The genesis of the universe.
The biblical doctrine.
A new approach with new means –
Bible and science.
A new view.
Table: The Creation.
The search for intelligent life in
Up to Copernicus science did not have any problems with the
allegedly biblically founded geocentric conception of the world – that is to
say with the planet earth as the center of the universe. Some of the astronomers
of that time may have found the unexpected and unexplainable movements of some
planets a little bit suspicious, but on the whole this view of the things was
Only when Copernicus found out that the center of our solar
system is not the earth, but the sun and that the universe does not move around
the earth, but that our entire solar system moves within our galaxy around its
center, astronomy emancipated itself from astrology and became a fully-fledged
science of its own. As an act of revenge so to speak, because the Bible
allegedly had misled science for such a long time, from that time on the Bible
has been excluded in general from all considerations.
This holds true all the more since it was found out during the
past fifty years that the universe consists of hundreds of billions of galaxies
and that they, in turn, consist again of hundreds of billions of suns. Most
recently the theory of the "big bang" as the cause of the genesis of
the universe about 13.7 billion years ago could be confirmed for the most part.
Also the drifting apart of the individual galaxies as a consequence of this
explosion of the so-called "cosmic egg" (that is the agglomeration of
all matter of the universe in one cluster – some say "the size of a
pinhead", others say "the size of a fist" - with an inconceivable
density and mass) could be proven.
Meanwhile we know that this expansion takes place all the slower
the more the galaxy clusters are apart from each other. Here the scholars
discuss today the question if the universe will continue to expand for an
unlimited period - that is to say if the matter of the galaxies got so much
energy from the big bang on their way that by that the power of gravitation is
compensated - or if gravitation will prevail sometime or other. Then the
galaxies would move backward and rush up to each other. Due to the mutual power
of attraction matter would melt into one another and form bigger and bigger
masses, which finally would "absorb" all matter at enormous speed - on
account of their enormous gravitational attraction as so-called "black
holes" until finally everything would collapse in a single point of place
and time with infinitely high density, in order to maybe repeat then the circle
in a new big bang.
If one considers this development in the past twenty, thirty
years, it is only all too understandable that today this science smiles at the
statements of the Bible in Genesis 1 and does not only itself show no signs of
looking for a possible connection here, but also declares any scientist who
makes such an attempt out of touch with reality and unscientific. But this
situation is also a little bit the fault of the creationists, these are
Christians, especially in the USA, who adhere to the statements of the
Scriptures on the genesis of the universe they have on hand in spite of
scientific findings to the contrary.
Insisting on the truth of the Scriptures is, of course, a good
thing to do, however, such an attitude should not be the result of a superficial
study of the Scriptures, which puts the words of God in the Bible in the obvious
contrast to the realities of the visible creation out of one's own laziness and
incapability. It is exactly this attitude of his contemporaries that hindered
Copernicus for a long time from publishing his new discoveries. When he then
published his complete works "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium"
(On the rotations of the celestial bodies) on May 24, 1543, precisely leading
clergymen tried to prevent the publication of the work. Johannes Calvin
(1509-1564), the Swiss Reformer, declared that the earth could not move
according to the biblical doctrine, and Martin Luther (1485-1546) said, %quot;the
fool (Copernicus) will turn the entire science of astronomy upside down%quot;.
Therefore, we as Christians, who believe in the Bible, should
learn from these mistakes of our forefathers in faith. If we proceed from the
assumption – and this always has to be the basis of our belief – that the
Scriptures, cannot err because it is inspired by God, and that on the other hand
the fact that the earth rotates about its own axis as well as about the sun,
cannot be flatly denied any more, Calvin and Luther must have been mistaken. So,
therefore it is not the Scriptures, which is wrong, but it is its wrong
interpretation by us men, which leads to mistakes. And when we examine the
Scriptures, we do not find a single basis for Calvin's assumption %quot;that the
earth cannot move according to the biblical doctrine%quot;. Even quite on the
contrary: If we interpret Isa 24,20 correctly, this is even precisely a hint at
the fact that the earth is very well %quot;movable%quot;.
The earth shall be shaken as a drunken man.
Isa 24,20 With shaking shall the earth be shaken as
a drunken man, and shall be removed as the tent of one night: and the
iniquity thereof shall be heavy upon it, and it shall fall, and not rise again.
But what about Gen 1,1-5? How shall we interpret these
statements? Let us first have a look at the conventional translation (New
American Standard version, 1995):
In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
1Mo 1,1In the beginning God created heaven, and
earth. 1,2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face
of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. 1,3 And God said: Be
light made. And light was made. 1,4 And God saw the light that it was good; and
he divided the light from the darkness. 1,5 And he called the light Day, and the
darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day. Gen 1, 1- 5;
Here, there is talk about %quot;heaven and earth%quot;. The %quot;earth%quot;
was %quot;void and empty%quot; and darkness was upon the face of the %quot;deep%quot;. What
%quot;depth%quot; is meant here, and why was the earth void and empty when it was
completely covered by water according to Gen 1,7-10? And what shall we
understand by %quot;heaven%quot;? These questions make us realize that only a very
superficial beholder could proceed from the assumption that an unequivocal
statement on the genesis of heaven and earth can be found here. But how shall we
interpret these words?
Let us first start with the fundamental things and let us ask
ourselves what alternatives we have. If we see it correctly, we have three
possibilities according to the principle: thesis – antithesis – synthesis:
- The findings of science are wrong, and the
conventional representation of the act of Creation in Gen 1,1-5 is correct. This
is the approach of the creationists.
