creation because it occurred automatically according to the forces that are mathematically modeled as natural laws.  

Astronomers recently observed that new stars with orbiting planets are recently forming from accretion disks of debris in certain dusty, gaseous nebula of our galaxy{14,17}. Star formation began in the biblical “beginning” according to Genesis 1:1. However, continued star formation until recently seems to be conclusive scientific evidence the universe was not created entirely and suddenly in a single day long ago, but is still recently being created in a smaller way. So a single-day creation of the celestial heavens conflicts with observational astronomy. However, all of the “naked-eye” heavens humans can see were created in the “beginning”, so Genesis 1:1 as it was written for ancient humans is technically correct.    

That “naked-eye” stars are no longer forming suggests the universe is slowly running out of its fixed quantity of matter (cosmic hydrogen gas) that was created in the beginning.  Thus God must have created the universe to have a predetermined number of stars so it isn’t “infinite”.

Does Exodus 20:11 mean the universe was created in part of a 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 (and similarly, 31:17) are often quoted to teach the "heavens and the earth"- the universe, was created suddenly and entirely like it is today within a day early in creation week, several thousand years ago according to creation chronology. This is believed to have been on Earth’s first 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 (not just theories!) seem compelling, yet scripture must be factual. So, the Hebrew in these verses is carefully examined below to check if this interpretation was their intended meaning. Different lines of scriptural and scientific evidence presented below will be used to answer the title question.    

Created and made have different meanings in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11:

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. “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-  

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:  

“’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.

Note that Moses evidently penned Genesis 1, and also Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 with God's input. So he should have preserved the meanings of “created” and “made” in the Exodus record from Genesis 1.

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. The classic interpretation of the Exodus verses mixes this “creation” event in Genesis 1:1 as instead being “made” with the other “made” events in the six days. So, use of “made” for “the heavens and the earth” must mean these verses aren’t referring to the original creation of the heavens and the earth.  The definition for the root word “make” stated above usually means to form something from preexisting materials.  Then 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 intended meaning of Exodus 20:11 (quoted above) was as follows-

>> For in six days the Lord made the heavens {appear*} and the {land**}, the sea, and all that is in them… <<

The footnotes explain why Exodus 20:11 (and 31:17) should have this meaning-

*The Genesis 1: Creation, the Six Days commentary for vv14-19 [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 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” them appear in the sky 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”, Day 4 for details.)

**Both ”the earth” (meaning planet earth) that is used in Exodus 20:11 by most English bibles and “the land” in English are the same word in written Hebrew, “e.artz” according to the scripture4all Hebrew online interlinear bible.  Translating it as “the land” in this verse (instead of “the earth”) is consistent with dry land appearing on the 3rd day of creation week as recorded in Genesis 1:9-10 that evidently rose from under the sea then. However, “the earth” that is used in most English bibles problematically causes Exodus 20:11 to have same sentence structure as Genesis 1:1. This can delude readers that the Exodus verse refers to the original creation of the heavens and planet earth during the “six days” rather than making the heavens appear in the clearing sky and raising its dry land.     

Conclusion for the interpretation of Exodus 20:11- 

Notice this commentary is not “rewriting” Exodus 20:11 (and 31:17) as quoted above this way but it only illustrates a corrected interpretation that is supported by the Hebrew word usage of “made” in Genesis 1 that is consistent with the Exodus verses and also the observational science. The four objections to the classic interpretation of Exodus 20:11 from Hebrew linguistics, scripture, and science are summarized-

1. If these Exodus verses referred to originally “creating” the heavens and the earth the writer (Moses) should have properly used the word “created” instead of “made” in them. Because Moses authored both Genesis and Exodus and he had God’s direction to write them he would have been consistent with accurate word usage. So, Exodus 20:11 must refer to the heavens and the as being “made” but not originally “created” in the six days.

2. However, scripture doesn’t record that God worked when He merely spoke the heavens and the earth into existence in Genesis 1:1 (Psalm 33:6). So, it's pointless to refer to the original creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1 as reason to not work on the Sabbath.

