The Fifth Day Of Creation

Creation Crafts for Sunday School Creation Crafts for Day 5 of Creation Birds and Sea Creatures. The following ideas come from the lesson God Created the Animals about the Fourth Day of Creation on The Resource Room.

.The Genesis creation narrative is the of both. The narrative is made up of two stories, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the. In the first, (the Hebrew generic word for ) creates the heavens and the Earth in six days, then rests on, blesses and sanctifies the.

In the second story, God, now referred to by the personal name, creates, the first man, from dust and places him in the, where he is given dominion over the animals., the first woman, is created from Adam and as his companion.Borrowing themes from, but adapting them to the people's, the first major comprehensive draft of the (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with ) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the source) and was later expanded by other authors (the ) into a work very like the one we have today. The two sources can be identified in the creation narrative: Priestly and Jahwistic. The combined narrative is a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation: Genesis affirms monotheism and denies polytheism.

Described the combined narrative as 'compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to ends'.Misunderstanding the of the Genesis creation narrative, meaning the intention of the author(s) and the culture within which they wrote, can result in misreadings of the myth as history. This has inspired some believers to promote and deny. As scholar of, puts it:How much history lies behind the story of Genesis? Because the action of the primeval story is not represented as taking place on the plane of ordinary human history and has so many affinities with ancient mythology, it is very far-fetched to speak of its narratives as historical at all.' See also:Although tradition attributes Genesis to, biblical scholars hold that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is 'a composite work, the product of many hands and periods.'

A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the ) into a work very like the one existing today.As for the historical background which led to the creation of the narrative itself, a theory which has gained considerable interest, although still controversial, is 'Persian imperial authorisation'. This proposes that the Persians, after their in 538 BCE, agreed to grant Jerusalem a large measure of local autonomy within the empire, but required the local authorities to produce a single accepted by the entire community. It further proposes that there were two powerful groups in the community – the priestly families who controlled the Temple, and the landowning families who made up the 'elders' – and that these two groups were in conflict over many issues, and that each had its own 'history of origins', but the Persian promise of greatly increased local autonomy for all provided a powerful incentive to cooperate in producing a single text. StructureThe creation narrative is made up of two stories, roughly equivalent to the two first chapters of the (there are no chapter divisions in the original Hebrew text, see ). The first account (1:1 through 2:3) employs a repetitious structure of divine fiat and fulfillment, then the statement 'And there was evening and there was morning, the x th day,' for each of the six days of creation.

In each of the first three days there is an act of division: day one divides the darkness from light, day two the 'waters above' from the 'waters below', and day three the sea from the land. In each of the next three days these divisions are populated: day four populates the darkness and light with Sun, Moon and stars; day five populates seas and skies with fish and fowl; and finally land-based creatures and mankind populate the land.Consistency was evidently not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature. The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory but also complementary, with the first (the Priestly story) concerned with the creation of the entire cosmos while the second (the Yahwist story) focuses on man as moral agent and cultivator of his environment. The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an omnipotent God who creates a god-like humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for acts which would lead to their becoming god-like. Even the order and method of creation differs.

'Together, this combination of parallel character and contrasting profile point to the different origin of materials in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, however elegantly they have now been combined.' The primary accounts in each chapter are joined by a literary bridge at Genesis 2:4 , 'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.' This echoes the first line of Genesis 1, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth', and is reversed in the next phrase, '.in the day that the L ORD God made the earth and the heavens'. This verse is one of ten 'generations' (: תולדות‎ ) phrases used throughout Genesis, which provide a literary structure to the book. They normally function as headings to what comes after, but the position of this, the first of the series, has been the subject of much debate. Mesopotamian influence.

God of Babylon, destroying, the dragon ofprovides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from, but adapted them to, establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of neighbors.Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.

Genesis 1 bears both striking differences from and striking similarities to Babylon's national creation myth, the. On the side of similarities, both begin from a stage of chaotic waters before anything is created, in both a fixed dome-shaped 'firmament' divides these waters from the habitable Earth, and both conclude with the creation of a human called 'man' and the building of a temple for the god (in Genesis 1, this temple is the entire cosmos). On the side of contrasts, Genesis 1 is, it makes, and there is no trace of the resistance to the reduction of chaos to order (Gk., lit. 'God-fighting'), all of which mark the Mesopotamian creation accounts.

Still, Genesis 1 bears similarities to the of Israel's neighbor,.The Enuma Elish has also left traces on Genesis 2. Both begin with a series of statements of what did not exist at the moment when creation began; the Enuma Elish has a spring (in the sea) as the point where creation begins, paralleling the spring (on the land – Genesis 2 is notable for being a 'dry' creation story) in Genesis 2:6 that 'watered the whole face of the ground'; in both myths, Yahweh/the gods first create a man to serve him/them, then animals and vegetation.