- The statements of the Bible are wrong, and the
results of scientific research are correct. This is the conviction of the
scientists and evolutionists.
- There is a link between these two extreme ways of
thinking, which has not been taken into account so far.
We can exclude the first alternative on account of the extensive
and worldwide scientific arguments with the same certainty as we know today that
the earth rotates around the sun and is not the center of the universe. We have
to exclude the second alternative in its relation to the Bible, because for us
the Scriptures is the Word of God and therefore, cannot be wrong in itself. So,
there is the third alternative left and the question, where there could be a
link, a mistake in the way of looking at it, in order to unite these two points
As the scientific facts are irrefutable, as a weak point the
question is left, if we interpret the statements of Gen 1,1-5 correctly. As
already mentioned above we have to bear in mind that so far no one examined this
possibility of a synthesis really seriously; the evolutionists out of arrogance,
the creationists out of unimaginativeness and what both groups have in common is
the lacking willingness to analyze the position of the other one objectively.
Therefore, we want to start right from the beginning and have a look at the
original text of these passages from the Scriptures. The translation which comes
closest to the Hebrew original text, is the one by Martin Buber. In contrast to
traditional translations, which choose their words relatively freely with
reference to understandability, Buber tries to convey the form as well as the
original sense of the words without excessive consideration for the German word
order, but always in keeping with the meaning of the word in accordance with the
original. This even goes that far that he, in cases where there is no known
verbal equivalent in German, %quot;invents%quot; own words, which are at first a
little bit strange for the reader, but which, upon closer examination, make the
reader realize what particular connection shall be expressed here.
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1,1-5;
In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
If we now can proceed from the assumption that these words are a
message of God to men, in order to give them an idea how they themselves and the
bases of their lives – the space surrounding them, the planet they live on -
were created, we have to bear in mind that at the time when the text was written
nobody had an idea, what %quot;space%quot;, %quot;planet%quot;, %quot;matter%quot; or even the %quot;universe%quot;
is. Therefore, this message had to take the possibilities of the language and
the understanding of the people living at that time into consideration. But as
we know from many other, comparable texts, this does not mean that these
statements would be incomprehensible or completely incorrect at a later time.
Precisely this is the proof of the presence of the Holy Spirit that the text is
written in a way that it remains understandable and true throughout thousands of
However, not for the superficial reader. This kind of reader will read exactly those things into it which the people of that time should understand and thus he would, however, fail to understand the meaning of the statements which is valid for all times. It is approximately similar to the way how our ancestors used to explain the progenitive act to their children: flower, bee, pollen grain, etc.. The little ones had an idea for the time being and were satisfied. When they then started to doubt it later on, they were grown up physically that far that they could realize themselves how these things work.
It is beyond doubt that also the non-analyzed history of Creation is a satisfactory explanation for the ordinary believer – in a similar way as for the people in those days. Those, however, who strive for more knowledge, have to examine the definitely clarified facts of science and then to analyze the text on the basis of this background. And this is exactly what we want to try now by means of Martin Buber's translation which is very close to the original text on the one hand and the undisputed facts and relations from scientific research on the other hand.
%quot;In the beginning God created heaven and earth%quot;: This statement is, strictly speaking, only a caption and a summary of the subsequent verses. Nevertheless, we can see - even from these words already - a concrete hint at the sequence of events. It says here %quot;In the beginning%quot;. So, it was the first work of God's Creation. And we also find the sequence in which this act of Creation took place: first heaven, then the earth.
%quot;The earth was error and confusion%quot; ("tohuwabohu"): In contrast to the traditional translations %quot;The earth was void and empty%quot;, we see here several differences which are relevant for the understanding. While those translations insinuate an easily understandable description of the state of affairs by the terms void and empty%quot;, the original text, which contains the terms %quot;error and confusion%quot;, is not at all so easy to understand. Here, the point is not that something is %quot;empty%quot;. Quite on the contrary, there is %quot;error and confusion%quot;, and this implies that there is something that can be in error and confusion. But what is it now that is in error and confusion? Is it the earth, that is to say the planet? Although both translations say the %quot;earth%quot;, the question arises here, why the earth shall be in error and confusion, when in verse Gen 1,7 the impression is given that the earth was covered with water. This representation conveys rather the picture of a quiet and peaceful earth in a proper state of affairs and not error and confusion.
%quot;Darkness over the face of primeval whirl%quot;: With the term %quot;primeval whirl%quot; quite an essential difference arises as opposed to the traditional translations, which interpret here with %quot;depth%quot;. In the term %quot;primeval whirl%quot; we find in fact a summary of the preceding statements in one word: %quot;primeval%quot; means %quot;in the very, very beginning%quot; and %quot;whirl%quot; reminds us of %quot;disorder%quot;. However, the term %quot;whirl%quot; can also be easily associated with %quot;eddies%quot; and similar physical processes with a suction effect, where objects are drawn into. And also here the question arises again, if this is really a description of the earth, the planet earth. While %quot;darkness%quot; does not need any explanation and while we know that by the term of %quot;face%quot; the %quot;visible surface%quot; is meant, the term %quot;primeval whirl%quot; cannot really be assigned to the earth properly.
%quot;Ferment of God vibrating over the face of the waters%quot;: So, it is the Ferment (Spirit) of God oscillating or pulsating over the visible surface of the waters. We see that here, the %quot;waters%quot; are mentioned for the first time. If the waters of the earth were meant here, we would have a problem with the interpretation in so far as we found out at the beginning that the sequence of the Creation seems to be fixed with heaven - earth. So far heaven has not been mentioned yet, this will not be the case before Gen 1,7-8. So, how can we assume then the existence of the earth already at this stage? So, we see, also here the question arises again: Do all these statements refer to events taking place on the planet earth or is something else meant here?
