The First Three Days of Creation

The gravity well is in the ether, the space-time fabric of the cosmos.
The gravity well is in the ether, the space-time fabric of the cosmos. | Source

God created the world in six days, each day doing something specific. This is an account of what he might have done. There are both miracle and method in these six days. Method is a natural process that we understand in science today. Andrew Snelling in his two volume Earth’s Catastrophic Past calls method, secondary creative processes, natural processes which proceed at a supernatural rate. It has been said that the first three days record God’s forming of creation, the next three days his filling of creation. If so, we will look at what God did in forming his creation.

Source

The First Day – Genesis 1:1 -5

God creates the ether, more commonly called space-time. This is the fabric of the cosmos, the stuff that warps to form gravity wells when planets and stars are placed in it. Into the ether, God places a mass of water two million light years across. This is the deep, the waters on which the Spirit of God would hover.

God then creates light, not simply radiation, but visible light, that which distinguishes day from night. This light shines on a rotating mass of water giving an evening and a morning. Many creationists believe that the earth existed as rocky mass within this water, and it is on this rocky mass that the light shines. The light may have been from a glowing plasma inside the mass of water, or it may have been light from the Spirit of God. The important thing to note is that there was an evening and a morning because of the light.

The gravitational forces inherent in a body of water of that size may have been sufficient to create nucleosynthesis. This process would have generated elements and heat in the center of the mass. This is a secondary creative process that will become important on day two and three. All of the physical forces are in place by the end of day one.

The expanded universe with the waters above the firmament.
The expanded universe with the waters above the firmament. | Source

The Second Day – Genesis 1:6-8

God created a space in the middle of the mass of water, a firmament that he called heaven. There now existed a large body of water at the edges of the universe, and a small body of water near the center.

That the firmament is more than simply Earth’s atmosphere is shown by v.14, when on the fourth day of creation week God places the sun, moon, and stars “in the firmament of the heaven”. There is also Psalm 148 that has two sections in which creation is to praise God. The first section, vv. 1-6, are things “from the heavens”, the second section, vv. 7-12, are thing “from the earth”. In verse 4 there are the “waters that be above the heavens.” This fourth verse is included in the section of things from heaven, distinct from the hail, snow, vapor, and stormy wind, that are atmospheric occurrences. The conclusion is that there exists even today, “waters that be above the heavens.”

The heat being generated by the nucleosynthesis, and by the possible differentiation of core, mantle, and crust, was being absorbed by the waters over the Earth. As the water heated, it gave off gasses, creating the atmosphere. At the end of the second day there is nothing recognizable to us except light.

Vapor Canopy

Some have seen in this day the creation of a vapor canopy either around the earth or in earth’s upper atmosphere. This idea has been discarded as a result of studies done by creation scientists. The problem with the vapor canopy is the temperature at the surface of the earth. A large amount of water (40 days and nights worth of rain or 12m) would make the surface temperature too high to sustain life. The maximum amount of water that could be held in a vapor canopy and still allow life on earth is 2m.

Source

The Third Day – Genesis 1:9-13

God gathers the free-floating water in the center of the universe together. From this ball of water dry land appears. A secondary creative process is suggested here. The gravity created by the mass of water may have caused nucleosynthesis to occur near the center of that mass. This process would have produced numerous elements that also have interacted with each other. The chemical processes occurring may have produced the core, mantle, and crust of the earth. The expansion of the firmament on the second day would have brought the nucleosynthesis to a halt, but then tectonics would have set in causing crustal differentiation and continental uplift. Isotasy, an equilibrium between heavy oceanic crust and lighter continental curst, exerts itself, and the oceans and a single continent form (though some suggest all the continents in their present shapes formed).


Pre-Cambrian Layer

Era
Period
Epoch
Protozeroic
Neo-Protozeroic
Ediacaran
 
Neo-Protozeroic
 
 
Meso-Protozeroic
 
Protozeroic
Paleo-Protozeroic
 
Archean
 
 
 
 
 
The Archean is believed to have been deposited pre-Flood, the later layers are from Noah's Flood.

In some creationist theories, the appearance of the dry land is accompanied by massive amounts of erosion. This erosion is supposed to account for the Pre-Cambrian sedimentary layer. The Pre-Cambrian layer is composed of four periods. There are two major divisions within the layer, the Archean, and the Protozeroic. The Protozeroic is further divided into three sections, the Paleo, the Meso, and the Neo. The Neo-Protozeroic has another subsection, the Ediacaran. Plant fossils have been found Pre-Cambrian layers, and they are found world wide. If the Pre-Cambrian layers are from the forming of the dry land they should have no fossils in them, but this may be an oversimplification. The Archean section may be pre-Flood, while the later sections of the Pre-Cambrian, those containing fossils, may be from the Flood.

