Gen. 1:28-31

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 moveth upon the earth.

29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

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 life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


comments:


First off, a brief comment on the multiplication of humankind: it has been said by some that when God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and replenish (or fill) the earth, that it was a commandment to do so. It may have been, depending on what the word forms and grammatical structure was in the original text, in its original language. Or, perhaps, it would be a commandment later, but may not have yet been in force, since it has also been commented, and may well be true, that Adam and Eve lacked the knowledge of how to have children, being in a state of innocence and having not yet eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Or, it may well be that for some other reason (or in addition to a state of innocence) they may not have been able to have children just yet. One certain thing, is that the book of Genesis does not say that they had children until after they left the garden of Eden. More on these topics later...

...for now, what I want to say is this: regardless of what else was being communicated (or may not have been directly communicated) at this point, I believe that God was making a point of saying that humankind, like all other life God had put upon the earth, was given the gift of being able to reproduce, to have the ability to perpetuate one's own species. Even if they might not have been able to make use of that gift yet while in the garden of Eden, I believe it was a gift given to humankind, every bit as much as it was a gift given to all other forms of life that God created upon the earth, and that it was included in the part at the end of this chapter where it says that "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."


As for the rest of these verses: God had previously given to all other living things the ability to multiply, and told them to do so. God does the same for humankind, but also tells them a bit more about life on earth; specifically, that God gave every other living thing into their care. Recognizing humanity as having more ability to control or change everything around them, than all the other living things God had previously made, God did something he had not done with the other living things - he told the humans that he'd made, that they would have dominion over the other living things. In other words, that they would have responsibility or custodianship, with regard to other life on earth. Fortunately for them, God had created all the other living things with ability to sustain themselves, to find their own food and continue their own existence and that of their species, without needing to be constantly babysat or micromanaged all the time.

It does not say in any way, that God told them to do whatever they wanted with the earth and be irresponsible, in the same way that one does not give a toy to a child and tell them to break it. Instead, one gives a toy to a child and instructs the child to take care of it. With older children, one may give them a useful tool or something else of value and make a point of saying that they are responsible for it - it is their duty to take care of it and use it correctly. In the case that the thing given is something beyond their ability to repair or replace should they break it, they may well be warned that it is important they care for it properly, because they only get the one. If they mess it up, they have to make due because they're not going to simply be given another one, brand new.

I believe in a similar concept as applies to humankind's custodianship of the earth: God, acting as a parent might, gives to his children something that is not only valuable and useful, but life-sustaining and essential. He says that it is for their use, but similarly to when something is only loaned, he doesn't say he is giving it to them as though it would no longer belong to God who created it. He may not expect to get it back in the same pristine condition in the end, but he surely expects it to be responsibly used and not broken.

In this translation it uses the word "subdue" which, I think, reflects the view of many people in ancient times, of seeing the world as a dangerous place, where places without human population or under cultivation were viewed as wild, savage, and dangerous. For one to enter such places untrained and unprepared to protect oneself (or accompanied by someone so trained) could easily be fatal. To subdue and cultivate a place and tame or capture the animals, was to make it safe for all. The way this is written, to me simply reflects that humans were given permission to cultivate and tame, to make places safe for human habitation, and is not saying that humans are commanded to do so to absolutely everything - only as much as is necessary.

We now live in times where far more about the world is understood, and we have many ways of keeping safe when entering "wild" lands... and also there are less fully "wild" lands than there used to be. I think that "manage" might be a good suggestion as a word to currently reflect humankind's dominion over the world now, a responsibility to watch over and care for all of nature and the living things in it. Not that everything needs to be managed directly (or micro-managed), but that it should be looked after and given consideration. Our abilities have grown beyond only having the two extremes available of dealing with the world: to either avoid a place, or to take it over and cultivate it. Humankind doesn't need to tame and cultivate everything in order to care for it.

The responsibility is to care for things and protect them; not to exploit, abuse, neglect, or otherwise misuse or mistreat the living things under one's care and supervision.