At the same time, and as with Genesis 1, the Jewish version has drastically changed its Babylonian model: Eve, for example, seems to fill the role of a when, in Genesis 4:1, she says that she has 'created a man with Yahweh', but she is not a divine being like her Babylonian counterpart.Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the and its aftermath. The two share numerous plot-details (e.g. The divine garden and the role of the first man in the garden, the creation of the man from a mixture of earth and divine substance, the chance of immortality, etc.), and have a similar overall theme: the gradual clarification of man's relationship with God(s) and animals.The Garden of Eden story is compared to the myth in which the goddess created a beautiful garden full of lush vegetation and fruit trees, called, in, the Sumerian earthly Paradise, a place which the Sumerians believed to exist to the east of their own land, beyond the sea. Ninhursag charged, her lover and half brother, with controlling the wild animals and tending the garden, but Enki became curious about the garden, and his assistant, selected seven plants (eight in some versions) and offered them to Enki, who ate them. This enraged Ninhursag, and she caused Enki to fall ill. Enki felt pain in his rib, which is a in Sumerian, as the word ' ti' means both 'rib' and 'life'. The other deities persuaded Ninhursag to relent.

Ninhursag then created a new goddess (seven or eight to heal his seven or eight ailing organs, including his rib), who was named, (a name composed of ' Nin', or 'lady', and ' ti', and which may be translated both as 'Lady of Living' and 'Lady of the Rib'), to cure Enki. Some scholars suggest that this served as the basis for the story of Eve as 'the mother of life' and lady of the rib, created from 's rib in the. Creation by word and creation by combatThe narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 were not the only creation myths in ancient Israel, and the complete biblical evidence suggests two contrasting models. The first is the ' (meaning speech) model, where a supreme God 'speaks' dormant matter into existence.

The second is the ' (meaning struggle or combat) model, in which it is God's victory in battle over the monsters of the sea that mark his sovereignty and might. Genesis 1 is an example of creation by speech, while and are examples of the 'agon' mythology, recalling a Canaanite myth in which God creates the world by vanquishing the water deities: 'Awake, awake! It was you that hacked Rahab in pieces, that pierced the Dragon!

It was you that dried up the Sea, the waters of the great Deep, that made the abysses of the Sea a road that the redeemed might walk.' Genesis 1:1–2:3. The Creation of the Animals (1506–1511), by24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed-to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for food.' And it was so.31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.When in Genesis 1:26 God says 'Let us make man', the Hebrew word used is adam; in this form it is a generic noun, 'mankind', and does not imply that this creation is male.

After this first mention the word always appears as ha-adam, 'the man', but as Genesis 1:27 shows ('So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.' ), the word is still not exclusively male.Man was created in the '.

The meaning of this is unclear: suggestions include:. Having the spiritual qualities of God such as intellect, will, etc.;. Having the physical form of God;.

A combination of these two;. Being God's counterpart on Earth and able to enter into a relationship with him;. Being God's representative or on Earth.The fact that God says 'Let us make man.'

Has given rise to several theories, of which the two most important are that 'us' is, or that it reflects a setting in a with God enthroned as king and proposing the creation of mankind to the lesser divine beings.God tells the animals and humans that he has given them 'the green plants for food' – creation is to be. Only later, after the Flood, is man given permission to eat flesh.

The Priestly author of Genesis appears to look back to an ideal past in which mankind lived at peace both with itself and with the animal kingdom, and which could be re-achieved through a proper sacrificial life in.Upon completion, God sees that 'every thing that He had made. Was very good'. This implies that the materials that existed before the Creation (',' 'darkness,' ' ') were not 'very good.' Hypothesized that the Priestly source set up this dichotomy to mitigate. Seventh day: divine restAnd the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it He rested from all His work which God in creating had made.Creation is followed by rest. In ancient Near Eastern literature the divine rest is achieved in a temple as a result of having brought order to chaos. Rest is both disengagement, as the work of creation is finished, but also engagement, as the deity is now present in his temple to maintain a secure and ordered cosmos. Compare with Exodus 20:8–20:11: 'Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.' Genesis 2:4–2:25.

Eden (, 1472–1553)The meaning to be derived from the Genesis creation narrative will depend on the reader's understanding of its genre, the literary 'type' to which it belongs: 'it makes an enormous difference whether the first chapters of Genesis are read as scientific cosmology, creation myth, or historical saga'. Misunderstanding of the genre of the text, meaning the intention of the author/s and the culture within which they wrote, will result in a misreading. Scholar cautions against one such misreading, the 'woodenly literal' approach which leads to ' and such 'implausible interpretations' as the ', the presumption of a ', and the denial of.

Another scholar, sums up the same thought in these words: 'A interpretation of the Genesis accounts is inappropriate, misleading, and unworkable because it presupposes and insists upon a kind of literature and intention that is not there.' Whatever else it may be, Genesis 1 is 'story', since it features character and characterisation, a narrator, and dramatic tension expressed through a series of incidents arranged in time. The Priestly author of Genesis 1 had to confront two major difficulties. First, there is the fact that since only God exists at this point, no-one was available to be the narrator; the storyteller solved this by introducing an unobtrusive 'third person narrator'. Second, there was the problem of conflict: conflict is necessary to arouse the reader's interest in the story, yet with nothing else existing, neither a chaos-monster nor another god, there cannot be any conflict.