   
   

3. Earth's clearing sky during its first four days and use of the accurate English word translation for “e.artz” (as "the land") in Exodus 20:11 help to understand this corrected English meaning of the Exodus verses.

4. Using Exodus 20:11 (and 31:17) to support a one-day complete creation of the universe several thousand years ago also conflicts with scientific discoveries that new stars are recently forming in our galaxy. (The earlier cited accretion disks imaged by the ALMA radio telescope array are only 450 light away {15}{17) so they are viewed in the recent past.)  

   
   

The corrected interpretation above shows these Exodus verses can’t be cited to teach the universe was originally created in one day (or two days, Day 1 and Day 4) of creation week several thousand years ago.

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 1^st 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. As was explained in the previous topic, 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”. Instead, evidence from Hebrew word usage and other scripture verses shows Exodus 20:11 referred to ”making” the previously created barren Earth in v1 into habitat with life in six days in vv2-31.  So, Creating the heavens and the earth wasn’t referred to in Exodus 20:11.

2. Some believe the written Hebrew conjunction “u” that was translated “Now” in English at the start of v2 appears to grammatically connect the 1^st day of creation week with the “beginning” in v1.  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 Law through 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 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 Bible books starting with Joshua that had different authors after Moses died. So, the use of Hebrew “u” (English “Now”, NIV) 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. Two New Testament verses from Christ’s teachings where He uses the term “the beginning” (like in Genesis 1:1) are sometimes quoted to support the entire universe was suddenly created several thousand years ago. 

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 “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.  Fortunately only God saw this. However, according to Genesis 1:1 both the celestial heavens (universe) and the Earth were created in the beginning but in Mark 13:19, Christ referred specifically to when God finished the Earth, not the rest of the universe. So this verse isn’t a good reference for when the “beginning” was. The commentary, Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days provides evidence the beginning was a lengthy but scripturally untimed era before earth’s 1st Day. Creation of the heavens ended when the dry, barren planet Earth (and our solar system) were completed just prior to the first day of creation week.  Earth’s 1st Day when its watery ocean was filled has a historical date of several thousand years ago according to biblical chronology.

In Luke 11:50-51, “the beginning” refers to the beginning of human marriage with Adam and Eve on the sixth day of creation week. For the reason given above a day in creation week isn’t an accurate historical event marker for when the universe was created.

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. 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). And the creation period in v1 was named the “beginning" that differentiated it from the following numbered six days in v2-31. This suggests they were different periods, and the “beginning” in v1 logically preceded the six days in vv2-31.

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. From astronomy, our solar system consists of the sun and its orbiting planets that were created as part of the heavens in the “beginning”. Genesis 1 records the celestial heavens were to mark “seasons, days, and years” and to “separate the day from the night”, and “give light on the earth” (vv14-15). Our solar system was completed as the last (and unrecorded) creation event in the “beginning” (v1).  It provided daylight (sunlight) through the thinning clouds on Earth’s 1^st day (v5). Astronomical discoveries provide evidence the sun and planets of our solar system began their creation as compacting debris in the rotating solar accretion disk.  Studies of accretion disks in our galaxy project they have lengthy lifetimes of at least many thousands of years (Topical note 8 {4}). And the solar accretion disk presumably formed earlier in the “beginning” from a prior solar nebula.  This gaseous cloud ultimately originated from the explosion that created all matter in the universe. Looking back from Earth’s 1^st Day less than 10,000 years ago, the “beginning” was a lengthy prior period of at least many thousands of years in duration. However, scripture gives no starting time or duration for the “beginning” because it was before God’s recorded time began on Earth’s 1st Day.

What can be taken away from this presentation of modern astronomy?