Genesis 1:26-27

 

Genesis 1:26-27

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. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

comments:

The are a few things I would like to comment on here. One is that where it says in verse 26, "Let us make man in our image," I believe it is literally referring to the species or family of "mankind", that is, humankind as spoken of in earlier times, and thus except where only one specific "man" is indicated (such as when Adam is named and spoken of as an individual) we can consider "man" to be short for "mankind" and speaking of humanity in general (thus also not speaking only of "men" as in, male humans, but including all humans of any gender). For example, when it is said "let them have dominion over…" and even uses the plural "them", it is speaking of a role for humankind. Note that I emphasize it is all humankind included; I do not believe it was ordained by God for any race or gender to have dominance in a way that would put any other race or gender down. I believe all humankind to be equal from the beginning, created in God's image, and all of us being God's children.

As for humankind being created in God's image: I believe that to be literally true. God may have a form that could be said to be different, "spiritual", "higher", or "more advanced" in whatever ways it may be, but I believe that God created humankind to have a "humanoid" form of appearance because that is the form that God has. I know many people may believe differently, and I believe everyone has a right to believe as they do; I am stating what I believe.

I also believe that "Let us make man in our image" is also an indication that God was not a solitary, lone intelligent spirit floating endlessly in a void before creating life on Earth. I don't believe that "us" and "our" in this instance is something akin to using the "royal we" for someone to refer to one's self in the plural. At the very least, I believe that as God may be termed the father of humankind, there was at least one other who may be referred to as the mother of humankind. Creating humans (male and female) in God's image was to create them with a humanoid form; creating them in "our" image was to create humans with a male form in the image of a male, and humans with a female form in the image of a female.

Note on gender: I am here referring only (and very strictly, narrowly, only) to physical gender as determined by the genetic makeup of a human person. Except in cases of genetic anomaly, humans (as with all mammals and many other forms of life on Earth) are genetically either male or female. Everything else that people currently, popularly refer to as matters of "gender" are topics that I firmly believe to be different matters entirely, and should not be confused by using the term "gender" to refer to them (though modern English is woefully, inadequately, lacking in terms to use for some of these matters). I may elaborate more on another occasion, but for now I just want to say that I don't think anyone can fully understand my views on this entire topic without first relieving one's self of preconceived notions of labeling things as "masculine" or "feminine", and indeed, by avoiding all forms of stereotyping or of expecting anyone to fit into any category, through avoiding use of labels as much as possible.

Genesis 1:20-25

 

Genesis 1:20-25

20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

comments:

I've always thought it interesting that all the animal life was described as divided between two days of creation, and that birds (fowl) were listed in the first of those two days, along with living creatures in the waters (aquatic life) and that the second of those days (the 6th of creation) includes when the living things that move upon the earth (including creeping things, and as will be seen thereafter in other verses, humans) were created.

Like plants, the animals were gifted the ability to multiply and perpetuate themselves, to reproduce each "after his kind" which is to have children each of the same species as the parents.

I believe that God does everything in wisdom and order, and there would likely be a great many good reasons for creating and placing animal life on the earth in that order generally, rather than all at once in an instant. An account like this (as I have mentioned) is not necessarily factual in every way, but however may be generally true in at least some ways and not entirely symbolic only. There's the description of animal life being created in stages with three general groupings apparently based mainly around animals' movement types and dwelling places. This is further subdivided into various general categories such as whales, cattle, or creeping things, which can indicate not everything in the larger groupings is counted as being part of the same categories of what type of creatures they are. This all may be mostly symbolic, but also in part could be an account of how some of the process may have actually been in a literal and factual way, but in any case I don't think it could by any means be assumed to be a complete account of the entire process - after all, it's not as if every single species of animal created by God was listed in the way that later parts of the Bible may list every descendant in a line from one particular notable person to another. The world is far too large and wondrous a place to ever be able to describe or list everything that was included in the creating of it, without such an account becoming ponderously large and essentially overwhelming all the rest of Moses' writings if he should have even undertaken to try it.