%quot;God said: Be light made! Light was made. God saw the light: that it is good%quot;: So, up to this moment light had not been created yet! This was also confirmed to us above by the statement: %quot;Darkness over the face of primeval whirl%quot;. And when we now visualize the connections, we would have to come to the following conclusion: In verse Gen 1,2, the earth is mentioned (it was void and empty or it was in error and confusion respectively) and it is only here, afterward, that light is created. This would mean that the planet earth was God's first act of Creation. And we are now able to better reconstruct why the Ptolemaic system of a geocentric universe (with the earth being in the center of the universe) was defended also by many scholars of the Middle Ages who were well versed in the Bible. They concluded from these statements in Gen 1,1-5 that the earth was the %quot;primeval whirl%quot;, on the basis of which God created the rest of the universe. But is this correct? Can this be true? According to our knowledge of today certainly not! And therefore, the question arises here again: Does the term %quot;earth%quot; in Gen 1,2 really mean the planet earth or something that is %quot;similar to the earth%quot;, which might have not been comprehensible to the people of that time by another expression?
%quot;God divided light and darkness.%quot;: Now we have to ask ourselves, of course, what is meant by the %quot;light%quot; here and in the preceding verse. The verse following after that one, where God calls the light %quot;day%quot; and the darkness %quot;night%quot;, makes us suppose that the sun is meant here, which causes the phenomena of day and night on earth. But this cannot be the case. The first light in the universe was not the light of our sun, but the light that had been caused by the big bang. This explosion of the cosmic egg had actually been only the beginning of all galaxies, all suns and with that also of our sun. So, the %quot;Be light made%quot; is not supposed to mean the creation of our sun – by the way, our sun is also mentioned in quite concrete terms some verses later (1Mo 1,14-16) – but it is the %quot;ignition of the cosmic shell in the black original hole%quot;. And with that we have now finally reached a point where we cannot uphold the supposition that by the %quot;earth%quot; in Gen 1,2 our planet is meant any more. But what is then meant by the %quot;earth%quot; there? As already mentioned, it must be something similar to the earth and something that the people in those days – in contrast to us nowadays – were not able to understand by another expression. It must also have existed already before the creation of the %quot;light%quot; in terms of time.
If we now proceed from the assumption that the only thing that existed before the %quot;light%quot;, that is to say before the big bang, was that inconceivably highly compressed matter that was contained in the cosmic egg, and that the only possibility to give the people who only disposed of the level of knowledge at that time a rough idea of these events without distorting the true core of this message, is a comparison with the earth, which consists of the same matter, then we have here an explanation for the term %quot;earth%quot; in Gen 1,2. So, the %quot;primeval whirl%quot; was not the planet earth, but the cosmic egg. With that we also have a line of argumentation which is to a certain degree plausible on the fact that the act of Creation in the Bible, Gen 1,1-5, describes the beginning of the universe and that it therefore corresponds absolutely with the findings of modern science.
With that the creation of matter would be explained. But as the universe consists of matter and space, in addition the quite essential question arises here - as well as in science - how space came into being. Whereas science does not have any exact idea of that yet, we have a concrete statement in the first sentence of the Bible. There it says, %quot;In the beginning God created heaven and earth%quot;. On account of our previous analysis we know now that in this passage of the Scriptures the term %quot;earth%quot; is used as a synonym for the entire matter of our universe. Therefore, by analogy to that, %quot;heaven%quot; has to be the expression for the %quot;space%quot;, in which this matter spread. And as already mentioned at the beginning, we can also see here the logically correct order of the Creation: first space, then matter. But now we can also make another important discovery from what has been said above: %quot;Heaven%quot; and %quot;earth%quot; in the statements of Gen 1,1-5 differ basically from that heaven and that earth, as they are mentioned from Gen 1,6 on. While the former ones were synonyms for space and matter of our universe, the latter ones are, of course, space and matter, too, but the heaven of Gen 1,8 is that space, which immediately surrounds our planet, that is to say the atmosphere, and the earth in Gen 1,11 is this planet of ours in its actual material shape. On the basis of these new presuppositions in the understanding of the history of Creation we want to have a new look at the relevant texts of the Genesis.
%quot;In the beginning God created heaven and earth%quot;: This
corresponds with the statement: In the beginning God created space and matter.
%quot;The earth was error and confusion. Darkness over the face of primeval whirl%quot;: We are here still before the big bang. The explosion has not taken place yet and therefore, light has not been created yet – there was darkness. As already mentioned above, the %quot;primeval whirl%quot; is the cosmic egg, which contained – possibly in a very first black hole – the entire matter of the existing universe in a cluster of the size of a pinhead up to the size of a fist. The pressure in this inconceivably highly compressed cluster of matter had a dimension that even the individual atoms could not resist any more and fell apart. Therefore, this cluster of matter did not have an inner structure as matter usually has. It was %quot;degenerated%quot; matter, or in a certain way it was not even matter at all any more – at least not the matter we know. There were no atoms any more and also the atomic nuclei – the protons - , which are approximately a hundred thousand times smaller than the individual atom and exist several times in one atom depending on the element, could not keep up their cohesion (their coherence) any longer. The order and structure of the matter was completely abolished. There was %quot;error and confusion%quot;.