Most of the features of Big Bang cosmology that that were presented at the start of this section are not supported by observational discoveries! They are hypotheses that are treated as “scientific conjecture” by this commentary for now: these hypothetical features include the created matter-vs-antimatter ratio, 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 explosive event that produced all of the matter in the universe and its rapid expansion both have observational and biblical evidence so they deserve special attention:

Summary of the observational evidence

The initial kinetic energy from the explosion that was imparted to the matter prevented its gravitational collapse according to laboratory physics (theoretically into a “black hole” the mass of the entire universe!) and continues the expansion even today. The observed nearly uniform average expansion rate and separation of clusters of galaxies in all directions as viewed from Earth, and the cosmic microwave background are cited as evidence by conventional scientists. Because Big Bang cosmology mathematically models “space” as expanding in all directions carrying galaxies with it, observers in all parts of the universe will see distant high-red shifted galaxies of the same concentrations surrounding them in every direction. Although there is no apparent unique center of the universe, each observer everywhere will see themselves at the center.  How starlight initially arrived suddenly on Earth on Day 4 of creation week is explained in the Genesis 1:14-19 commentary below and Topical note 8, First light on the earth. 

Biblical evidence that the universe had a definite beginning comes from Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Its brief explosive origin is consistent with Psalm 33:6, God made the starry heavens “by the breath of His mouth” (meaning He suddenly spoke them into existence). Their continued expansion is described in Job 26:7, “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: The earliest Hebrews were nomads who lived in family-sized tents.  Even later generations who understood their scriptures but lived in cities knew about unpacking tents and spreading them out on the ground before they were set up on posts to live in.

The natural association of stellar systems into galaxies may seem plausible, but 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 in their assigned only 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 questions their recessional velocities, distances, and age determinations, which have no reality check as was noted previously.  These new discoveries by JWT might be evidence that galaxies formed everywhere in the universe during the same era in the “beginning”. 

Accretion disks of rotating solid particulate matter that form stellar systems are telescopically observed discoveries, not just theories! They also support a young completion age of thousands of years ago for the planets in our solar system that was just prior to the “six days’ of creation. This explains their still hot interiors that cause their observed active surfaces and magnetic fields (below).    

Images made by a radio telescope array (that can penetrate dusty nebulae) show some accretion disks in our galaxy that are currently forming stellar systems{17}. Also, the asteroid belt in our solar system is apparently the remnant of the sun’s accretion disk where Jupiter’s gravity prevents any sizeable planets from forming. (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.)

The following is a summary of the creation of our solar system:

It is based on trustworthy astronomical discoveries that are compatible with the accurate records of Genesis 1:1 and the other Bible verses that pertain to the “beginning”. This summary also explains why our planets have young physical features creation scientists marvel that are only thousands of years old and were completed just prior to the “six days" of creation (below).

Creation of the early universe

The universe evidently began with a sudden, explosive creation of matter that sent out swirling eddies of a super heated plasma of subatomic particles in all directions into space. The matter cooled as it spread that allowed protons and electrons to combine and form hydrogen gas. These eddies began the rotational and revolutionary motions of all celestial bodies that preserved their longevity from gravitational collapse. The solar accretion disk apparently formed from a prior gaseous solar nebula that was enriched with all the modern elements heavier than hydrogen. However, the details of how rotating accretion disks of large chunky matter (above) originally formed from the fast-moving superheated, hydrogen gas is not known.  Observations of the distribution of star populations with different amounts of these heavy elements in our galaxy galaxy suggests that heavy elements may have been produced in stars by fusion of hydrogen and helium long after the Big Bang, then released into the interstellar medium at the end of their lifetimes.  However, all observable stars today*, even the “oldest” stars of globular clusters, have some heavy metal content (internet).  This is evidence that heavy metals were instead produced in the explosive creation of matter at the start of the biblical “beginning”. So, the entire universe would be much younger than billions of years needed to sequentially produce heavy metals by fusion in stars. These heavy elements necessarily produced the dust-size solid particles in stellar nebulae as “nuclei” that “seeded” the larger chunky solid material in accretion disks to gravitationally compact into planets.

* Hypothetical “original population III” stars that are entirely hydrogen and helium have not been observed (internet).                      

Completing the creation of planets

According to recent discoveries of accretion disks planets are the most recently completed celestial bodies.  However, the age of a stellar system is partly the age of the accretion disk that formed its stars and planets. Recent studies show 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.  

Because stellar accretion disks have lengthy lifetimes planets in our solar system show physical features with a range of ages: The oldest feature is their elemental atomic composition that was derived from the accretion disk’s original materials contained in the prior solar nebula. However, the time period and pathway from the explosive creation of matter to the formation of accretion disks are not known.