I don't believe the purpose of this account was to tell the complete story or detail the entire process of creation used by God in creating the Earth and furnishing it with life. Even if many of the details written might have been intended to be taken as facts and not solely symbolic, I believe it represents only what was passed down from an account written by Moses, who being a descendant of Adam, would not have been expected to be present and personally remember something that happened before Adam himself was created. Moses instead, being a prophet of God and writing what God wished for him to teach to the people in his time, would have been writing what God taught to him or showed him in visions, being in either case not likely to have been reasonably able to write down every detail of every moment of creation even if it was shown to him. I think instead, he would have been writing what God had taught him were the most or more important points to teach to the people, or what Moses felt inspired to emphasize and put importance on; what the people of his time needed to know and what would be beneficial to pass down to future generations of Israelites and others who would believe in the same God.

Therefore, I think it not unreasonable to think that we shouldn't assume what is said in this relatively simple and not terribly detailed account of the creation is not the whole story and does not describe the entire process by which God created the world and everything in it. I do believe, however, that it is reasonable to assume that for the spiritual life and development of humanity, we don't need to know more about the specific details, until God sees fit to tell them. I trust that God knows and understands it all, and I may hope to learn more someday, but understand that in some things it's not important for me to know all the details, so I try to identify what is most important for me to understand about it.

Credit for the creation goes to God.

God organized the creation according to divine wisdom, and at every step checked or "saw that it was good."

God provided all things necessary for life on Earth, such as water and light, time and seasons for plants to grow, and whatever else was needed.

God gave to living things (both plant and animal life) the ability to multiply, reproduce, and generally maintain their own existence and continue each one's own species or kind.

Genesis 1:14-19

 

Genesis 1:14-19

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

comments:

I have said before that I do believe in God and that God created the earth, and I believe that credit is to be given to God for the creation of the things that are listed in the book of Genesis as being things that God made or created; however I do not believe that everything is always written in an exactly literal way as it appears in English translations; possibly also not literally as it would appear in any other language, ancient or modern, but I admit I am not a scholar of, nor have I read the Bible in, any of the ancient languages predating the English translation, so I will only say I do not know how literal it may or may not be in ancient languages, though I have heard some people who have studied them say they do not believe everything is meant to be taken literally in every way.

If it were written literally, then it might (in this English version) seem to be saying that on the fourth day of the Earth's creation, is when the sun and moon were created, thus making them not only the same age as each other, but 3-4 days younger than the Earth - which on a cosmic scale, is about the same age all around.

Now as I said in a previous commentary about the creation of the heavens or firmament, that I don't believe all the things in the heavens and the entire universe of stars and other astronomical bodies did not exist until the Earth was formed and given a sky, but rather, that the formation of the Earth's sky (or heaven) more likely (in my opinion) referred both to the creation of an atmosphere, and the way in which it was designed that people on the Earth would have a view through the atmosphere to see the stars and other things in the universe (such as can be seen from the Earth's surface) and that God did create the universe and things in it other than the Earth, though beforehand.

Whether the atmosphere might have been clouded or in some other way obscured until after there was a water cycle established and plant life begun and thus perhaps there may not have been a proper view of the sun and moon and stars until this stage of the creation, or whether there might be some other reason for why these things (lights in the heavens) are mentioned here instead of earlier (or even later) in the list about the process of the creation of the Earth, I can't claim to know for certain.

What I do believe for certain, is that God did make the sun and the the moon and the stars, and didn't simply set everything in a random or accidental pattern, but instead planned what the measurements of days and years and seasons would be; planned for there to be tides regulated by the moon and seasons affected by the tilt of the Earth and its distance from the sun, and the ways in which people observing the stars could also measure times and seasons with their (apparent) movements.

These verses do say that God made all these things; they say that God said for them to be there, and they were; that they were to be for signs and seasons and measuring of time, and they are; it does not (in this language translation) say that God could not have prepared all of these beforehand, and then unveiled them at this time. Or, put another way, it might be that God had them ready and then at this time adjusted their settings (so to speak), putting finishing touches on the balance of everything so that it would be set to the patterns that everything would be in when God put humans and animals on the Earth. Everything might have been very different before.

