GENESIS 1: CREATION, the BEGINNING

© 2025.

This creation commentary explains the observational science behind the events in the “beginning” of Genesis 1 v1 about how the universe and our solar system began.  Details of the “beginning” are scarce in the bible so both clues from scripture and astronomical discoveries are used.

The commentary, Authorship of the Hebrew Law, presented substantial evidence from scripture, archaeology, Hebrew writing style, and ancient history that Moses originally recorded the biblical book of Genesis and 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. The commentary explained why these later scriptural additions by others didn’t interfere with the message Moses originally recorded.

Introduction to the Genesis 1, v1 commentary:

This creation account was evidently originated by God who told it to a human before Noah’s Flood. This was explained in the Genesis 1- Origin and Authorship commentary. Moses later compiled it in Hebrew into his Book of Genesis. The creation events starting with the “beginning” in v1 were described as isolated “snapshots” of what God did then, and during each of the six days of creation week that followed. 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 given in the commentary, Genesis 1: Origin and Authorship- Introduction to the creation account. 

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” in Genesis 1: 6-8. An English translation word choice in Exodus 20:11 that led to misunderstanding this verse is explained below.

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 some 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 present convincing evidence for their technical accuracy.

Beneficially, this independent research wasn’t limited by using the classic interpretations of Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14-18, and use of Usher’s dating chronology. They have been adopted as doctrinal policy by some creation science organizations. These policies importantly maintain uniform beliefs among their staff so they aren't normally reviewed for currency. However, if incorrect they can stifle beneficial research. The classic interpretations for these two scripture verses are used by these organizations to give apparent biblical support for perhaps a two-day creation of the universe as it appears today (Day 1 and Day 4 in creation week) several thousand years ago, and that the stars were created after the earth. They make the biblical Genesis 1 account itself seem incompatible with trustworthy observational science and recent astronomical discoveries. So, a factual Genesis 1 account is universally rejected by conventional scientists and many conservative Christians who have a natural science college degree have difficulty believing Genesis 1 is literally true. 

Conservative Christian pastors who teach that the Genesis 1 account is literally true say it is a “matter of faith”.  However, this factual record should agree with trustworthy observational sciences. These don't include the deep-time “consensus” sciences of evolutionary speciation, uniformatarian geology, and conjectural ideas of modern astrophysics that conventional scientists and others force on the public as fact (Topical note 1). Why these are “consensus sciences" is explained from a creation perspective in Topical note 6. Agreement of the Genesis 1 account with laboratory sciences provides rational evidence for its literal correctness so sharing it with others who are skeptical becomes easier.

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. The revised interpretations chosen for Genesis Makes Sense are consistent with the original Hebrew text and they allow using trustworthy observational science to explain the creation account events.   And the key biblical dates for creation week and Noah’s Flood in Josephus’ chronology agree closely with verifiable historical dates (Authorship of the Hebrew Law).        

Because of these interpretations of Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14-18, the two creation commentaries and Topical note 8 have material that offer refreshingly different and scientifically more accurate views of the scripturally unrecorded events in the “beginning” and on Day 4 than what creation science organizations describe.  However, the material in the other commentaries and Topical notes support (about 100% of) what they describe, and cited references include their creation research always in context.   

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 (scientific) 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 (scientific) summary of Genesis 1:

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

{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 known 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 [vault, dome, firmament] 'sky'". {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 clear "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, 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), 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 before the events of the “six days” recorded in vv2-31. Why God created the universe is explained 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 26:7 records this same concept: “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; He suspends the earth over nothing” [1984 NIV]. God surely saw this, and v1 described both were created in the beginning, but it doesn’t say at the same time.  Observational astronomy provides evidence that stars were created before the earth, and a detailed study of Genesis 1:14-18 doesn’t conflict with 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.

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.

Big Bang cosmology:

Genesis Makes Sense does not endorse all of Big Bang theory. The following summary of Big Bang cosmology from modern astronomy is presented because it will  be 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 cosmology supposedly illuminates 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 severely limit what of Big Bang theory is trustworthy. Then the commentary presents how our solar system began based on both astronomical discoveries and certain scripture verses.    

This commentary uses only the features of Big Bang cosmology that are supported by astronomical discoveries and are also consistent with scripture. Most features are theories that are not supported by observations 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 astronomers 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 examines the Hebrew scripture text and thoroughly explains a newer interpretation 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 4^th day after they were created in the beginning, which is confusing. Also, a newer interpretation of Genesis 1:16-17 that was introduced in the technical summery of Genesis 1 (above) is thoroughly explained in the Genesis 1: Creation, the Six Days commentary for the 4^th day.  These newer interpretations for Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:16-17 are compatible with Hebrew scripture and 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 of science and scripture 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 Conclusions below. 

