I praise God for all of you who completed your Bible reading in 2019! This is the end of the tenth year for this website, and it is something like my fifteenth year of reading through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. My daughter, who also uses this schedule and is ten years old, begins her fifth year of reading through the Bible. Nothing has blessed our spiritual life more than this daily, disciplined reading through the Bible.

If this will not be your first time reading through the Bible, I encourage you to consider reading in a different version. I have included the main (non-paraphrase) versions on this site under Account > Your Account.

If this site has blessed your reading of God's Word, please REPLY to this email and let me know. I want to praise God for you.

Blessings! Yujin

AI-Expanded Reflection

This announcement celebrates a habit that Scripture itself commends: the steady, daily reading of God’s Word, and the passing on of that habit to the next generation. Israel’s king was to keep a copy of the law and read it “all the days of his life” (Deuteronomy 17:19). Parents were to teach God’s words diligently to their children and talk of them at home and on the road (Deuteronomy 6:6–7). Paul reminded Timothy that from childhood he had known the sacred writings, which are able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Christ (2 Timothy 3:15). A ten-year-old beginning her fifth year of reading through the Bible is a living example of what those passages describe.

Structured Bible-reading plans have a long history. One of the best known was drawn up in 1842 by the Scottish minister Robert Murray M’Cheyne for his congregation at St. Peter’s Church in Dundee. It takes readers through the New Testament and Psalms twice and the rest of the Old Testament once each year, and it is still widely used. Long before that, the synagogue divided the Law into regular readings, and the church developed lectionaries so that congregations would hear the breadth of Scripture over time. A shared reading schedule, like the one this site provides, continues that tradition. It helps readers cover the whole Bible, not just favorite passages, and it lets a community read together.

The suggestion to read a different translation is also sound. Every translation involves choices. Some aim for closer correspondence to the original wording, others for clearer contemporary expression, and comparing faithful translations can bring out nuances that a familiar version may hide. Changing versions can also slow down a reader who has begun to skim familiar passages. Scripture’s own example of attentive reading is the Bereans, who received the word eagerly and “examined the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11).

The comment’s testimony that nothing has blessed the family’s spiritual life more than daily reading is echoed throughout Christian history. Psalm 1 describes the one who delights in the law of the Lord as a tree planted by streams of water, bearing fruit in season (1:2–3). The image is of slow, steady growth rather than sudden change. Consistent reading over many years shapes a person in ways that no single reading can.

Finally, the invitation to share how the site has been a blessing reflects the mutual encouragement the New Testament urges. Paul often thanked God for the faith of the churches he wrote to and was himself encouraged by news of their perseverance (1 Thessalonians 3:6–9). A community of readers, even one connected only through a website, can strengthen one another in this way. Starting a new year of reading with thanksgiving is a fitting way to begin again at Genesis 1.

"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife" and eaten of the tree God commanded him not to eat... (a paraphrase of Genesis 3:17).

Perhaps the most influential person in a man's life is his wife, whether for good or for evil. Even though the man is called to be the head of the home, as a line from a popular film puts it, the wife is "the neck" that turns the head. We think that in a perfect world this would not be the case, but here in Genesis 3 we find a perfect world, and it was the case.

While I would be among the first to extol the value of a virtuous wife, let us also recognize the tremendous damage that an unwise or ungodly spouse can do. Consider some examples in the Bible:

• Adam's wife, Eve, gave Adam the fruit from the forbidden tree.
• Sarah urged Abraham to have a child by her servant Hagar, and Ishmael was born, with lasting tension between the two lines of descendants.
• Lot's wife looked back and became a pillar of salt, and his daughters later deceived him into incest.
• Job's wife told him to curse God and die.
• Moses' wife, Zipporah, may have been connected with Moses' failure to circumcise his son, which nearly cost him his life (cf. Exodus 4:24–26).
• Moabite and Midianite women drew Israelite men into the worship of Baal of Peor (Numbers 25).
• Delilah, whom Samson loved, enticed and betrayed him.
• Solomon's wisdom did not prevent his foreign wives from turning his heart to idolatry.
• Ahab's wife, Jezebel, led her husband and Israel into one of its darkest periods of idolatry.

Friends, this sharing is not directed at women but at men, particularly those who have given up their responsibility to provide spiritual leadership in their homes and ministries.