Perhaps this was only listed after the creation of plant life, not because of any literal sequence of events in the creation of the Earth, but simply was the order things were taught by God to Moses and other prophets in ancient times, when God was teaching them about the creation of the Earth. That people in ancient times would well understand the importance of light being provided for plants to grow, and that discussion of specific light sources that could be seen in the sky and the ways in which they could mark or indicate seasons and be useful as signs, would be best understood after (or in connection with) mention of the plant life being placed on the Earth, because of so much of the significance placed on the seasons and on measuring time in the life of humans in ancient times (and many places still in the world today) may have seemed to revolve primarily around the planting, growing, and harvesting of crops. The life cycles of the plants thus giving greater significance to the measuring of times and seasons than it otherwise would have.

Given that these verses twice state that the lights in the heavens were for dividing the day from the night, also twice mentions they are for giving light to the Earth, it seems to me that emphasizes the importance of light for sustaining life on the Earth, and also on the concept of measuring time - as verse 14 says, for the lights in the heavens to be "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."

I have mentioned before about how light is a powerful symbol and concept, as well as being a literally important thing in many ways throughout history. In this passage we are seeing what I think is basically a note that the sources of light also are important symbols for the very reason that they are light sources, and that God not only would have expected that, but planned for it. Many times through the history of the world (and as recorded in scripture) God will use them not only for symbols, but also for signs to prophets and others; and of course, they also are for measuring time, which sometimes can also be used for signs.

Genesis 1:11-13

Genesis 1:11-13

11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

comments:

I view this as another reasonable, logical step in setting up a planet capable of sustaining life: plant life, described with examples of both simple grasses, herbaceous plants and the like (and undoubtedly, simpler forms) and more complex, larger forms of plant life such as (for example) fruit trees.

All are described as having seeds that are each "after his kind" - a concept easily understood and relatable to people familiar with even the most basic of concepts used in farming and gardening. This concept being that the seed of a plant, when planted, grows the same kind of plant as that from whence it came - with limited possible variation, perhaps, but always the same type of plant, never something entirely different. The seed from a fig tree does not grow an olive tree, seeds from tares do not grow wheat no matter how much the plants may at first look similar to each other, and wild grasses do not seed groves of trees, but instead one must plant tree seeds in order to get trees to grow.

This is one of many concepts used as a basic principle in examples for teaching by prophets through the ages, along with the related concept of the fruit of a type of tree only being found on that type of tree - and not growing on something else. One naturally does not find figs and olives growing on the same tree together; each comes only from its own kind of tree, and yields its own kind of seed, which grows it own kind of tree only, and so on.

Another way I also look at these verses is that this passage is noting that not only was plant life placed on the Earth, but it was made as plant life with the full capability of perpetuating itself, each after its own kind.

It's not as though I don't think an all-powerful creator, creative force or other being able to accomplish everything that had come previously might not also be able to continuously create more new plants to keep replenishing the supply of various plants on the Earth as needed, but would it be a reasonable or efficient use of time and energy to do so? I don't believe in a God who would make a world that would have to be constantly micromanaged. It seems far more reasonable and logical to me, to utilize natural laws and order and create forms of life organized according to principles of being able to self-perpetuate, and to establish self-sustaining biodiversity and interrelated ecological systems that are able to adjust and adapt to each other, to changing conditions, climates, seasons, etc. The design of the Earth, from the tiniest and simplest microorganisms, through all forms of plant life (and everything else living) up to and including the largest systems of interconnected forests, all have the ability to reproduce each after its own kind. I believe all of it is part of God's plan.

And, of course, as with every previous stage of creation, God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1: 6-8 (also ref. v. 16), 9-10

 

Genesis 1: 6-8 (also ref. v. 16), 9-10

      6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

      7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

      8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

      9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

      10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

      (16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.)

comments:

      The Earth was provided with its firmament or heaven, which from what I understand comprehends both the skies (or atmosphere, where the clouds and weather form) and the Earth’s view of the stars, constellations, and other heavenly bodies that can be seen from the surface of the planet.