This was solved by creating a very minimal tension: God is opposed by nothingness itself, the blank of the world 'without form and void.' Telling the story in this way was a deliberate choice: there are a number of creation stories in the Bible, but they tend to be told in the first person, by Wisdom, the instrument by which God created the world; the choice of an in the Genesis narrative allows the storyteller to create the impression that everything is being told and nothing held back.It can also be regarded as ancient history, 'part of a broader spectrum of originally anonymous, history-like ancient Near Eastern narratives.' It is frequently called myth in scholarly writings, but there is no agreement on how 'myth' is to be defined, and so while famously suggested that the author of Genesis 1–11 'demythologised' his narrative, meaning that he removed from his sources (the Babylonian myths) those elements which did not fit with his own faith, others can say it is entirely mythical.Genesis 1–2 can be seen as ancient science: in the words of, 'on the subject of creation biblical tradition aligned itself with the traditional tenets of Babylonian science.' The opening words of Genesis 1, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth', sum up the author(s) belief that, the god of Israel, was solely responsible for creation and had no rivals. Later Jewish thinkers, adopting ideas from Greek philosophy, concluded that, and penetrated all things and gave them unity.

Christianity in turn adopted these ideas and identified with the: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'. When the Jews came into contact with Greek thought it led to a major reinterpretation of the underlying cosmology of the Genesis narrative. The biblical authors conceived the cosmos as a flat disc-shaped Earth in the centre, an underworld for the dead below, and heaven above. Below the Earth were the 'waters of chaos', the cosmic sea, home to mythic monsters defeated and slain by God; in Exodus 20:4, God warns against making an image 'of anything that is in the waters under the earth'. There were also waters above the Earth, and so the raqia , a solid bowl, was necessary to keep them from flooding the world.

During the Hellenistic period this was largely replaced by a more 'scientific' model as imagined by Greek philosophers, according to which the Earth was a sphere at the centre of concentric shells of celestial spheres containing the Sun, Moon, stars and planets.The idea that God created the world out of nothing ( creatio ) is central today to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism – indeed, the medieval Jewish philosopher felt it was the only concept that the three religions shared – yet it is not found directly in Genesis, nor in the entire Hebrew Bible. The Priestly authors of Genesis 1 were concerned not with the origins of matter (the material which God formed into the habitable cosmos), but with assigning roles so that the Cosmos should function. This was still the situation in the early 2nd century AD, although early Christian scholars were beginning to see a tension between the idea of world-formation and the omnipotence of God; by the beginning of the 3rd century this tension was resolved, world-formation was overcome, and creation ex nihilo had become a fundamental tenet of Christian theology. Basic Books. (2004).

Norton & Company. (1987). 'On Reading Genesis 1–3'. In O'Connor, Michael Patrick; Freedman, David Noel (eds.).

Eisenbrauns. (2003). Westminster John Knox Press. Bandstra, Barry L. Wadsworth Publishing Company. P. 576.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph (2011). T&T Clarke International. Bouteneff, Peter C. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. Brettler, Mark Zvi (2005).

Jewish Publication Society. (1982). 'Genesis 1:1–2.4'. Westminster John Knox Press.

P. 382. Carr, David M. Westminster John Knox Press.

Carr, David M. 'The Garden of Eden Story'. John Wiley & Sons. Cotter, David W (2003). (1973). 'The Priestly Work'. Harvard University Press.

P. 394. (2000). Oxford University Press. Davidson, Robert (1973). Cambridge University Press. Davies, G.I. 'Introduction to the Pentateuch'.

In Barton, John; Muddiman, John (eds.). Oxford University Press. Dolansky, Shawna (2016).

Biblical Archaeology Review. 42 (1): 18, 60. Fishbane, Michael (2003). Oxford University Press. Friedman, Richard Elliott (2003).

HarperCollins. Ginzberg, Louis (1909). Jewish Publication Society.

P. 695. Graves, Robert; Patai, Raphael (1986).

Random House. Hamilton, Victor P (1990). New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. P. 540.

Hastings, James (2003). Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 10. Kessinger Publishing. (1963). Chicago University Press. (1963).

(2nd Revised ed.). Chicago University Press. Hugenberger, G.P. In Bromiley, Geoffrey W. Eerdmans. Hutton, Jeremy (2007). Isaiah 51:9–11 and the Rhetorical Appropriation and Subversion of Hostile Theologies.

Journal of Biblical Literature. Society of Biblical Literature.

Hyers, Conrad (1984). Westminster John Knox. Jacobs, Mignon R (2007).

Baker Academic. Janzen, David (2004). Walter de Gruyter Publisher.

Kaiser, Christopher B. Brill. Kaplan, Aryeh (2002). 'Hashem/Elokim: Mixing Mercy with Justice'. Mesorah Publication, Ltd.

Retrieved 29 December 2010. Keel, Othmar (1997). Eisenbrauns. King, Leonard (2010). Enuma Elish: The Seven Tablets of Creation; The Babylonian and Assyrian Legends Concerning the Creation of the World and of Mankind. Cosimo Inc. Kissling, Paul (2004).