I believe that is why Scripture assigns spiritual leadership in the home to the husband, and why Paul appeals to the order of creation and the events of Genesis 3 when he writes that he does not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, for Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 2:11–14).

The husband who does not understand this, I believe, faces great spiritual danger for himself and his family. Even a well-meaning spouse can do great harm. I don't think Eve meant to harm Adam by giving him the fruit. I don't think Sarah meant to harm Abraham by urging him to have a child by Hagar. In such cases there may have been no malicious intent toward the husband, yet the influence led to what was evil in God's eyes. So the husband must take the spiritual lead in his household and ministry and be alert to the influences on it.

Friends, many of the great men of the Bible were at one point or another adversely affected by those closest to them. Men are often caricatured as weak, foolish, and stupid. I daresay much of this reputation stems from men relinquishing their God-given responsibilities.

I personally know two gifted men with great futures who, I believe, followed poor counsel at home and forfeited those futures. There are also wonderful positive examples in Scripture, like Ruth, Abigail, and Mary.

Therefore, men, you must take charge of your spiritual health and that of your wife and family. You must keep your eyes on God and find discernment in His Word. I believe spiritual leadership in the home is not a co-leadership. You are the leader, even as Christ leads the church. You are to present your wife to God as holy, not the other way around. You are also the primary agent in instructing your children: fathers are not to provoke their children to anger, but bring them up "in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4; cf. Colossians 3:21).

Some commentaries argue that mothers are included in this reference to "fathers." The difficulty with this view is that there is a separate Greek word for "parents" (goneis) that includes both mothers and fathers (cf. Mark 13:12; Luke 2:27), and Paul knew this word (e.g., 2 Corinthians 12:14; Ephesians 6:1). Why wouldn't Paul use it rather than the word that elsewhere clearly refers to fathers? Even if Paul had mothers also in mind, he clearly wanted to emphasize the role of fathers in the spiritual upbringing of their children.

God told Adam, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife... cursed is the ground."

Brothers, what will you do? Be careful what you listen to and how you are influenced. You must take the lead — especially the spiritual lead — for your families.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Genesis 3:17 holds Adam responsible, and it is worth noticing how the chapter distributes responsibility. God calls first to the man — "Where are you?" (3:9) — and it is through Adam, not Eve, that Paul says sin and death entered the world (Romans 5:12–19). Adam's failure was not only that he listened to his wife, but that he was "with her" (3:6) and did not speak up, then blamed both her and God: "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit" (3:12). The comment's call to men to take responsibility rather than shift it is well grounded in the text.

At the same time, Scripture also presents many women whose influence on men was for great good: Abigail kept David from bloodshed (1 Samuel 25:32–33); Hannah dedicated Samuel; Esther risked her life to save her people; Priscilla, with Aquila, instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26); Lois and Eunice shaped Timothy's faith (2 Timothy 1:5); and it was women who first proclaimed the resurrection to the apostles (Luke 24:9–10). The influence of a spouse, for good or ill, flows both ways — in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, for example, it was the husband who acted and the wife who went along (Acts 5:1–2).

On the roles of husbands and wives and on 1 Timothy 2, Christians hold complementarian and egalitarian views in good faith (see #1746, #1826, #1946). The comment's view is complementarian. All traditions agree with its central summons: husbands are to take spiritual responsibility, loving their wives as Christ loved the church and bringing up their children in the Lord.

Genesis 2:4

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

We have creation's categories by days, in Genesis 1; we then get a story of creation in Genesis 2.

I don't hold to a literal six-day creation process of 24-hour days, partly because of the empirical debate offered by science and partly because of the 'yom' debate. In connection to the 'yom' debate, 'toledot' I think adds something to consider.

"Toledot," meaning 'generations,' is used later in Genesis 5 when laying out the posterity of Adam, Genesis 6 for the posterity of Noah, chapter 10, 11, 25 and others to lay out a sequential order of things using Toledot– it gives an ordinal value to the discussion: what came first, then next.

Genesis 1 paints a story that culminates with man as the pinnacle of creation.

Genesis 2 directs creation for man.

There are 2 accounts in Genesis, and in apparent significant value, they are side by side. Why 2 accounts?