The comparison of trustworthy science and correct scripture interpretation 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.

Summary of Big Bang creation theory for the universe:

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

Creation of matter:

All matter in the universe was created instantly from an enormous all-directional shower of subatomic particles{16} that resulted from the Big Bang explosion. Whether the 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 to form 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.

The expanding plasma formed hydrogen gas as it cooled. 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.

Forming stars:

After the explosive creation of matter irregularly-shaped rotating gaseous nebula of hydrogen formed. Eventually, stars formed in these nebulae from density variations in the gaseous hydrogen and they became massive by gravitational attraction of more hydrogen{4}. Eventually the immense heat from gravitational compression caused nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium within them.

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 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 (by 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 of stars with orbiting planets vigorously formed throughout the universe while the supply of cosmic free hydrogen gas and heavy elements were plentiful. 

Forming planets:

Somehow, solid dust-size particles composed of heavy elements formed as the hydrogen cooled, which became gravitational “nuclei” for larger solid chunks to form. The rotating nebulae of gas and dust naturally flattened into disks by their rotation-fed equatorial expansion.  Eventually, countless huge rotating “accretion disks” of various sizes formed throughout the universe.  The disks became gravitationally stratified with the denser solid material orbiting near the massive central star and lighter material orbiting further out.  Planets formed by accretion of the chunky debris.  The planets, like stars, became naturally spherical by their self-gravity and they grew in size by gravitationally absorbing more the disk debris as they orbited the central star until it was consumed. Accretion disks are shown have lengthy lifetimes so each planet has physical features with a range of ages (below). Their oldest is their chemical compositions of their parent gaseous nebula and youngest are their active surfaces (including volcanism) and magnetic fields caused by their hot interiors from gravitational compression and internal natural radioactivity.

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 orbiting 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 dusty 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 that are apparently gravitationally sweeping out lanes in debris of the accretion disks as they grow until it is consumed while they orbit around its dense central star.  

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  (intenet). 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 events (not the abstract 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.  

The few features from the above description of Big Bang theory that are supported by observational astronomy will be used below to compare it with biblical creation to look for mutual agreement. The results are presented in the later section, What can be taken away from this presentation of modern astronomy?

How do scientific and biblical universe creations compare?

The Big Bang scenario above describes that all of the matter in the universe was created instantly, then it expanded rapidly in space and it self-assembled into the celestial bodies we see today. 

However, the brief origin of the heavens described in Psalm 33:6 may also be consistent with the traditional Christian interpretation (below) that the entire universe was suddenly created complete, with the stars, planets, and galaxies that are visible today. So, this religious creation interpretation is examined next for consistency with observational astronomy. 

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 1^st literal day of creation week.  This was in 4004 BC according to Archbishop 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 classic 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 view pictures the water covered earth was created on the 1^st day in empty space. Then on the 4^th day the sun, moon, and stars- the whole visible universe was crested that surrounded the earth. 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. 

This traditional view doesn’t include the observed expansion of the universe, but God certainly could have created it expanding to prevent its gravitational collapse. However, it is incompatible with observed new stars and planetary systems forming today{14,17}, because the cosmos then would not have been entirely created in a single Earth day (or two) several thousand years ago. One 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 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 Genesis 1 commentary provides a different explanation for the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars on the 4^th day that fits the biblical Hebrew and also observational astronomy.

This older creation interpretation is still promoted today by organizations that adhere to fundamentalist religious beliefs as doctrinal policy. These beliefs include the classic interpretations for the meaning of certain scripture verses in early English bible translations. These scripture interpretations were designed to support traditional Christian church doctrines but eventually some became inexplicable with observational human science as it progressed. Trouble began after the telescope was developed when medieval European astronomers challenged the scientifically incorrect doctrine that the celestial heavens were Earth centered. So well-meaning classic 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 it should also pass its scrutiny. So, the observational sciences 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 consensus sciences and their dating methods are critiqued in Topical notes 6 and 7.

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

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 called "stellar nurseries"{14,17,28}. 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 one (or two) days 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 visible (“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.    

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 necessarily also in 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… <<

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-

*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 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” 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 4^th day).

**Hebrew “e.artz” may be translated into English either as “the earth” (the planet) or “the land” (dry ground) in Genesis 1. However, English translations of e.artz are inconsistent in different bible versions for Genesis 1:10 that clearly means dry ground, and only a few use "land". This shows the intended English meaning of artz (land or earth), must be inferred from context and rationality in bible text. So "land", the suggested English meaning above for “artz” in Exodus 20:11 is most accurate. It both correctly pictures dry ground appearing on Earth's 3rd day and it clears up the objections noted below. The actual use of “the earth” for e.artz in Exodus 20:11 in English bibles problematically causes this verse to have the same sentence structure as Genesis 1:1. This leads readers to assume the Exodus verse refers to the original creation of planet earth during the “six days” instead of raising its dry land then! See the objections section below.