College Press. Knight, Douglas A (1990). Mills (General Editor) (ed.).

Mercer University Press. Knohl, Israel (2003). Jewish Publication Society.

Kooij, Arie van der (2010). 'The Story of Paradise in the Light of Mesopotamian Culture and Literature'. In Dell, Katherine J; Davies, Graham; Koh, Yee Von (eds.). Brill. (1956). History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History. Kugler, Robert; Hartin, Patrick (2009).

Eerdmans. Kutsko, John F.

Eisenbrauns. Kvam, Kristen E.; Schearing, Linda S.; Ziegler, Valarie H., eds. Indiana University Press. P. 515. Lambert, W. 'A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis'. The Journal of Theological Studies.

Pp. 287–300. Leeming, David A. ABC-CLIO. Leeming, David A. 'Biblical creation'.

Oxford University Press. Retrieved 5 May 2010. Leeming, David A.; Leeming, Margaret (2004). Oxford University Press.

Levenson, Jon D. 'Genesis: Introduction and Annotations'. In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). Oxford University Press. Louth, Andrew (2001). In Andrew Louth (ed.). InterVarsity Press.

May, Gerhard (2004). (English trans. Of 1994 ed.).

T&T Clarke International. McDermott, John J. Paulist Press. McMullin, Ernin (2010).

'Creation Ex Nihilo: Early History'. In Burrell, David B.; Cogliati, Carlo; Soskice, Janet M.; Stoeger, William R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nebe, Gottfried (2002).

'Creation in Paul's Theology'. In Hoffman, Yair; Reventlow, Henning Graf (eds.). Sheffield Academic Press. Parrish, V. Steven (1990). Mills (General Editor) (ed.).

Mercer University Press. Penchansky, David (November 2005). U.S.: Westminster/John Knox Press. Propp, W.H. 'Eden Sketches'.

In Propp, W.H.; Halpern, Baruch; Freedman, D.N. Eisenbrauns.

Ruiten, Jacques T. Brill.

Rogerson, John William (1991). T&T Clark.

(1997). 'The Mists of Time: Genesis I–II'.

In Feyerick, Ada (ed.). New York: NYU Press. P. 560. Ryken, Leland; Wilhoit, Jim; Longman, Tremper; Duriez, Colin; Penney, Douglas; Reid, Daniel G., eds.

InterVarsity Press. Sawyer, John F.A. 'The Image of God, the Wisdom of Serpents, and the Knowledge of Good and Evil'. In Paul Morris, Deborah Sawyer (ed.). Sheffield Academic Press Press. Schwartz, Howard; Loebel-Fried, Caren; Ginsburg, Elliot K. Oxford University Press.

P. 704. Seidman, Naomi (2010). In Ronald Hendel (ed.). Cambridge University Press. Seeley, Paul H. Westminster Theological Journal.

Westminster Theological Seminary. 53: 227–40.

Seeley, Paul H. Westminster Theological Journal. Westminster Theological Seminary. 59: 231–55.

Ska, Jean-Louis (2006). Eisenbrauns.

(October 2002). William B Eerdmans Publishing Co. (November 2001). Oxford University Press USA.

Soskice, Janet M. 'Creatio ex nihilo: its Jewish and Christian foundations'. In Burrell, David B.; Cogliati, Carlo; Soskice, Janet M.; Stoeger, William R. Cambridge University Press. Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor (1964). Doubleday. Spence, Lewis (2010) 1916.

P. 72. Stenhouse, John (2000).

'Genesis and Science'. Ferngren (ed.). The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia. New York, London: Garland Publishing, Inc.

P. 76. Stagg, Evelyn and Frank (1978). 'Genesis and Science'. Woman in the World of Jesus. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press.

P. 135. Stordalen, Terje (2000). Peeters.

Thomas, Matthew A. T&T Clark (Continuum). Thompson, J. New International Commentary on the Old Testament (2nd ed.). Eerdmans Publishing Company. J.A Thompson Jeremiah.

Tsumura, David Toshio (2005). Eisenbrauns. Turner, Laurence A. Sheffield Phoenix Press. Van Seters, John (1998).

'The Pentateuch'. In McKenzie, Steven L.; Graham, M.

Patrick (eds.). Westminster John Knox Press.

Van Seters, John (1992). New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Westminster John Knox Press. Walsh, Jerome T. Liturgical Press.

Waltke, Bruce (1991). Westminster Theological Seminary. Archived from (PDF) on 29 April 2014.

(2006). Baker Academic. Walton, John H.

Desmond Alexander, David Weston Baker (ed.). InterVarsity Press. (2001). Zondervan.

Walton, John H.; Matthews, Victor H.; Chavalas, Mark W. InterVarsity Press. Wenham, Gordon (2003a). Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch. Exploring the Bible Series.

IVP Academic. P. 223. Wenham, Gordon (2003b). In Dunn, James Douglas Grant; Rogerson, J. John William (eds.). Eerdmans.