%quot;Ferment of God vibrating over the face of the waters%quot;: After the atoms had been fallen apart due to the immensely high pressure in this cluster of matter, the particles converted into a kind of %quot;elemental soup%quot; of the matter, in which quarks (the smallest detectable particles) and gluons (bonding substance in atoms) were separated and hovered freely.
%quot;God said: Be light made! Light was made.%quot;: This is now the moment of the big bang, of the tremendous explosion of the cosmic egg. The energy of this explosion is titanic and cannot be expressed in numbers. We can get a rough idea of that when we visualize that all the energy which still today makes hundreds of billions of galaxies existing of altogether hundreds of trillions of stars fly through space at partly nearly velocity of light in some cases, is a result of this very first explosion.
%quot;God saw the light: that it is good%quot;: At the time of this explosion the entire universe was filled with light. The temperature of the universe was in the first two minutes after the explosion approximately one hundred thousand million degrees Celsius (= 180 thousand million degrees Fahrenheit). A heat, which today cannot be found even in the hottest stars. At that temperature there were not any protons any more either. At that time the matter consisted only of the subatomic elementary particles, of neutrinos and antineutrinos, which drifted farther and farther apart.
%quot;God divided light and darkness%quot;: Today it is assumed that the temperature dropped relatively rapidly still during the explosion and had already reached a cooling to one billion degrees Celsius (or 1,832 billion degrees Fahrenheit) after approximately three minutes. But with that a state was reached, in which matter could begin again to form complex nuclei. The simplest form developed again, namely hydrogen with one proton, the nuclei of which then formed, in turn, helium nuclei with two protons. After some hundred thousand years matter was cooled down that far that the nuclei could fuse together to form atoms of hydrogen and helium. Still today these two elements make up approximately 98 percent of the entire universe (75% hydrogen, 23 % helium). But with that ordered and structured matter existed again, out of which in the course of some billions of years on account of its increasing gravitation clusters of matter developed, which then densified and formed twinkling galaxies and stars (light). Then the part of the universe emptied by that seemed to be dark again (darkness).
%quot;God called the light: Day! And the darkness he called: Night!%quot;: We are here, in Gen 1,5, at the end of the creation of space and matter. The universe has taken shape and only in the next verses the creation of the atmospheric sky above the earth and of the earth itself is reported. Therefore we cannot interpret the above statements of %quot;day%quot; and %quot;night%quot; from the earthly point of view either. This is not yet an earthly day and not yet an earthly night! Here, God calls for the time being the light of the billions of suns in the universe %quot;day%quot; and the darkness of the intergalactic space %quot;night%quot;. An earthly day/night cycle could not set in either since at that time neither an atmospheric sky nor the earth, neither sun nor moon were created. All that does not become reality before the subsequent verses Gen 1,6-10. And this is also the soundest reason why the days of Creation cannot be equated with days on earth: Otherwise we would not have any %quot;days%quot; for the first three days of Creation, let alone %quot;evenings and mornings%quot;.
%quot;Evening was and morning was: One day!%quot;: In contrast to the conventional interpretations and for the reasons just put forward, we therefore cannot interpret this %quot;evening%quot; and this %quot;morning%quot; as real earthly expressions of time either. But why does it say here %quot;evening and morning%quot; then? In order to answer this question, we have to visualize once again the objective of all these statements here: The people living in those days should be initiated in the secrets of Creation in a form that is as simple as possible and that is easily understandable to them. And here, at this very particular passage of the statements – as well as then subsequently - , it should be explained that an interruption had taken place. The first phase of Creation – the creation of the universe - was finished. Since the first days of mankind day has been now a time of activity due to its bright light and night has been a time of repose due to the lack of this precondition. Evening and morning, however, are the junction points; the one stands for the end of work and the beginning of the phase of repose, the other one the other way round. So, what would suggest itself more, therefore, than to use these well-known terms in order to illustrate the end of one creative activity and the beginning of the next one?
Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters.
1Mo 1,6 And God said: Let there be a firmament
made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 1,7
And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament,
from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. 1,8 And God called the
firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. Gen 1, 6- 8;
Be a firmament made amidst the waters. Genesis 1,6-8; <
%quot;God said: Be a firmament made amidst the waters to be
separation between waters and waters%quot;: Although the message of these
verses seems to be quite unambiguous and clear, there are nevertheless only
quite few exegetes, who can - after a long struggle - bring themselves to leave
the text here as it is. And this mainly because most interpreters do not succeed
in finding an explanation of that or because they are afraid of the consequence
of an eventual explanation. As for the rest, the translation by Luther and
others with %quot;Feste%quot; (foundation) contributes considerably to the fact that
the explosiveness is taken off this text and that it is passed off as a %quot;semantically
misdirected information%quot;. But this is unjustified as we can discover with
Buber. Whereas one can understand by %quot;foundation%quot; still %quot;comprehensible%quot;
things such as an island or a mountain, Buber does not leave us any scope any
more here with the original translation %quot;firmament%quot;. So, if we do not want
to distort this text, we have to draw the following conclusions from it: The
earth – and it is the earth that is meant here, as we can doubtlessly infer
from the statements of the next phase in Gen 1,10 - was at that time of
development covered with water – possibly also with highly saturated watery
vapor - on its entire surface. The height of this covering is not mentioned, but
it cannot have been all too shallow, when God then put in a %quot;firmament%quot;, an
interspace amidst these waters – that is to say in the middle between the
bottom and the surface.