Genesis 1 starts with: day/night >waters above/below>land/sea/vegetation>Sun, stars & moon> sea and air creatures>man and other creatures

Genesis 2 :4 starts with a time when no vegetation was, because there was no rain (it would be a stretch to say “no waters above”) the Lord formed man; and placed him in a garden. He then made the ground sprout vegetation

I think Genesis 1 speaks to the crowning creation by Jesus: mankind. For even when he is done he blesses the work and as if to say "it is done," rests:

Genesis 2,

2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.

Immediately, following this in the second chapter, we have a story that slightly changes our explanation from creation in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2, first the heavens and the earth, then male man was created; then the earth was filled for man to rule over.

Setting aside ‘Yom’ for a moment, there are no time values here, but at least ordinal values. Unless you add to the text to say God created man and held him in a cloud until the latter days of creation, there must be a purpose to these accounts.

I think one (Genesis 1) is to highlight the significance of man; the other (Genesis 2) is the true order of things.

What of the problems and challenges this poses? I have found the following:

• 6 days is explicitly mentioned as the reason for ceremonial models – therefore it is true
• “Yom,” or “Day,” is explicitly defined in Day 4 of creation – there is no ambiguity how this should be used
• It is an inferior credibility to start your premise outside of scripture – science is less reliable than the word of God
• “Restoration” speaks of returning to a time of no death or suffering, which is excluded from the scientific model – The story painted by science is wrong
• Sin Doctrine is destroyed – from sin came death, science offers death long before man

6-Day Creation explicitly mentioned

Exodus 20:8–11 (paraphrase)

Remember to keep the sabbath. Six days are for labor, the seventh is for rest. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh, therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day.

I already mentioned Toledot, which I think makes a window for another option. Does the Lord really rest? Does this mean he raised his feet and ignored prayers? Does this mean he stopped managing the universe and Space-Time? I suspect that much of what Moses wrote was not literal but literary. For example the use of “all” was not always all encompassing as “all” infers.

Exodus 9:6 All the Egyptian livestock died.

Exodus 9:19 Livestock from the field are brought in.

Could it be that just as the ceremonies have effect to bring God’s presence to mind, the 6 day creation has a similar effect to remind us we are the pinnacle of God’s creation. And as if to say, “remember the value he places on you by this story,” he says in Exodus 20, “remember the story by this ceremony.”

I think this is plausible, again, because:

Genesis 1 reminds us we are the pinnacle of God’s creation – we remember this in ceremonies.

Genesis 2 informs us of the proper account of things. Why did God create all things? This is not explicitly seen in the account of things (the science of things) - we must be told through revelation. We are given a story of creation, Genesis 1, to give a literary account to remember and to know why.

“Yom,” or “Day,” is explicitly defined in Day 4 of creation

Genesis 1:14 (paraphrase)

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse. And let them be signs and for seasons, and for days and years.”

Here it goes that we have Yom defined to represent a 24 hour period, after all they are used to be a sign for time “days and years.” “Yom” is also defined in Genesis 1:5 explicitly as “Light” and “Darkness” as night. Yom is used in the same chapter as light, the lit portion of a day, and later we are told that we should see that it is defined as 24 hours.

Again, I think this points to a literary story. “Yom” is all over the place, no time values are given. We are told once that Yom is simply light, not that some portion of day there was light and some time later there was night, but that they were in existence. It is not until the 4th day that we get a sense that things changed regularly to allow for a measure of time and seasons - signs for man.

The ‘explicit’ definition could only be used for the last 3 days. The other days still have no explicit anchor for time values.

Inferior credulity

The argument suggests that there is a lack of maturity. I would need to be convinced that God’s character does not apply in nature. I would need to be convinced:

• That as orderly as God is, He is not in the testimony of nature
• That as evidential as God is, He is not in the testimony of nature
• That as truthful as God is, He is not in nature’s testimony

We know that where lawlessness is, God’s testimony is:

Romans 2: 14–15 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

There is no place that God has not left his orderly ways. Even evil must walk on the path of order and good, in order to create evil and sustain it.

We know where God has put his works, God’s testimony is:

Psalm 8 (paraphrase) How majestic is your name! You have set your glory above the heavens. Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger. When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, what is man that you are mindful of him. How majestic is your name in all the earth

Even the greatest testimony, the resurrection, was given as evidence of God’s presence. He does not require us to ‘take a leap of faith’ but instead gives us deeds, convictions, and a cloud of witnesses to establish his truth from the lies around us. A cloud of witnesses, not in written pages alone and independently, but in the works of their lives and the fingerprints they left. You can piece together many aspects of Jesus outside the Bible. You can do the same for Daniel, and David. You can do the same for the Apostles.