(1987). Genesis 1–15. Texas: Word Books. Whybray, R.N (2001). In John Barton (ed.). Oxford University Press.

Wood, Ralpth C (1990). 'Genre, Concept of'. Mills (General Editor) (ed.). Mercer University Press. Wright, J. Edward (2002). Oxford University Press.

Wylen, Stephen M. The Seventy Faces of Torah: The Jewish way of Reading the Sacred Scriptures. Paulist Press. P. 256.External linksWikimedia Commons has media related to.Biblical texts. (Hebrew-English text, translated according to the JPS 1917 Edition). (Hebrew-English text, with Rashi's commentary. The translation is the authoritative Judaica Press version, edited by Rabbi A.J.

Rosenberg.). (New American Bible). (King James Version). (Revised Standard Version). (New Living Translation). (New American Standard Bible).

(New International Version (UK))Mesopotamian texts. Summary of Enuma Elish with links to full text.Related links. –, (August 2016).

Related Media

Day One Study

Read Genesis 1:1-23.

1. Reread Genesis 1:20-23 (fifth day) and Isaiah 45:18. God formed the earth to be inhabited. All the materials necessary for animal life—water, air, light, plants, and the chemical materials of the earth—were now available. With what did God fill the earth on Day 5?

2. What does the phrase “living creature” mean in Genesis 1:20, 21? Why aren’t plants called “living creatures?”

3. Regarding the water creatures: name the types represented by the descriptions given here. Note particularly the first ones created.

From the Hebrew: It is possible that these “sea monsters (NAS), great whales (KJV), great sea creatures (NIV, NET)” actually included the great marine dinosaurs. The word in the original Hebrew is actually the same word translated “dragons” in later Scriptures. Remember that the term “dinosaur” wasn’t even invented until the mid 1800’s.

4. The Hebrew term translated “winged bird” denotes anything that flies. Name the types of creatures represented by this phrase.

5. Current evolutionary theories say reptiles (land animals) evolved into birds. Notice the order of creation in v. 20-21. What is distinctively missing from the Genesis account that causes it to conflict with current theories?

Day Two Study

Read Genesis 1:24-31 (sixth and seventh days).

6. With what did God fill the earth on Day 6?

7. Regarding the land creatures: name the types represented by the descriptions given.

8. What was the grand climax of God’s creative activity (v. 26-31)? [Note: We will study this more fully in the next lesson.]

9. What instructions were given regarding food (v. 29-30)? To which creatures? What are the biological and ecological implications of this?

Read Genesis 1:31-2:4 middle.

10. In v. 31, how does God evaluate His creation?

11. Why isn’t it logical that disorder, decay, suffering or death could have occurred or could be occurring in God’s world as described in Genesis 1?

12. What occurred on the 7th day? Why?

Deeper Discoveries for those who like research: Discuss the astronomical basis of the day, month, and year in contrast to the lack of such basis for the week. Why is this important? Do all countries have a day of rest? Did any cultures in ancient history besides the Jews have a 7-day week?

Appreciation Application:

13. God created a well-ordered, functioning world for man to enjoy.

a. According to Romans 1:20-25, what should be our response to God’s self-revelation in the created world?

b. What are the consequences for refusing to recognize God as Creator?

Day Three Study

Appreciation Assignment:

14. Read Exodus 20:11. Did God create man with a need for rest and relaxation from work? Have you stopped to rest for at least part of a day this past week? What did you do to rest?

15. Spend some time thinking about various animals. Perhaps visit the zoo or local pet shop with your family. Read Job 38:39-39:30 as God tells about the specialness of some He created. What are your favorite animals and why? Share with your group.

Deeper Discoveries:

· Read “Creation Answers: Creation, Not Evolution” following this lesson.

· Go to www.answersingenesis.org. SEARCH a word or phrase from today’s passage—dinosaurs, animals, ecology, eating plants, etc. Select an article to read or video to watch. Also visit www.icr.org and search.

Creation Answers: Creation, Not Evolution

“It’s All about Information”

The information below is adapted from resources found on www.icr.org and www.answersingenesis.org.

Let’s explore some of the other questions always asked about creation in Genesis 1 plus those that should be asked. Then, we’ll narrow our focus down to evolution itself.

What God Said He Did

When God first began His creating, the earth was described as “formless and empty.” Formless just means it needed shape. It was covered with water, the deep. Empty means just that, unfilled. God spends 2 1/2 days separating & gathering to give the earth form (1:3-10). God spends 3 1/2 days making & filling to remove the emptiness.

Some say a great span of time existed between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, allowing for an earlier time when the earth appeared somewhat like it is now, was destroyed because of Satan’s rebellion, and then was restored to the way it appears now. This is supposed to explain an old age for the earth plus layers of rocks & fossils but without evolution. The problem with this position is that any catastrophe that left the earth shapeless and empty would have destroyed anything as orderly as the continuous rock layers. So, it’s no longer considered a credible alternative to young earth creation.

What Is Separated And Gathered? What’s The Expected Evidence? What Do We Find?