Out of the dry land, God causes plants to appear. The plants mentioned are grasses, shrubs, and trees. This is out of sequence for evolutionists who teach algae, to mosses and worts, to non-flowering vascular plants, to flowering plants. The fossil record actually shows no transitional plant fossils, no ancestral fossils, and no evolution of any kind.

Included in the creation of plants, but not evident from the scripture, is the creation of vast floating forests. These forests are inferred from the fossils found in coal beds. The fossil plants found in coal beds have hollow roots and hollow trunks. These kinds of plants cannot grow in soil, as the roots would be crushed. They are, however, found in swamps and bogs. It is theorized that these plants and trees lived on continent sized floating bogs or forests, similar to the quaking bogs known to us today. As such, they would have been part of a three-part biome.

What we would have expected to find at the end of day three, are three areas for habitation. The first part would be on the ocean, the floating forest. The second part would be a sort of coastal plain. The third part would be a highland area, even an escarpment. The ecology of each area would be distinct from one another.

At the end of the third day we can finally recognize a few things in creation. We would see a continent, and there would be plants on that continent, many of which we would recognize. We would also see a floating forest, or even more than one, although they would not be something familiar to us.

Conclusion

In the first three days of Creation we have seen God create the universe. The first day saw the creation of matter, energy, and the physical forces that govern the universe. I believe that this is the order in which God created them, and this order is contrary to what is taught in the standard model. The second day God fixed the size of the universe. The third day saw the Earth formed with both its ocean and continent (only one of each at that time). Plants were also created on third day, not small patches of plants, but great forests and plains. There were also floating forests that stretched out from the shore of the super continent. These floating forests would have moderated coastal wave action with its implications for climate and weather. At the end of day three, creation was formed, but still unfilled.

More by this Author


8 comments

HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

HeadlyvonNoggin 3 years ago from Texas

barrydan, you're killing me with this. You made sure to make the distinction that the error I was making in my interpretation was that I was taking stuff from outside of the bible. So, I have to wonder, how'd you get out of the first couple of verses of the creation account that there was a large body of water floating in the ether that was 2 million light years across? You've got a lot of really specific information here that can't ALL be from scripture alone. Where'd the rest of that come from?

And do you have any kind of idea just how much water that would be? Especially considering we've yet to find water anywhere other than on the earth? I mean, the sun is only 8 light minutes from the earth, so just imagine how much water, even if it were just in a thin straight line and not an orb, if it were 2 million light years long!

You're venturing into some wildly speculated territory to try to make the English translation of the creation account work, even though Jewish people who read Hebrew fluently see no conflict between the creation account and the 13.7 billion year model of the universe. That right there should tell you something I would think.


barrydan profile image

barrydan 3 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

Headly, your theory changes the plain meaning of scripture. This theory, proposed by Dr. Humphreys, leaves the plain meaning intact. Dr. Humphreys used the following scriptures to work out his theory. 1 Peter 3: 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing in out of the water and in the water. He asked the question, what would the universe have looked like if this were the case. From this he derived a body of water 2 million light years in diameter.

Is there water in space? Yes, and a lot of it.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1769468/scientists-disc...

Dr. Humphreys made specific predictions about what God did with this water. So far his predictions have been verified by the measured magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, the magnetized surface of Mars, and the decay of Mercury’s magnetic field. The standard model, which you follow, was off by a factor of 100,000 on Uranus’ magnetic field, and it predicted that Mercury would not have a magnetic field.

Do all Jews familiar with Biblical Hebrew believe that the Big Bang Model is consistent with Genesis 1? Or is the question; is Genesis 1 consistent with the Big Bang Model? First, not all Jews familiar with Biblical Hebrew believe that the Big Bang Model is consistent with Genesis 1. The fact that some are does nothing to change the meaning of the Biblical text, there are always people willing to compromise the Bible. There are even non-believing theologians who recognize that Genesis 1 indicates a literal seven day week, even though they believe it is a mythological record (e.g. James Barr, Oxford University). The language itself is clear. You attempt to reconcile the Bible with science, when it should be other way around.

The theory that I have presented here is based on scripture, the understanding of science follows the scripture rather than the other way around. If God said it happened a certain way, we can sometimes use science to understand what happened, or at least what has happened since then (miracles are singularities beyond science). This is what Dr. Humphreys has done. His theory does not change the meaning of the scripture; we do not have to run to unbelieving scientists to help us understand what our Bible says.


HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

HeadlyvonNoggin 3 years ago from Texas

Okay. First off, thank you for that link. I had not heard about this finding of water in space and will have to do more reading. Fascinating stuff! So, in your context, considering verse 1 says God created the heavens AND the earth, and considering verse 2 speaks of the earth existing, being without form and void, are you saying the matter that ultimately became earth existed at that time within this orb of water, but had not yet taken the form of a planet?


barrydan profile image

barrydan 3 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

You are welcome. The short answer is yes. The planet is formed, not created, the third day.


HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

HeadlyvonNoggin 3 years ago from Texas

Well I have to say I have gained some new insight into the latest thinking from the young earth creationist perspective. Between what you’ve written about here, and some additional research about Dr. Humphreys and his perspective on the alternative view of the universe, it’s been an eye-opener to be sure, and I appreciate the information.

The idea Dr. Humphreys uses that there’s so much more mass close to us (in the center) than far that time is distorted to an incredible degree, making it possible for that light to traverse such a large distance in what seems like a short amount of time, I’m struggling with it. What confuses me about this is that this explanation is meant to explain how we see the light of stars from so far away in such a short amount of time (day 4 to day 6) when we know the rate at which light travels is a set value, yet those far-away stars in themselves have mass. And a lot of it. I don’t see how this distortion of time concept works if ALL the stars we see, that are so far away they appear as small dots in the sky, have to exist where time is much faster. Yet mass slows time down. And stars have SIGNIFICANT mass. It’s just not jiving for me.

And I am really curious about the ‘light’ part. In your hub you simply say that God created light, physical/visible light, that then shined on the rotating mass of water, with no real explanation where the light is coming from. In fact it just seems to leave this rather significant part up to endless possibilities, including being the light from the spirit of God Himself. Though, in my mind, this doesn’t work simply because God’s spirit was there before the light, and we know God doesn’t change. The other option, where earth existed as a rocky mass within the mass of water, with light coming from glowing plasma within, shining, not on the outside of the rotating mass of water, but on the rocky mass within, seems to contradict the text as that rocky mass of earth in that scenario did not have form until day 3, 2 days later. From what I can tell this whole explanation is meant to explain that very same verse where it says the earth was without form and void. Yet, for a rocky mass to have day and night from a light source, it would at least have to have enough form to rotate.

Is this making sense? I feel like I’m rambling. I’m just trying to wrap my head around it.


barrydan profile image

barrydan 3 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

Yes, the material can be hard to wrap your head around. While I'll go into more detail on my Fourth Day hub, for now I'll give you the basics.

The whole universe was sitting in a gravity well with earth near the center. As God created the galaxies on the fourth day, a timeless wave moved out to the edge and then back again. As it that wave returned to the center, the light from the outer edges of the universe traveled with it. Thus all light from the universe reached Earth on the fourth day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU

http://creation.com/new-time-dilation-helps-creati...

The rocky mass may have been present from the 1st day. Dr. Humphreys allows for accelerated nucleosynthesis which many have formed a rocky mass sometime on the first day.

Hope this will hold you until the Fourth Day is published.


HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

HeadlyvonNoggin 3 years ago from Texas

I don't know, barrydan. It sure takes a lot of hoop-jumping and a lot of alteration to what the majority of the scientific community says. Not that they're absolutely right or this is absolutely wrong. I just find it interesting that the very same model that most of the scientific community agrees with and buys into matches the creation account exactly if you simply take a note from verse two where it says God's spirit was on the surface when He first said, "Let there be light" and read it from a surface perspective. Not a single hoop need be traversed for it to work. Simply take the currently accepted scientific model, read creation as if witnessed from a 'from the surface, or, human' perspective, and it all lines right up.

Wouldn't it be a trip if the very model that science has established, the very same one that so many point to to say there is no God, ends up ultimately proving right what was written thousands of years ago? Kind of like the early church father/scholar/theologian Origen once put it,

"The parallel between nature and scripture is so complete, we must necessarily believe that the person who is asking questions of nature and the person who is asking questions of scripture are bound to arrive at the same conclusions."

I just find it difficult to believe that God's explanation would need so much complexity and ambiguity. No matter the question, the one answer, the one truth, will be the same.

I look forward to your next hub. Whether I agree or not, I find it utterly fascinating, and I appreciate you sharing your knowledge and your beliefs.


barrydan profile image

barrydan 3 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

Thank you for your comments Headly. I am glad you find it fascinating. One day I hope you find it edifying.

The "hoop jumping" only occurs from your point of view. Probably because the majority position has so much material available and in an easily digested form. The complexity of the YEC position is actually less than yours, and has less ambiguity.

I think of your position as that of the Israelites in 1 kings 12:26:

And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the the kingdom return to the house of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin:

Be careful of what is easy unless you find yourself in Dan.

Praying for you.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working