      Since the creation of the stars is not mentioned until verse sixteen (after mention of the creation of the sun and the moon), we may not want to assume that any stars were visible at the time that it was said the Earth was given a sky, heaven, or firmament. I think it most likely that any number of stars had already been in existence in the universe at/before the time of the Earth’s formation, and it may well be that the mention in verse sixteen that God “made the stars also” could have simply been a footnote or reminder that God was to be given full credit for the stars as well, rather than a statement that all the stars were made by God at that time, with none existing before the Earth’s sun and moon. Or, it may have been a note saying that God created additional stars in the cosmic neighborhood of the Earth around that time, additional to however many stars which may have existed previously in the universe.

      Regardless, I believe that the point of giving credit to God for the creation of the stars is far more important than sorting out exactly when they were created.

      And, as noted, there was the sky or atmospheric portion of that which was referred to as the “firmament” created, and the waters divided between those above it and those below it - or, might we say, the waters up “in” the atmosphere, and the waters below, on the surface of the planet.

      To me, this suggests the establishment of the basis of the water cycle upon which all life on Earth depends, with water in the atmosphere in clouds (moved by weather patterns generally) and water below in the seas, oceans, lakes, rivers, and underground locations on the planet, cycling through various ways of being available for use by living things. In many situations, the fact that water is naturally kept moving around means that it is able to either pick up useful minerals or be filtered or aerated, or at least to not sit still and stagnate to the point of being unable to support most complex forms of life.

      As mentioned in verses nine and ten, another preparation of the Earth before complex life was introduced to it, was that with the division of the waters came also the waters on the surface of the planet being gathered (or receded?) from the land, such that dry land would appear - which was called Earth, and the waters in large bodies called seas.

Genesis 1:5

 Verse 5:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

comments:

I believe the first part of verse 5 is very simply stating that the divisions between light and dark were designated “Day” and “Night”, or, put another way, the time periods on Earth characterized by light and by darkness were termed daytime and nighttime.

It may be possible that the “first day” referred to at the end of verse 5 could be a literal reference to the first regular daytime period of time on the planet Earth as we know it, consisting of roughly 24 hours, or, more literally, that the verse referred to the end of that daytime and the beginning of the next daytime at the end of the nighttime when speaking of the evening and the following morning, or saying that the first official day began with the evening and morning following the day and night being named as such.  However, I also believe it is possible that it may not have literally been referring to that same designation of “day” as the first part of the verse referred to. After all, the reference to the creation of the sun and moon occurs later in the chapter; in the most literal sense the Earth may not have had an established 24-hour day before that time, but merely the concept or existence of light and dark. It may have simply been that whenever God was performing the work of creation, was present, or otherwise willed it, there was light upon the Earth and it was “daytime” - and whenever God willed there to be darkness, then it was “nighttime”. 

God existed before the Earth was formed, and I think it not unreasonable if the “days” of the creation might have been measured according to a length of time that also existed before the Earth was formed, such as “days” measured according to the days on some other sphere of existence, or by some other heavenly body that had been created previously, and which may have been vastly different lengths of time from the roughly 24-hour periods we associate with “days” on Earth.

Whether that may be the case or not, the formation of the Earth was still divided into steps or stages, a process of basically seven parts or phases, regardless of how much time each phase took, or even if each phase in that seven stage process took a different amount of time from the others, and the “days” listed were more like symbolic labels for the seven stages of the creation process.

Given the symbolic meaning that was afterwards given to the seven stages of Earth’s creation/formation (the last or seventh one being a period of rest), including and most notably in establishing a 7-day week with one day of rest for worship, I believe the most significant part of referring to the stages of creation as “days” was towards that end, regardless of whether the “days” mentioned were literal 24-hour Earth days, or literal “days” of a longer duration measured by some other heavenly body’s movements, or symbolic appellations for separate stages of creation which may not have all taken the same amount of time as each other (but each may have in any case still been periods of light and darkness, literally beginning or ending with an evening and a morning on Earth, for all I know)

Which is to say, that I believe the important part is not in how much actual time as currently measured on planet Earth each step of the creation process took, but in the division of the process into seven stages or parts, with planning and organization, and with the seventh part involving rest.