The most recent features of the planets in our solar system are their magnetic fields and active surfaces. These are caused by their hot interiors from internal gravitational compaction and natural radioactivity.  In addition, magnetic fields require rapid rotation of a (hot) molten core. All the 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 cool. (The “dynamo theory” for perpetual planetary magnetic fields is hard to defend scientifically.) That most planets still have hot interiors as shown by their magnetic fields (and active surfaces) is evidence that our solar system was completed recently. Biblically, this was just before Earth’s 1st Day in “creation week” less than 10,000 years ago.

The history of Big Bang cosmology:

The originator of what is known today as 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 an extremely dense state. He described the physical universe was then initially a single particle he called the “primeval atom” that exploded and gave rise to space and time, and its expansion that 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.

Genesis Makes Sense treats most details of Big Bang cosmology as “scientific conjecture” at this time. So, only the observational verifiable features, the explosive creation event itself with its resulting expansion and the recent accretion disk discoveries that produce stellar systems may be validly used to compare with the scripture verses about the “beginning”: Genesis 1:1, Job 26:7, and “Isaiah 40:22b, and 42:5. The other features from modern astronomy are hypothetical now because they lack support by observational discoveries.  

Specific objections to Big Bang cosmology:

A godless universe?

Although God isn’t mentioned in the Big Bang theory, its origin by a Catholic priest as the “hypothesis of the primeval atom” and its endorsement by a pope as a “scientific validation of the Catholic faith” clearly show it wasn’t intended to teach the universe was created without God.  The recent hype by proponents of Big Bang cosmology exuberantly describes a godless universe that “came from nothing” that is maligned by creation scientists.  So, individuals must choose whether they believe God as revealed in the Bible created the matter and designed the natural laws that produced and govern the universe we see. This was apparently what Fr. Lemaitre intended.  Those who have religious convictions should be alert for others who use Big Bang cosmology to actively promote their godless world view.

Some will object that the Big Bang creation scenario seems to describe the universe formed (or “evolved”) into something more complex appearing than the uniformly expanding hydrogen gas cloud that it originated from.

This would violate the entropy law of thermodynamics. However the Entropy’s Rainbow article{4} strived to show that an astronomical volume of kinetically energetic, rapidly-moving and initially uniformly-distributed hot hydrogen gas would clump by gravity and then self-assemble by forces behind the natural laws of physics into luminous stars and orbiting planets whose masses determined their temperatures. Evidently gravity (F=Gm₁m_2/r²), PV=nRT and the other forces behind the descriptive mathematical physical laws that model solid, liquid, and gaseous states of matter naturally formed spherical stars and orbiting planets{17}. Gravitationally bound stars, some with orbiting planets, aggregated to form huge rotating galaxies. And nearby loosely gravitationally bound galaxies revolved around themselves to form clusters of galaxies.  So, the universe didn’t “randomly evolve” into a more ordered state than its initial energetic plasma from the “Big Bang”{17}. The same physical forces that govern processes in the universe today played their part in forming it. And this automatic “self-assembly” process was a seamless part of the sudden supernatural creation of matter by God (Psalm 33:6) as subatomic particles because He didn’t need to intervene later make this matter into stars and planets; they naturally formed. However, the physical universe- specifically the earth, was “empty” (without life) as v2 records [1984 NIV] until God supernaturally created and made life forms to inhabit it (vv20-31).

Some object to the alleged 13.5 billion year age for the universe by modern astronomy.

The commentary does not endorse this great age.  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 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 these methods involved selective collection, assumptions, subjective corrections, and lengthy calculations- that were all certainly influenced by prevailing ideas about the great age of the universe. 

A major reason that Big Bang proponents can claim this great age is they hypothesize heavy metals were formed by fusion of lighter ones in stars that later released them into interstellar space at the end of their lengthy lifetimes when they exploded as super nova. This lengthy serial process allegedly eventually supplied growing younger stars and planets in accretion disks with heavy metals.  But this heavy element formation scenario is one of the conjectural features of Big Bang cosmology that doesn’t have observational support. The heavy elements in stars and planets might instead have formed quickly in the initial highly energetic explosive event,and produced a young universe! And the supporting radiometric dating of space rocks is flawed (Topical note 7).