We know that among confusion, God’s testimony is:

James 1 (paraphrase) Don’t be deceived. Everything from the father is good and has no variation. Of his own will, the word of truth

Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God"

God’s glory is all around us and undeniable. Scriptures are not to be used to tell us everything but as a means to recognize when we are looking at God’s fingerprint or the corruption of it. Only he has creative powers, for creation declares his glory.

I think there is a lot of speculation and there is room for it, since scripture seems concerned with demonstrating Himself, not in explaining how or why, but simply demonstrating Himself for a relationship. So I would certainly tip my hat to the idea that men are liars (Rom 3:4), including this one, and so their ideas need to be of the kind of mettle scripture offers.

Ultimately, anything is fair game; any idea is fair game as long as it holds in light of scripture

1 Thessalonians 5: Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.

The biggest of these arguments I think comes in the last 2 arguments, which I found less sturdy than I originally thought I would find.

“Restoration”, a return to the garden

The argument goes that if you take the observations of an old earth, therein implies that death and decay which cannot be true since Scripture promises a “restoration.” “Restoration” implies a return to a previous state: the state of the garden; a place of peace, ‘vegetarianism’ (maybe not literally) and God’s provision and of walking with him.

For example, Acts 3:21

21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago

The argument is carried forward to the image given in Revelation 21–22 of the New Jerusalem and the River of Life; if we are being restored to how things were, therefore the past must look like Revelation 21–22.

The Lord has done a lot of ‘restoration’ but it has been with the Nation of Israel and never as it was previously. We get a spiritual restoration in the New Testament, but restoration to what? The kind of restoration that you found in the garden, the kind of restoration that made it possible for the Israelites to crush the inhabitants of the promised land, the kind that made the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls possible – the restoration the cross accomplished.

The restoration is in terms of a relationship, only. We once walked with God (Genesis 3:8). We are not looking to go back to the Garden, where we can fall. Where we did not know Good and Evil, like children. We are looking forward to a time when all things are in their proper place – God at the top, man underneath him, all creation below them (re: Genesis 1–2). A time that a New Jerusalem and a New River of Life flow, nothing old or what was, but something New!

God created light and darkness, he created the water above and below, he created land then said it was good. He made vegetation and said it was good. He made the seasons, stars and days and said it was good. He saw everything and saw it was very good, even though it was not perfected, even though it would fall; I think it was “good” because of what it was intended for; it was good because it would glorify God, not because it was ideal or good in its own right.

The Sin Doctrine Unravels

Lastly the sin doctrine is said to be unraveled. For death and decay come from sin:

James 1: 15 Sin gives birth to death

Romans 5:12 Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

An old earth would imply that there was death of animals and decay of matter. Yet it is not until Adam’s sin that the ground is said to be cursed and as sons become more distant from Adam they lived shorter lives until God caps it at 120 years.

God had the Israelites go in the promised land with ceremonies to wash hands, not cut their hair, not to boil young goats in their mother’s milk, and to wear certain accessories, and not work on a particular day. The Lord did this to discipline them, not because they were explicitly meaningful, but they had implicit value in shaping the minds and hearts of the people, and ultimately for us.

If the ceremonies were not important for God (since he needs nothing; not that he has no purpose for them), but rather important for us in our discipline; and if the argument can be made that the Sabbath was made to reflect God’s purpose for creation (I’ll admit I did not say “reflect his order of creation” so to stay on agreed terms) – namely to first glorify himself, then to discipline us, then to honor his work – then just as the scripture has always done in telling us what we need to hear to shape us, this too should be extended to the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2, and the possibility of how the Sin Doctrine actually is applied to reality.

What I mean by ‘telling us what we need to hear to shape us’ I don’t at all mean God lies, deceives or misinforms as a human teacher or parent might do for a student or child’s ‘good.’ But as we know, ‘no man is good, only God is good’ we hear things like ‘Job was blameless and upright’ & ‘among those born of women there is no one greater than John;’ and Solomon being told that no one will arise to be wise and discerning like him again. Yet in spite of these things the literal meaning should not be held, but rather the literary effect should be seen. Job was great, John was great, ‘this guy’ is good, no one will be like Solomon, but if you wanted to be literal you could say the writings are wrong.