·Day One—God created light so it is not Himself. He divided the light from the darkness; also, He refers to day and night and evening and morning. Because God is eternal, this also indicates the creation of time for the benefit of His creation. We are not told the source of the light if other than God Himself. God established a regular rotation of the earth. Expect to find evidence of day and night being continual and universal. This is what we find.

·Day Two—The waters above from waters below with an expanse in between, a curious phrase. Many think this ‘expanse’ was the atmosphere, because God placed the birds in the expanse to fly. This would put these waters above the atmosphere. Perhaps more water vapor in the atmosphere than at present. Expect evidence of worldwide tropical climate forming a greenhouse effect, lush vegetation, greater size and longevity of creatures due to shielding from incoming radiation. We do find tropical plants and animals all over the globe in every rock layer, at the poles and on top of the highest mountains including giant animals and plants. Humans living before the Flood lived ~900 years. We’ll cover this in a future article.

·Day Three—Dry land separated from the sea. From the text, it appears that the land was all in one land mass. This doesn’t preclude having rivers and lakes on the land, though, as described in Genesis 2. You would expect evidence of one large landmass with set boundaries between the ocean and the land. We find evidence of a supercontinent that has since split apart. Continental shelves and slopes are set boundaries between the ocean and the land.

What Is Made And Filled? What’s The Expected Evidence? What Do We Find?

·Day 3—ALL plant kinds—grasses, seed plants, fruit trees. Food for creatures filled the land surface that day. We would expect to find evidence of fully formed and functioning plants, fruit and seeds from the start of life on earth. We find just that. Pollen is found in some of the oldest rocks supposedly millions of years older than the first pollen-forming plants.

Are plants alive? The Bible makes a sharp distinction between plants & animals. On Day Three, God commanded the inanimate earth to “bring forth” plants while on Day Five, He “created..every living creature that moved.” At this point, and on Day Six to follow, He instituted the concept of giving “life” (Hebrew nephesh) to nonliving matter—something He did not do for plants. The Bible never refers to plants as living; they grow, flourish, wither, fade but they do not “live” or “die.” Plants do not have nephesh, nor “breath of life” nor “blood” (Lev. 17:11). They are biologically alive but not Biblically “living.”

·Day 4—Sun, moon, stars—notice the emphasis on separating light and darkness. Light filled the expanse that day. We would expect to find evidence that these were fully functioning in a mature state from the beginning. We find fully functioning from the beginning. Actually, the creation of light before the sun is evidence of authenticity of Genesis 1. Only an eyewitness would dare to write that.

·Day 5—ALL water creatures, ALL birds. Creatures filled the seas and sky that day.

·Day 6—ALL land creatures plus MAN and WOMAN. Creatures filled the land surface that day. Regarding days 5 and 6, expect to find evidence of all water creatures, birds, land creatures and man to be fully functioning in a mature form since the beginning. That’s what we find. More on that later.

Note: the creation order contradicts the proposed evolution of the universe and life on the planet at >20 points. Example: Marine creatures weren’t created until day 5, but evolution says that they came before the land plants. Seed plants didn’t “evolve” until after bacteria, invertebrates, fish, amphibians and some land animals, but creation says they came first. Bees “evolved” before flowers. You have to twist Genesis 1 to make it match up to evolution.

Creation Is Complete.

God told us how long creation took and how complete it was. God rested because He was finished. Nothing formless or empty remained. The biblical model reveals a fully functioning, mature creation:

· Continents with topsoil and rivers flowing from a source of water.

· Rocks with crystalline minerals in them—some already beginning the radioactive process to add warmth and other elements to our planet.

· Stars visible from earth.

· Plants bearing seed and fruit; bees pollinating flowers.

· Marine animals swimming; birds flying.

· Land animals creeping and running; adult Adam and Eve talking—all capable of reproducing.

What About Life? Did It Evolve Or Was It Instantly Created?

·Defining Creation—”Creation” is defined simply as the work of God in bringing all things into existence ex nihilo (out of nothing) and is not merely a reworking of materials already in existence.

·Defining Evolution—”Evolution” is the supposition that life spontaneously came into existence from previously nonliving chemical molecules and forms of life have developed from earlier, simpler forms by gradual modification through natural processes. This is what I am talking about when I say evolution. Particles to people. Amoeba to man. New information being added continually into the DNA of living creatures.

It’s all about information. Is this operational science or historical science? Examining biological life in the present is operational. Making conclusions about the prehistoric past is historical. Evolution is a worldview about the past and a way to interpret scientific data that exists in the present. Let’s look at the evidence from two sources: 1) life in the present and 2) life in the past.

Life In The Present

What Evidence From Life In The Present Would You Expect To Find If Evolution Is True?

· Life coming from non-life. This is the biggest problem for evolutionists. Like the nothing creating something concept. No one has ever produced life from non-life in a laboratory. It’s not occurring spontaneously anywhere on the planet, either.

· Beneficial Mutations that continually create new systems in every living creature observable in the present. Producing…

· Billions of transitional Forms—a hypothetical organism that is “between” evolutionary stages. We should have transitional structures for every part of every system of every living creature in the present.