%quot;God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from the waters that were above the firmament%quot;: With that God had brought about a separation of this mass of water on the one hand and created a waterless space, an airspace, an atmosphere in between on the other hand. However, this %quot;firmament%quot; could not be a local phenomenon, but it had to stretch over the entire terrestrial globe – as %quot;firmament%quot; in the true sense of the word. One could imagine these waters %quot;above the firmament%quot;, which enclosed the planet here as a kind of coat, in all three states of aggregation. We know this natural phenomenon as clouds still today. If these waters had reached the uppermost part of the atmosphere, this %quot;firmament%quot; would have had to form a crust of ice because of the low temperatures, similar to the Saturn's Moon "Enceladus".
||–––– ice shell
–––– global ocean
–––– rocky core
By the way, we find a confirmation of this water jacket theory
in the statements of the Scriptures about the Flood. It would be an explanation
for the otherwise inexplicable origin of the enormous mass of water, which
covered the highest mountains of the earth after the Flood. It would be an
explanation of the fact why the people living before the Flood – that is to
say at the time when the earth was isolated from outer space by a water jacket
and therefore also protected from any harmful radiation – reached an age of up
to 969 years, whereas after the Flood, in the course of little less than six
hundred years, life expectancy dropped rapidly to 150 years (Jacob).
(See also Table 01: %quot;Chronological
table from Adam to Jacob.%quot;)
And it would also explain the otherwise incomprehensible
unprecedented appearance of a rainbow after the Flood. It can be perceived from
the text of Gen 9,12-14 that this %quot;bow%quot; was something completely new for
Noah and his family. They had never seen anything like that before. But from
that we can draw the conclusion that there had not been any rainbows on earth
before the Flood either. If we now take a look at the physical preconditions for
this atmospheric and optical phenomenon, we realize that a rainbow can be seen
when the sun positioned in the back of the beholder shines on a rain cloud or
rain wall which is situated in front of him. Due to the refraction of the
sunrays in the rain drops, the white sunlight is broken down into the spectral
colors and the reflection directs the rays into the eye of the beholder. So, the
basic prerequisite for the formation of a rainbow is therefore sunrays which
fall in directly. If we now proceed from the assumption of a worldwide closed
water jacket before the Flood, it is true that there had been translucent light
on earth at that time, but no direct insolation. And therefore, a rainbow could
not be formed either.
By the way, this %quot;protective shield%quot; round the planet before the Flood could also give us an answer to another question. The data of natural science on the age of mankind are a complete contradiction to those of the Bible. While the Bible makes us draw the conclusion that man (not the universe!) was created approximately 5800 years ago, geologists calculate with 1 – 5 million years. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith describes in his book %quot;%quot;Herkunft und Zukunft des Menschen%quot; (Hännsler Publishers, Stuttgart) [Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny, Wheaton, Ill.: Shaw], page 119 and the following pages, the finding (with photography) of a clearly preserved footprint of a brontosaur in the riverbed of the Paluxy River (Texas, USA) from the Cretaceous period (approximately 140 million years ago). A few meters from there, there are human footprints in the same formation, which means that they must have their origin in the same time. But with that the 1 – 5 million years of the geologists are obviously disproved. If one now takes a look at the measuring methods of natural science, one finds out that for instance the %quot;C14 - dating method%quot; - a so-called %quot;short-time watch%quot; for measuring the past ten to twelve thousand years -, which is used for the age determination of human bone finds and which thus forms the basis of the scientific theories on the age of the man of today, starts out from the assumption that all living beings absorb together with the air also radioactive carbon (C14) – that is to say with their bodies - and therefore are at balance with the C14–content in the air as long as they live.
When a living being dies, the metabolic process between the dead body and the air stops, and the radioactive C14 which has remained in the body starts its process of decay. The advance of this disintegration is measured then. If there is still a large amount of C14 left in the bones, the body has been dead only for a short time. If the residual amount is low, the process of decay has been going on already for a long time, and therefore, the body has been dead for a long time. That means, much C14 signifies young age, little C14 signifies old age. However, one has to mention that C14 is produced high up in the stratosphere by a bombardment of the air with cosmic rays. These rays react with atmospheric nitrogen and form radioactive carbon - namely C14 - which, then - in the lower layers of the atmosphere - is breathed in by all living beings with the air and is absorbed by the plants. Proceeding from the assumption that the earth had been surrounded by a water jacket up to the Flood, which, of course, had filtered the cosmic irradiation considerably and might have even prevented it, the reliability of the above-mentioned dating method has to be gravely doubted and /or is not safe any more at all.
All bone finds of living beings, who died before or during the Flood – for instance also saurians – would, on account of the filter effect of the jacket while they were still living, show a C14-content of almost zero and would, therefore, be assigned an age of millions of years according to this method, although they died maybe only four or five thousand years ago. This should at least make us thinking about it. And precisely this filter effect of the water jacket as protection against the radioactive radiation could also have been the reason for the amazingly advanced age – up to 969 years -, which those people who had lived before the Flood had reached.
With regard to the geological development and in contrary to many Creationist-Geologists who advocate the %quot;Flood-Geology%quot; with geologic models according to which the most of the geological systems beginning by Cambrium originate in the year of the Flood, this approach here – the primitive-history biblical geology - sees also considerable formations of layers and fossils in the time before the Flood and partly even thereafter.