The following isn’t taught in scriptures, but I don’t see anything that would go against it. I think the silent areas of scriptures make room for discussing such an option:

Just as Christ’s work on the cross works forwards and backwards in time, so did Adam’s work in the garden.

Genesis 1:26 ‘Let us make mankind in our image.’ Technically this does not say, let us make man and make him in our image, but rather, as if to say, let us take that man creature and turn him into us – implying we were already here, he had already created us. After Adam, was Cain who had a wife, and his son Enoch had a wife, the Bible is silent where these women came from.

Genesis 6:2, some even interpret Sons of God to be those who were of the Adam lineage, the holy lineage; this would distinguish between the human-mammals and the children of Adam, the children of God. All men are by default the children of Satan, until adopted by God. Because Adam broke the only link existent, God has since then offered new links knowing beforehand they all would fail and only his grace and predestination and sovereignty would lead to an eternal kingdom.

Genesis 2 also speaks of the garden as being a real localized place here in time and space:

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

The characteristics of the garden do not need to apply to what was happening in Egypt, or Brazil, or Antarctica, but rather we are told explicitly that the garden is a localized event. Pointing back to the “restoration” idea, do we find the restoration promise referring to something that happened in a localized event, the garden, or do we find evidence that all (literally, not just literarily) of the earth was garden-like?

As for death and decay, I think there is some sign of decay: Adam and Eve needed to eat – they and their posterity were vegetarians until Noah. Unless eating was only for pleasure in the garden this points to a replenishment that was required and therefore a depletion (a decay; Ref Gen 1: 30)

Going back to the premise that as the cross-event crosses time and space, so does Adam’s event, consider the contrast and similarities we get for the 2 Adams.

Romans 5:13–14

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

(v13)Sin was here before the law was given – or to say another way, “before a command was given.” Sin is not charged to anyone where there is no command.

(v14)Nevertheless, death was around from the time of Adam to Moses (a time when no commands were given), even over those who did not sin (by not obeying a command) as Adam had done by not obeying a command. Adam is a pattern of the one to come.

The first to be given a relational-requiring command failed (Adam). The last to be given a relational-requiring command succeeded (Jesus).

Romans 5:17

17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

It was not because the human man Adam had a special ontology that he was able to cause corruption, nor is it the human man Jesus had a special ontology that he caused life; but rather it was the Spirit of God that was over the face of the waters and breathed into Adam that His rejection of it (creation and Adam) that caused corruption forwards and backwards in time, and the Spirit of God that was in Jesus that he had power over death and caused everlasting Overflowing Life forwards and backwards in time.

Romans 5:12 Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

Did sin actually enter the world, or was it the Spirit leaving the world? Did God create sin for it to enter or does the absence of God lead to sin? Just as the injection of God’s spirit made all things good (forwards and backwards), his departure made all things corrupt (forwards and backwards) and ultimately his return restores all things (forwards and backwards) until something truly new comes:

Philippians 3:21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Revelation 22

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life… And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. And they will reign for ever and ever.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Fernando's extended reflection raises a serious interpretive question: how should the theological purpose and literary form of Genesis 1–2 inform the way we understand its account of creation? The question deserves more than a choice between reading carefully and respecting Scripture. Every reading makes judgments about structure, sequence, emphasis, and the relation of one passage to another. Faithful interpretation seeks to make those judgments accountable to the text rather than hiding them beneath either a claim of obvious literalness or a claim that literary beauty makes historical questions irrelevant.

The two chapters have different emphases. Genesis 1 surveys the ordered creation and presents humanity, male and female, as bearing God's image. Genesis 2 concentrates on the human creature, the garden, work, the divine command, and the relationship between man and woman. This movement from a comprehensive account to a focused one is an important literary observation. It does not by itself prove that the first chapter has no chronological significance or that the second provides a replacement chronology. Different levels of attention can coexist within a narrative, and the relationship must be examined in its details.

The Hebrew terms discussed in the original require particular care. Yom can refer to daylight, an ordinary day, or a broader period in different contexts. That range means context determines its sense; it does not make every use equally open-ended. The repeated evening-and-morning pattern, numbered days, seventh-day rest, and the Sabbath comparison in Exodus 20 all deserve weight. Conversely, the broader expression in Genesis 2:4 shows that the word is not mechanically restricted to one duration in every construction. The term toledot, commonly rendered “generations,” “account,” or “history,” introduces sections of Genesis. It relates a section to origins and what follows from them, but it is not a grammatical device that independently establishes the timing of every event within that section. The Hebrew lexical entry for toledot supports this range of usage without deciding the chapter's chronology.