· Things Getting Better—no death due to aging or disease

What Evidence From Life In The Present Would You Expect To Find If Creation Is True?

· Intelligent design in all living things

· Separate, distinct kinds of creatures with lots of variation within them.

· Death and disease because of the curse.

· Extinction of some creatures because of the flood.

What Evidence From Life In The Present Do You Find?

1. Intellligent Design In All Living Things Is Obvious.

Every time a student looks through a microscope or a telescope or looks at the real world in any way, he/she is bombarded with evidence for creation. Even the simplest single-celled organism is unthinkably complex. A virus, which isn’t even complete in itself, can baffle our best scientists and all our technology!

All of life is governed by the marvelously complex genetic code, which contains not only design and order, but what is equivalent to written information. This DNA code must not only be written correctly, the rest of the cell must read it and follow its instructions to live and reproduce. This code had to be present at the origin of life. How could it have written itself, and how could all the various parts of the cell learn how to read and obey it? IMPOSSIBLE!

A non-Christian, non-evolutionist scientist says, “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.” (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 264)

Similarity is evidence of common designer, not common ancestry. You would expect single Creator using common design for similar function.

2. Separate, Distinct Kinds Are Evident; Transitional Forms Are Non-Existent.

For amoeba-to-man evolution to be possible there has to be a mechanism that adds new genetic information to the DNA recipe of cells—information that performs a new function that was not previously present. No such mechanism is known. The proposed mechanism is through a series of mutations that add new information to the DNA. Upward progress is made because of natural selection.

“Natural selection” means that the creature with the right stuff will: 1) have the best chance of surviving a given habitat, 2) beat out those who don’t have the right stuff, and 3) pass on their winning stuff to their offspring. According to evolution, the right stuff is beneficial mutations.

“Beneficial” Mutations ≠ Evolution

Mutations are inherited copying errors in the DNA ‘recipe’ of an organism. Evolutionary theory requires some mutations to go “uphill”—to add new information. The mutations we observe are either neutral (information not effectively changed) or go “downhill”—the parent genetic information is lost or scrambled.

In rare cases, a mutation may benefit a creature in a particular environment. It looks beneficial, but in every case these involve loss of information, even though it appears to give the organism a survival advantage. That’s where natural selection of creatures with the right stuff takes place.

The casts, as one faces the stage are:on the right, starting near the stage:carrying the boy (Roman copy of an original from the Hellenistic Period. Caproni and Brother. Newark symphony hall renovation. Naples); (Roman artist.

·Example #1: Wingless beetles. A mutation prevents some beetles from growing wings. This defect is passed to all that beetle’s babies, so that it’s grandchildren will all be wingless. Here in Double Oak, such a beetle will have less chance to get away from beetle-eaters, so it’ll be eaten before it can leave babies. Fewer wingless beetles. But, on Galveston Island, the flying beetles tend to get blown into the sea, so the wingless ones have an advantage. More wingless beetles. Not gain of information. Loss of information. Those wingless beetles cannot produce beetles with wings again. It’s all about information.

·Example #2: Blind cave animals. Many animals in caves are blind, with shriveled eyes caused by a mutation. That would not harm the individual in the cave with no light to see by anyway. But in the light, such blind mutants would never survive to have babies. Result: more blind creatures in caves; more sighted creatures outside. Not gain of information. Loss of information. Those blind creatures can never produce sighted babies again. It’s all about information.

·Example #3: A common mutational defect carried by about one in 100 Europeans may help to protect against certain forms of AIDS. HIV gets into certain immune cells with the help of two receptor molecules, like ‘handholds’ on the outside of the cells. Researchers have found a mutated form of the gene that codes for one of these receptor proteins on these cells. The protein has lost the chemical ‘handles’ which the virus needs to get inside the cell. Beneficial against AIDS but what else should that protein provide for the cell? Loss of information. It’s all about information.

If evolution were true, we should find billions of transitional forms representing the progression from one creature to another in the present. Besides mutations, the examples commonly cited as “evolution happening today” usually involve variation or adaptation coupled with natural selection. Let’s look at these more closely.

Variation Within A Kind ≠ Evolution

God created plants to produce seed ‘after their kind’ and animals to reproduce ‘after their kind’. ‘After their/its kind’ is repeated ten times in Genesis 1, giving emphasis to the principle. And we take it for granted. When we plant a tomato seed, we don’t expect to see a geranium pop up out of the ground. Nor do we expect that our dog will give birth to kittens or that Aunt Betty, who is expecting, will bring home a chimpanzee baby from the hospital! Our everyday experience confirms the truth of the Bible that things produce offspring true to their kind.

But what is a created ‘kind’? God divided creatures up differently than we humans do. Linnaeus, a creationist scientist, tried to determine the created kinds so he defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept. We have since learned that the “species” division is too limiting. Should be much larger. New species have been observed to form. But this speciation is within the “kind,” and involves no new genetic information. In nature, we see variety within a species or “kind” such as the dog kind but no changes from one species to another—dogs are not changing to cat kinds so they can climb the tree after the squirrels. That would be plenty of motivation, wouldn’t it?