(See also Chapter 08: %quot;The
reorganization of heaven and earth.%quot;)
%quot;It was so. God called the firmament: Heaven! Evening was
and morning was: Second day!%quot;: So, in the second phase of the act of
Creation God created heaven. The fact that this is the earthly, atmospheric sky
and not another %quot;sphere%quot; is confirmed by a statement from the fifth day of
Creation (Gen 1,20), where it says in the New American Standard version 1995,
%quot;Then God said, 'Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let
birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.'%quot; With Buber it
says at this passage, %quot;… and let flight of birds fly above the earth past
the face of the firmament!%quot;. As the birds fly in this space %quot;above the earth%quot;
and below the %quot;firmament%quot;, it certainly cannot be an %quot;extraterrestrial
On account of the biblical history of Creation we therefore have to proceed from the assumption that the earth in its biblical early times - that is to say until the Flood - was provided with a water jacket in the upper zone of the atmosphere, which was dissolved at the Flood and fell down upon the earth's surface as rain for forty days and forty nights (Gen 7,4) (2Pet 3,5-6).
And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering
together of the waters, he called Seas.
1Mo 1,9 God also said; Let the waters that are
under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land
appear. And it was so done. 1,10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the
gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was
good. 1,11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding
seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in
them upon the earth%quot; And it was so done. 1,12 The earth brought forth
vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with
seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 1,13 And the
evening and the morning were the third day. Gen 1, 9-13;
The dry land God called: Earth! And the dam up of the waters, he called: Seas! Genesis 1,9-13;
%quot;God said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be
gathered into one place; and let the dry land appear!%quot;: From today's point
of view there are two conceivable possibilities of explanation of this process
of %quot;gathering%quot; of the waters. We have to proceed from the assumption that
the waters had not yet formed any seas at that time, but were in some way or
other more or less evenly distributed on the earth's surface. So, in order to
make such a %quot;gathering%quot; of the waters, that is to say the flowing together
of the waters, possible, the waters must have been either highly saturated
watery vapor on a relatively hot surface of the earth, which then condensed on
account of a cooling down of the surface and flew as water into the basins of
the seas. Or the earth's surface was reshaped by worldwide earthquakes – at
that time there was not yet life on earth anyway - in such a way that mountains
and valleys and also the basins of the seas were formed, where the waters could
flow off then.
%quot;It was so done. The dry land God called: Earth! And the dam up of the waters, he called: Seas! God saw that it was good%quot;: Also the fact that obviously only after the dam up the %quot;dry land%quot;, that is to say the ground proper, became visible would speak for the approach of a global earthquake. This means the other way round that the waters had covered the entire ground of the earth before and that therefore, this ground of the earth had not been able to show any all too big geological differences in the form of elevations and depressions.
%quot;God said: Let the earth bring forth sprout, plant which may seed, fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself, upon the earth! It was so done. The earth brought forth sprout, plant yielding seed according to its kind, tree bearing fruit after its kind, having seed in itself%quot;: With an unreflected approach one could think that this text does not need any particular explanation. However, this is absolutely wrong! We have here the third day of Creation, and at that time there is explicitly not yet a hint at the existence of the sun.
But without light photosynthesis is not possible and without photosynthesis plants cannot grow. But here it says, %quot;The earth brought forth sprout%quot;, and if we want to adhere to our principle of trusting in the correctness of the statements in the Bible on the one hand and the acknowledgment of the scientific findings which are beyond all doubt on the other hand, a plausible explanation is needed here. So, let us visualize the situation: The earth has an atmosphere – supposedly of oxygen. High up in this atmosphere the planet is surrounded by a closed water jacket – probably in solid state of aggregation, that is to say consisting of ice crystals. On the face of the earth the seas gathered in their basins, and the %quot;dry land%quot; appeared in the form of one or several continents.
And now plants began to grow on these continents. As the sun had not been created yet and as plants cannot grow without light as has been proved, this light must have come from somewhere. In point of fact, this light has already existed since the earth took shape and since the %quot;firmament%quot;, that is to say the earth's atmosphere, was created. The solar system is part of the Milky Way, in the exterior areas of which a hydrogen and helium cloud, the matter of which is supposed to have been produced by the explosion of a supernova more than five billion years ago, lit up outer space.
This cloud of matter began to condense and finally caved in on account of its own gravitational attraction. In this phase of the birth of our solar system, which covered a period of approximately more than one billion years, also the planets were formed. And it was first of all the light of a former supernova, which illuminated the earth at the end of this phase of Creation, whereby the harmful ultraviolet radiation was filtered by the water jacket. Due to that quite a normal photosynthesis could take place and all %quot;plant%quot; of the earth could grow.
%quot;God saw that it was good. Evening were and morning were: third day%quot;: Here, on the third day in the course of the preparation of the bases for life of man, the cosmic and geological activities were completed and the biological environment was initiated with all plant life.
And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven.