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 incorrect results!  Topical note 8 also explains the surprising new understanding from recent astronomical research that the cause of the cosmological redshift is actually not known with certainty!  Yet it’s used to claim an age for the universe. Topical note 8 provides 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”, long before the earth was made into a habitat during the six days described in Genesis 1, vv2-31.  Scripture doesn't associate any time with the “beginning” when the “heavens and the earth” were created (such as “when” or “how long” it was).  This commentary explains the “beginning” was a lengthy period without a scripturally assigned time that predated what God called Earth’s “1^st Day” that was the start of scriptural history. However, the “beginning” ended with the historical completion of our solar system that formed from compaction of chunky matter in the solar accretion disk. Apparently the matter was consumed several thousand years ago (just before Earth’s 1^st Day).  Then our planets started aging after they were fully formed and they began to cool. Their active surfaces and magnetic fields that are caused by their still hot interiors belie their recent completion ages.  According to scientific studies, accretion disks have lifetimes of only thousands to several million years ({4}Topical note 8).  So, nearly all of the alleged “13.5 billion years” would have been before the solar accretion disk formed and wouldn’t affect the apparent age of completion of the planets and our sun.  Although time is meaningless to the eternal spiritual God, it seems puzzling that He would make His created physical universe wait billions of years to become inhabited for His ultimate purpose that is explained in Why God created the universe after the Genesis 3 commentary.  

Conclusion for Genesis 1 v1, The “beginning”.

God apparently limited His creation account to unscientific “literary” descriptions of its events for scientifically uneducated ancient humans.  Yet this study explains how the Genesis 1 account is factual and is consistent with observational science.  These commentaries and Topical notes see through the “literary style” descriptions of factual events in the Genesis 1 account to describe the science behind them.  

The lengthy astronomy presentation compared what the bible teaches about the “beginning” with observational discoveries made by modern astronomy.  Big Bang cosmology includes fascinating details about how many conventional scientists believe the universe was created{4},{11},{16},{17}. However, lack of supporting observational discoveries for most of its features allows the conjectural ones to be omitted for comparison with scripture.

Scripture is explained to be consistent with modern 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].

The discovery that invisible new stars with planetary systems are forming today doesn’t conflict with the bible that records the “heavens” were created in the “beginning”: The biblical “heavens” that God described in this creation account must have comprised the stars and the glow of the Milky Way the ancient Hebrews could plainly see, but nothing invisible that requires radio telescopic imaging to visualize. However, new stars forming today is conclusive scientific evidence that the entire universe is still being created in a small way today.  So, its complete creation must have occurred during a lengthy period not in just one literal Earth day several thousand years ago. 

Apparently flawed interpretations for the Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14-16 scripture verses that are key to properly understanding the Genesis 1 account were uncovered and correctly revised. The new interpretations that use correct Hebrew word meanings and trustworthy observational science cleared up important roadblocks to the agreement between modern astronomy and biblical scripture. So, astronomical events in the “beginning” that occurred before Earth’s 1^st Day need not conflict with scripture.

The claim by conventional scientists that modern astronomy has “disproved” the Genesis 1 creation account shows a lack of its understanding and of the correct meanings for Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14-16. Also, the many described conjectural features of Big Bang cosmology that are not supported by observational discoveries are validly not used for evaluation of scriptural accuracy.                  

Commentary coverage for Genesis 1 continues with Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days for vv2-31 where God transformed the barren planet earth into a habitat with life.

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 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 the Big Bang theory.

{23}Wikipedia, Asteroid belt. This information was taken from the “formation” section of this lengthy article. Previously, the solar system’s asteroid belt was believed to have been produced by a planet that orbited the sun at this distance and was fragmented by Jupiter’s gravitational pull. However, the differing chemical compositions of asteroids in the belt in part was taken as evidence in favor of it being the remnant of the accretion disk that formed our solar system.

{25}https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com

(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

W.Cook

Independent researcher October 2025

Contact: genesismakessense@gmail.com

Please do not use web links in comments.