Conclusion for the interpretation of Exodus 20:11- 

The commentary is not “rewriting” biblical Exodus 20:11 this way but it only presents a corrected interpretation of it that is supported by- proper Hebrew word usage of “made”, proper context meaning of “e.artz” as “dry ground”, and that the heavens appeared in the "sky" on Day 4 instead of God actually forming them in outer space [Hebrew shimim] then. Understanding Earth’s sky cleared during its first four days helps to explain this corrected English meaning of the Exodus verses.  

Three 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 word usage. So, Exodus 20:11 must refer to the heavens and the earth as being “made” after it was created, and not originally “created” in the six days.

2. 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 that God commanded in Exodus 20:11.

3. Use of "e.artz" as the planet earth in Exodus 20:11 supports a one-day complete creation of the universe several thousand years ago. This conflicts with astronomical observations that new stars are recently forming in our galaxy. 

   
   

The corrected meaning shown for “e.artz” as the land in the Exodus verses bypasses the above objections. So they can’t be quoted to teach the celestial heavens were originally created suddenly in one day (Day 1 or 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 - 5 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”. Other 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. New Testament verses from Christ’s teachings where He uses the term “the beginning” (like in Genesis 1:1) is sometimes cited to mean 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 finished 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 1^st 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. 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.

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

Most of the features of Big Bang cosmology that that were presented earlier in this astronomy 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, 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 features from Big Bang theory have observational evidence and biblical support or don’t specifically conflict with scripture, so these deserve special attention-

1.A brief but gigantic explosive event created all matter in the universe in the beginning. It apparently was initially a high-temperature subatomic glowing plasma.

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”. 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 briefly spoke the origin of the celestial heavens.   

2.Rapid expansion of the subatomic matter in all directions followed. This prevented the gravitational collapse of the celestial bodies that later formed. 

Biblical support for the continued expansion of the heavens comes from 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 that Hebrews would understand: 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 set them up on posts to live in.

3.Self-assembly of the cooler matter into copious hydrogen and trace quantities of the heavier atomic elements followed. This produced a cosmic medium with rotating gaseous nebulae that was composed of mainly hydrogen and a tiny percentage of heavier atomic elements (below){29}. Swirling eddies developed in the expanding gas as it cooled that eventually caused the ubiquitous rotary and revolutionary motions of future celestial bodies.             

Non-uniformities in the nebular material later caused gravitational clumping of hydrogen that compacted into massive stars. Their high internal temperatures produced exothermic nuclear fusion that maintains their high temperatures and enriches their helium abundance. This nearly endless fusion cycle continues until hydrogen is consumed and stars finally collapse as novas and supernovas. This self-assembly of matter into the stars (galaxies and planets, below) seen today is consistent with scripture because it was a continuation of the initial explosive creation and expansion of matter- that occurred automatically and didn’t require separate intervention by God. Today’s visible stellar systems were created in the biblical beginning (Genesis 1:1), perhaps many thousands of years ago (below). 

Cecilia Payne importantly used star temperatures to mathematically correct their spectroscopic line absorbances and new concepts from quantum physics to determine star elemental abundances in her PhD thesis research of 1925. This showed that stars of all spectral classes 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 ubiquitous trace abundance of heavy elements in stars affects how they are believed to have formed: 

Cataloged absorbance spectra show most terrestrial heavy elements are present in stars of all spectral classes. Her research determined elemental abundance in the reversing layers above the photosphere of stars that produce their absorbance spectra. The heaviest rare earth metals seem mostly absent from stars, but their powerful gravity would trap them deep inside so their absorbance spectra are not visible.  

The theory that heavy elements were formed gradually by fusion of lighter elements in successive generations of stars over billions of years is proposed by conventional scientists. (This was described in the Big Bang creation scenario above). This theory would produce stars with large variations in heavy element content in different parts of our galaxy. However, all observed stars today, even the “oldest” stars of globular clusters have similar under 2% heavy element content. No hypothetical oldest “population III” stars that consist of only hydrogen and helium without heavy elements have been found (internet).

The simplest explanation is that these amounts of the ubiquitous heavy elements in stars were also produced in 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.  

This shorter origin of heavy elements also has rational support from the bible. It seems unreasonable that God would allow His physical universe to need billions of years for Earth to be ready to quickly create intelligent life on in six days for His ultimate purpose- that is explained in Topical note 10.

The entire universe would then be much younger than conventional theory insists.  