1Mo 1,14 And God said: Let there be lights made
in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for
signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 1,15 To shine in the
firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth, and it was so done. 1,16
And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser
light to rule the night, - and the stars. 1,17 And he set them in the firmament
of heaven to shine upon the earth. 1,18 And to rule the day and the night, and
to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 1,19 And the
evening and morning were the fourth day. Gen 1,14-19;
God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven. Genesis 1,14-19;
%quot;God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven,
to divide the day and the night%quot;: Before now all animals and man were
created, the sun and the moon are mentioned here. In Gen 1,16 it says with Buber,
%quot;God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day; and the
lesser light to rule the night, and the stars%quot;. And this seems to be the
statement, which has made even scholars who have been well-versed in the Bible
believe in a geocentric conception of the world since the time of Plato (427 –
347 B.C.), up to Aristoteles (384 – 322 B.C.) and Ptolemäus (100 – 160
A.D.) for almost two thousand years, until there was a turning point in the way
of thinking then with Copernicus (1473-1543) and his new, heliocentric
conception of the world. So, at the first glance one could think that here, at
this time, the sun, the moon, and the stars were created. And as we saw above,
in the explanation of Gen 1,11-12, this does not apply to the universe, all
right, but very well to our solar system. After the above-mentioned hydrogen and
helium cloud had caved in due to the explosion of a supernova, it attracted more
and more dust and debris as a result of the more and more increasing
gravitational attraction so that finally a heating up to up to 20 million
degrees Celsius (36.64 million degrees Fahrenheit) set in because of the
incredibly high internal pressure. Owing to that the hydrogen nuclei could fuse
into helium nuclei in a continuous series of very many chain reactions and thus
brought about the birth of our sun. In a similar way as after the big bang the
abundance of light of the universe densified into bright stars and in a similar
way as this process is described in the Scriptures, in Gen 1,4, with the
statement: %quot;God divided light and darkness%quot;, we find also here, in the
origination of the solar system out of a bright cloud of gas as remains of a
supernova, in Gen 1,17-18 an identical description: %quot;And God set them in the
firmament of heaven, (…) to rule the day and the night, to divide the light
and the darkness%quot;.
As already mentioned above, also the origination of the planets and therewith also the origination of the earthly moon falls within this phase of the development of the solar system. Even though the satellite of the earth is called the %quot;lesser light%quot; in the text of the Scriptures, we know that it does not have any illuminating power itself, but reflects only the light of the sun. So, the birth of the sun was also its birth as the %quot;light to rule the night%quot;. Also the mention of the stars in the above text, in Gen 1,16, refers to their function as %quot;coregents with the moon%quot;, as %quot;lights of the night%quot; (see also Ps 136,8-9) and is not supposed to mean that they were created together with the sun and the moon. For they had existed a long time before the origination of our solar system, and the beginning of 1Mo,16 tells us quite clearly: God made the two great lights%quot;. Therefore, the mention of the stars in this verse is to be seen in the immediate context with the preceding statement on the moon as %quot;light to rule the night%quot; together with the – already existing - stars.
The further phases of the act of Creation that comprises six
parts deal with the creation of the aquatic animals and all flying birds on the
fifth day and with the creation of the terrestrial animals, worms, and insects
on the sixth day. The creation of man is finally handed down to us as the last
activity in the history of Creation in Gen 1,27. There it says (according to
%quot;God said: Let us make man in our own image, in our own appearance.%quot;
The fact that this statement refers exclusively to the optical appearance and not at all to the chemical substance of the human body – in a similar way as pantheism (the doctrine that God is everything and everything is God) or Teilhard de Chardin in his %quot;Point Omega%quot; want to see it (%quot;all matter is animated by God%quot;) -, is confirmed by another statement in Gen 2,7 (according to Buber):
%quot;and He, God, formed the man (= ‘adam’ in Hebrew), dust from the field (= ‘adama’).%quot;
So, man was formed out of the dust from the ground. Approximately 4.6 billion years ago, the earth itself had been formed out of the conglomeration of dust and gases which had been produced by the big bang. Accordingly, this %quot;origin%quot; of man would also have to be scientifically provable. And this is the case! 99 % of the matter of all living beings consists of only four different elements: hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. Every atom in the human body is dust from the field%quot;, dust from the earth, dust from the matter of the universe and with that it also was an integral part of the big bang.
And now scientific circles think that they can do without this %quot;intervention%quot; of God, who formed man out of this dust. Scientists claim that man %quot;quite simply%quot; originated as monocellular organism out of the elemental soup of our planet. And innumerable experiments were made with the principal ingredients of the early earth’s atmosphere - a mixture of methane, hydrogen, and the two carbon oxides, which were mixed with the steam of boiling water and ignited by an electrical high voltage of 60000 volt - in order to prove this process of development. However, these experiments have always been without success up to this day and finally the scientists had to take shelter behind the pretext of %quot;inconceivably long periods of time%quot;, in order to explain why this %quot;quite simple%quot; process cannot be reconstructed with our state of the art. Considering that it is quite interesting to note that for instance the human body produces large quantities of monocellular organisms in its immunological system every day, without needing for that any elemental soup, electrical high voltages or inconceivably long periods of time.
In connection with this kind of interpretation of the history of
Creation, the question is raised again and again, why there can be talk about
%quot;creation%quot; here, when actually a %quot;formation%quot;, a %quot;development%quot; or an
%quot;origination%quot; is meant here. The best answer to this question is a
comparison: Nobody would deny sculptors such as Michelangelo and Leonardo
da Vinci or painters such as Rembrandt and van Gogh that they
pursued a creative activity. But the contents of this creative activity was
quite certainly not the production of hammer, chisel, paint brush or paint, but
the creative use of the materials by the artist in order to form something. In
the same way the God of the Bible created man and his bases for life in an act
of formative creation. But in contrast to painters and sculptors, God actually
created also the %quot;material%quot; the Creation as a whole consists of: He created
space and matter. And this is – if you want to put it like that - the first
and only creatio ex nihilo – the creation out of nothing. Everything
that comes after that is creative formation and – as God provided this
Creation with its living and dead matter with the capability to develop dynamics
of its own – growth and development.