Genesis 2:5 also speaks more specifically than an undifferentiated absence of every plant. It mentions particular field vegetation and connects the situation with rainfall and human cultivation. Interpretations of the details differ, but these qualifications matter when comparing it with Genesis 1. Likewise, translations of Genesis 2:19 differ between God “formed” and “had formed” the animals, reflecting judgments about the relationship of the action to the surrounding narrative. We should neither invent a man suspended in a cloud nor assume that such an invention is the only alternative to the proposed sequence. Compare the textual details in Genesis 2:5 and Genesis 2:19.

The distinction between literal and literary also needs refinement. A text can use figurative or selective language while describing real events. Calling God’s cessation from creating “rest” does not require exhaustion or withdrawal from sustaining the universe. Nor does recognizing an idiomatic use of “all” establish that another passage's temporal structure must be nonchronological. Each example must be examined on its own terms. Exodus 9 distinguishes livestock exposed in the field from animals brought under shelter, so its language requires contextual attention before it can be used as evidence for a broad interpretive rule.

The appeal to nature as God's testimony is a worthwhile theological instinct. Psalms 8 and 19 direct attention to the created order as declaring his glory. Scientific investigation can therefore be pursued as careful attention to that order. Yet observations, models, and philosophical conclusions should be distinguished, just as the biblical text should be distinguished from our interpretation of it. Neither the word “science” nor the phrase “the Bible says” makes a particular human argument immune from examination. The present comment proposes a theological reading; it does not supply an empirical study establishing a chronology of the earth or the history of life.

The discussion of restoration identifies something important: the biblical hope is not simply a return to Eden with the possibility of another fall unchanged. Revelation portrays consummation, secure communion with God, and the removal of the curse. Nevertheless, restoration is not relational only. Romans 8:19–23 includes creation's liberation and the redemption of our bodies, while Philippians 3:21 anticipates bodily transformation. The new Jerusalem is not a reason to dismiss material creation as incidental. The hope embraces life with God in a renewed order, bringing creation's purpose to fulfillment rather than treating physical existence as a disposable illustration.

The question of death before human sin requires similar distinctions. Romans 5:12–21 explicitly centers on Adam, human sin and death, and Christ's saving obedience. Christians disagree over how this relates to animal mortality before the fall. The passage should not be made to settle every biological question without argument, but neither should its account of sin and death be dissolved into a general metaphor for spiritual absence. The text presents disobedience as a real human act with devastating consequences, answered by the obedience and gift of Christ.

Several of the original's proposals go beyond what the cited texts establish. Romans 5's period before “the law” is the period before the Mosaic law, not an era in which God gave no commands at all. Genesis records commands to Adam, Noah, and Abraham. Genesis 1:26 does not grammatically require pre-existing humans who are subsequently upgraded into God's image; verse 27 presents humanity's creation in that image. Cain's wife raises questions the narrative does not fully answer, but Genesis 5:4 does mention other sons and daughters of Adam. These observations do not establish an exhaustive population history; they show why silence alone cannot prove the proposed alternative.

The suggestion that Adam's sin acted backward through time is explicitly speculative in the original and should remain so. Christ's saving work benefiting people who lived before the cross does not automatically establish a matching backward physical causation for Adam's act. Analogy can generate a question without proving its answer. Similarly, eating and replenishment do not by themselves demonstrate the presence of the particular corruption, death, or curse under discussion. Different meanings of “decay” cannot be exchanged without explanation. Genesis 6:3's 120 years is also disputed: it has been understood as a lifespan reference or as an interval before judgment. The NET notes on Genesis 6 explain the latter reading.

The account of Christ needs especially firm grounding. His saving significance is not exhausted by saying that the Spirit acted through an otherwise ordinary human agent. John 1:1–14 and Colossians 1:15–20 present the Son as uniquely related to creation and fully revealed in the incarnation. His genuine humanity and obedient life belong with his divine identity. The contrast between Adam and Christ depends on who Christ is as well as what he does. A speculative explanation of creation should not inadvertently flatten that confession or imply that some classes of human beings possess lesser human worth.