Formation of planets from “accretion disks” with particulate material:

Equatorial expansion of rotating nebulae produced disks of the cosmic medium that each orbited a central star, including the sun.  The disk material became greatly enriched with heavy elements apparently by action of the “stellar wind” of high energy particles from central stars that blew away most light hydrogen and helium gas from the star’s neighborhood (internet).

They developed particulate material composed almost entirely of heavy elements. Planets grew by gravitationally compacting this chunky material in the rotating accretion disks until it was consumed while they orbited the central star.  The densest material orbited closest to the star so the denser planets formed there.

Age of planets:

According to discoveries about accretion disks, planets are the most recently completed celestial bodies.  So, the age of a stellar system is partly the age of the accretion disk that formed its 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 prior solar nebula. However, the time period and pathway from the explosive creation of matter to the formation of accretion disks with chunky solid matter is not known with certainty.

The most recent features of our planets are their magnetic fields and active surfaces (eg., vulcanism). 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 Earth’s 1st Day in “creation week” that was less than 10,000 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 there 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. 

Stellar systems of stars and planets apparently gravitationally clustered into huge galaxies, and galaxies associated into gravitationally bound orbiting clusters of galaxies.

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 their recessional velocities, distances, and age determinations, which have no reality check as was noted previously. 

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 observationally 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 from observational discoveries.  

Specific objections to Big Bang cosmology:

Why does this Genesis 1 commentary use selected concepts from secular Big Bang cosmology to explain it instead of the traditional Christian creation that was described earlier?

This commentary treats the Hebrew Genesis 1 account as factual.  The observational discovery of new stars currently forming in our galaxy was noted that shows the celestial heavens are still being created today. So, creation of the heavens has been a gradual process that is not compatible with the traditional Christian creation interpretation of Genesis 1 that specifies they were created suddenly long ago on Earth’s 4^th day (vv14-18). Another observational objection to this traditional 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.

The Technical summary of the Genesis 1 account above shows the original Hebrew makes complete sense and it is technically accurate, even though it was recorded in a “literary (non-scientific) style”. However, the traditional Christian creation scenario was developed using flawed human interpretations of English translations for the key verses of Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14.  They lead readers to imagine the earth was originally created on Earth’s 1^st day, and the celestial heavens were later created around it on its 4^th day.  This is inconsistent with trustworthy astronomical discoveries (not theories).

This conflict was resolved by analyzing the Hebrew wording of both Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14-18 and correcting their flawed interpretations.  The correct meanings of these Hebrew verses as presented earlier in this commentary were found to be consistent with trustworthy observational astronomy.  

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 Big Bang cosmology 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 self-assembled according to the “blueprints” of God’s physical laws{17}. The Entropy’s Rainbow article{4} strives to show that after subatomic matter was explosively created rapidly-moving, sparse hot hydrogen gas formed and irregular flow eddies in it caused gravitational clumping.  The hydrogen gas further compacted into stars by gravity, and their masses determined their size and final temperatures. The forces behind these descriptive mathematical physical laws both self-assembled and governed the universe after its completion.  They model the solid, liquid, and gaseous states of matter with formulas such as F=Gm₁m_2/r² and PV=nRT that are trustworthy, predictable laboratory science.

This automatic “self-assembly” process of the heavens and the early earth was a seamless part of the sudden supernatural creation of matter by God because He didn’t need to intervene later make this matter into stars and planets. This intelligently designed self-assembly spared God the burden of managing its development. 

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 stated 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 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 then allegedly released into the cosmic medium by their supernova explosions that became the 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 all 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).       

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 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's 1st day when God made its surface ocean and it became different that all other planets.   This commentary provided evidence the “beginning” was a lengthy period that scripture doesn't assign any time to, such as “when” or “how long” it was.   

Conclusion:

This conclusion summarizes the findings of both the Genesis 1 Origin and Authorship and Creation, the Beginning commentaries regarding the Genesis 1 account.

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

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 the stars with orbiting planets and galaxies we see today was a smooth continuation of the creation of matter because it didn't require a separate intervention by God.

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 new stars forming today is conclusive scientific evidence the universe is still being created in a smaller way today.   So its creation evidently occurred during a lengthy period, not all in one Earth day several thousand years ago.

Apparently flawed interpretations of English translations for Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14-16 that were cleared up in the creation commentaries eliminate roadblocks to the agreement between modern observational astronomy and biblical scripture. So, astronomical events in the scriptural “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 understanding- the account, the earth's gradual sky clearing during its first four days, and correct meanings of Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:14-18. Also, the many conjectural features of Big Bang cosmology that are not supported by astronomical discoveries were omitted to make a valid comparison of scripture with science for agreement.                       

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.

{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

{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 March 2026

Contact: genesismakessense@gmail.com

Please do not use web links in comments.