As we have seen in this excursus, the statement which is often quoted by scientists that %quot;in spite of the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory of the big bang, millions of people continue to firmly believe in the biblical statements of the spontaneous creation of the universe by God about 5800 years ago%quot;, - except for the indication of the time, which however, cannot be found in the Scriptures either - does not really form a contrast. What would have been more spontaneous than the big bang? And the cause of the big bang is also for science today still a mystery. Due to the tremendous density of the cosmic egg heat could not develop, for in order to reach high temperatures, the atoms need %quot;room to move about%quot;. So, it was a %quot;cold%quot; cluster of matter. And without high temperatures it was not possible for a nuclear reaction to develop. So, an impulse from %quot;outside%quot; was necessary in order to set this development going.
But even and precisely theologians of our time do not want to accept this and think,
%quot;The church speaks (…) of the Bible as the 'Holy
Scriptures', because it learns, believes, and professes that God is speaking
through this book (…). This conviction of faith (…) does not depend on
changing scientific findings (…)%quot;.
At a time where – at least basically - there cannot be any
talk about %quot;changing scientific findings%quot; any more, this attitude means a
denial of the realities of the Creation of God and finally leads to a
narrow-minded, withdrawn attitude of mind, which completely lost the capability
of growing through new findings – be it in the Scriptures or in science. And
that although the Scriptures shows us that it can even give answers to questions
which science is still looking answers for. For instance the question of the
origination of space: It was created by God. Or the future of heaven and earth:
they will pass away and with them possibly the entire universe, on the way back
to the origin, as Rev 20,10 suggests:
The earth and heaven fled away: and there was no place found for them.
Rev 20,11 And I saw a great white throne and one
sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away: and there
was no place found for them. Rev 20,11;
But the Bible also gives us an answer to the question: %quot;What
comes afterward?%quot;, which science, probably, will never be able to answer:
According to Rev 21,1 there will be a new beginning again, with a new heaven and
a new earth:
I saw a new heaven and a new earth.
Rev 21,1 I saw a new heaven and a new earth.
For the first heaven and the first earth was gone: and the sea is now no more.
(See also Chapter 14: %quot;The New
Other questions the physicists of today cannot answer are among
others: Where did the cosmic egg come from? Why did it explode? Although it is
secured since Einstein's E=mc² that mass and energy are transformable into each
other, up to this day there is not any physical phenomenon known which could
prove that energy or matter could be formed spontaneously.
And thus also Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant scientific heads of our time, writes in his book %quot;A Brief History of Time - From the Big Bang to Black Holes%quot; (page 156):
%quot;The entire history of science is characterized by
the gradual knowledge that the events do not take place at will, but that a
certain order is inherent in them, which may be divine in its origin or not. (…)
These laws may originally have been enacted by God. But it seems as if he has
let the universe develop according to these laws since that time and does not
intervene now any more.%quot;
This statement shows a little bit the dilemma, which science has
got into for some decades. Since quantum physics has been penetrating larger and
larger fields of classical physics, we have experienced something like a second
%quot;Copernican turning point%quot;. The elegant, clearly defined conceptions of
classical physics have gone to pieces. And as science has to realize that more
and more things which seemed to be impossible according to the traditional
physical laws suddenly become possible, at least in the realists among the
scientist the suspicion arises that there is possibly nevertheless a controlling
force, a God.
And God rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.
1Mo 2,1 So the heavens and the earth were finished,
and all the furniture of them. 2,2 And on the seventh day God ended his work
which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he
had done. 2,3 And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in
it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 2,4 These are the
generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created. Gen 2, 1- 4;
On the seventh day God ended his work which he had done. Genesis 2,1-4;
Finished were the heaven and the earth, and all their
The fact that now this God lets %quot;the entire universe develop
according to these laws%quot;, is on the one hand a proof of the fact that we are
at the moment, according to the biblical report, for exactly 5760 years in a
rest - the seventh day of Creation – but on the other hand it should not blind
us to the fact that since the very beginning of Creation already its end has
been fixed, too. The same God who created this universe, will replace it by a
new one, in which every man will spend an eternal existence according to the
decision he took during his earthly life. The righteous, peacemakers, and
faithful will be surrounded by the peace and the love of their God. The godless,
criminal, and selfish people will be – separated from their Creator -
tormented by the eternal fire not least for the reason that they will not have
any possibility any more to change anything about this agonizing situation
during their entire further eternal existence.
%quot;The starry sky above me and the moral law within me, they
prove that there is a God above me and within me.%quot; (Immanuel Kant).
In the television documentary series "How the Universe
Works – Planets from Hell", Japanese American physicist Prof. Dr
Michio Kaku said:
"Boy - were we wrong. To start with we
thought that all solar systems would have to look just like ours. Then
when we were able to look through better and better telescopes to observe
more and more solar systems and saw that complete chaos prevailed, we
thought these were the negative exceptions. But with today’s high
resolution space telescopes we have discovered that all solar systems that
have ever been observed to date must be classified as chaotic.
And that in a world that science claims to be based on %quot;planless
(See also Discourse 50: %quot;The
account of Creation in the Bible.%quot;)
The Creation of the Universe (Heavens)
1Mo 1,1 In the beginning God created the heavens
The Creation of the Earth
1,6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the
The search for intelligent life in the universe.
For decades humanity has been trying – with massive
scientific research, and enormous financial and material outlay – to
investigate the cosmos in search of intelligent life. For any correctly
believing Christian and one familiar with the Bible, however, this is just
money thrown away, which would have been better spent on aid to the needy
of this world.
“At some point we are going to pick up a tiny coded signal – and then we will know with certainty that there is intelligence out there, because coded information cannot come into being by chance.”
“The precisely coded information contained in every cell would fill many books… but we know with certainty that life was not created by an intelligence.”
See also discourse 81: “Intelligent
design or evolution?”