God placed within the DNA of creatures potential for variety in certain parts of the creature. Everyone gets 2 sets of genes—1 from mom, 1 from dad. So, lots of potential for variation in hair color, eye color, skin color. But, there are limits on natural genetic variability. Humans will always have hair rather than fur and two eyes rather than 10. Noses can change shapes but gills are never substituted for noses. Okay? Limited variety is present within every type of creature. There is variation in dogs, but they are still dogs; variation in cats, but they are cats; variation in humans, but we are still humans—and so on. Any variation we see today involves sorting and the loss of pre-existing information.

·Example #1: An example of forced loss of information. Similar to dog breeding (unnatural selection) —Choose the animals with the characteristics wanted then breed them. Thus the information for certain desired characteristics is concentrated in smaller selected populations. But the resulting breeds have lost the information for the characteristics not wanted. A Chihuahua has lost the information in its genes to give it the long legs and body of a Great Dane. Less information. It’s all about information.

·Example #2: Geographical populations—People who have lived in an isolated area for generations will eventually carry the same traits. Other traits will be lost.

·Example #3: Finches on the Galapagos Islands— In the 1800’s, Darwin saw big finches & little finches with big beaks & little beaks. Today, there are still big finches & little finches with big beaks & little beaks. In our group, you see big & little women with big & little beaks. Variation, not evolution!

·Example #4: England’s peppered moths—Before 1800, light and dark moths existed. Once pollution darkened the environment, light and dark moths existed. Today, light and dark moths exist. Throughout the entire observed period, both shades existed and comprised a single interbreeding species. No evolution here! Just the ratios changed. Variation within their own kind according to the wide variety of color combinations programmed into them by the Creator.

Natural selection assists in selecting optimal habitats and enables the best genetic information to be passed on. The trait must be there before it can be selected! It’s all about information!

Adaptation Of A Species ≠ Evolution.

Here’s another thing confused with evolution. Adaptation. Adaptation is a design feature in a plant or animal that makes it more suited to live in its environment by using pre-existing information to make the necessary adaptations to an environment. The trait must be there before it can be selected! Grand kingdom metacritic. There’s a great discussion of this issue in Chapter 22 of the book.

·Example #1: Northerners moving down south and vice versa—If you change your elevation from sea level to mountaintop or warm climate to cold climate, your body will produce more red blood cells to fuel your “engine” with oxygen and warmth. Adaptation with already existing ability. It’s all about information.

·Example #2: Antibiotic resistant bacteria—Some antibiotic resistance was already present in the bacterial population before the development of antibiotics (represented in blue). Antibiotics kill off more of the non-resistant red ones, so more of the blue are left to flourish and have bacteria babies. Bacteria found in the frozen bodies of explorers who had been lost over 150 years ago were already resistant to 6 different antibiotics that weren’t invented until 100 years later! Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied, none have involved the production of new functionally complex information, such as a new enzyme. Nothing new is produced. Bacteria can gain resistance through two ways: 1) by losing genetic information, 2) by using a design feature built in to swap DNA with another bacteria.

·Example #3: Insect resistance to pesticides— Evolutionist Francisco Ayala determined that houseflies resistant to DDT already carried the genetic information necessary to “be” resistant, not “become” resistant.

Which reminds me that things are not getting better. Creatures get sick, get old and die. Any evolutionary process that goes from amoeba to man would have solved this eons ago. It’s illogical to think otherwise. The bottom-line is this: evolution is not being observed in the present.

· Not through mutations, variation or adaptation.

· Not through pregnancy, either. A baby growing in the womb never has gill slits like a fish or a tail like a monkey.

· Parts of our bodies aren’t useless leftovers of our evolutionary ancestors. Those identified as such last century are now declared useful to the body in some way. Tonsils fight infection. The appendix activates the immune system before birth. If one of these parts “goes bad,” it may need to be removed, but this doesn’t prove they were “useless organs” any more than a necessary hysterectomy proves the womb is useless!!

Living Things That Defy Evolution

There are hundreds of living creatures that have systems so marvelously complex and symbiotic that they could not work until all parts work. These totally defy explanation by evolution. The butterfly, giraffe, bombardier beetle, and woodpecker are just a few.

Conclusion

God created all plants, animals, and man according to kinds with lots of room for variation and adaptation within kinds. Each was subsequently affected by the curse.

THERE IS A CREATOR!!

Sources For Further Study:

1. Living fossils Q & A: www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/living_fossils.asp

2. Creation kinds Q & A: www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/kinds.asp

3. Videos: Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution, Vol. 1 and 2, by Dr. Jobe Martin; Living Fossils by Dr Joachim Scheven.

4. Refuting Evolution, Vol. 1 and 2 by Jonathan Sarfati. One particular chapter examines fossils used to prove evolution at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter8.asp

5. Creation: Facts of Life, Gary Parker is completely online at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/index.asp.

Related Topics: Creation, Evolution