The reflection's strongest invitation is to think carefully while remaining open to correction. That openness is best practiced by separating the text's clear affirmations, plausible interpretations, and speculative extensions. God creates; his creation is good; humanity bears his image and is accountable to him; sin brings ruin; and salvation and final renewal come through Christ. Within that framework, questions about genre, chronology, and scientific evidence can be pursued with patience and intellectual honesty. The goal is neither novelty nor victory over another group of Christians, but a more truthful understanding that leads to worship, responsible care for creation, and respect for every person made in God's image.

Someone brought up an interesting point with respect to questions like that found in Genesis 3, where God asks Adam, "Where are you?" Here's their comment and my reply.

The comment...

You refer to God's question to Adam in the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:9). My understanding of this question (& others, some mentioned later in this post) was that it is a rhetorical one. As not to contradict the fact of God's omniscience, one might argue that since God knew where he was He was not literally asking the question for His own benefit but for the benefit of Adam. Other instances of this literary example are when God asks Cain "where is your brother" (Gen. 4:9) & Jacob "what is your name?" (Gen. 32:27) & Abraham "why did Sarah laugh?" (Gen. 18:13) among others. In each case I believe the questions were asked for the benefit of the person being asked. It's like a parent asking their child if they did their homework as it sits in their backpack not having been touched since they got home from school. In this respect I guess one might argue that using rhetoric is a form of anthropomorphism if only humans use it.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The reader’s observation identifies an important feature of biblical dialogue: a question can do more than obtain information. In Genesis 3, God’s question draws Adam out of hiding and into an account of what has happened. If we assume that every question must arise from ignorance, we impose an unnecessarily narrow model of speech on the narrative. Human conversation already supplies many examples in which a speaker knows an answer but asks so that another person will acknowledge, consider, or explain it.

The examples gathered here perform related but distinguishable functions. God’s question to Cain about Abel confronts a concealed act and exposes Cain’s refusal of responsibility. The question about Sarah’s laughter brings her inward response into the encounter surrounding the promise. The question to Jacob about his name precedes the naming of Israel and belongs to a scene in which identity is being addressed. Their common feature is not that the words are empty because God knows the facts. The questions are effective precisely because they call the human participant to respond before God.

The parent-and-homework analogy is helpful at this limited point: knowing the state of affairs does not make a question pointless. Yet the analogy should not be pressed into a complete account of divine knowledge or parenting. God’s questions occur within particular acts of judgment, promise, and encounter, and their meaning is supplied by those settings. A sound analogy illuminates one relationship without claiming that every feature of the human example transfers to God.

The reader also asks whether such rhetoric might be anthropomorphic. Scripture does communicate God’s dealings in language humans understand, but meaningful divine speech need not be dismissed as merely pretending to be human. Theological reflection must preserve both God’s knowledge and the reality of his address. He engages persons who can answer, evade, confess, or resist. The narrative gives those responses weight rather than treating them as dispensable scenery around an already known conclusion.

For devotional reading, these questions invite attention to our own patterns of hiding and explanation. We need not imagine that prayer supplies God with missing facts. It brings our understanding, fear, and responsibility into honest speech before him. The question is therefore not only whether God knows where Adam is, but what happens when Adam must answer. That distinction makes room for a searching form of self-examination: what truth am I avoiding even though concealment cannot hide it from God? His knowledge removes the need for performance, while his address calls us out of evasion and toward truthful relationship.

In the beginning God.. (Genesis 1:1).

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).

The Scriptures begin with an assumption, namely, that God exists, even the presumption that everything we know and understand begins with God. The Scriptures also judge that the one who rejects this premise is the fool. Why?

As one scientist has declared, it takes greater faith to believe that everything came into being by chance than to believe that God created everything. All of creation testifies to God's existence:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands (Psalm 19:1).

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

For this is what the Lord says— he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited— he says: “I am the Lord, and there is no other (Isaiah 45:18).

In view of the natural world and the observable and logical order of things, Thomas Aquinas famously developed these syllogistic proofs for the existence of God:

The First Way: Argument from Motion

• Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
• Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
• Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
• Nothing can be at once actual and potential in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
• Therefore, nothing can move itself.
• Therefore, each thing in motion is moved by something else.
• The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
• Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

• We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
• Nothing exists prior to itself.
• Therefore, nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
• If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
• Therefore, if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
• The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
• Therefore, it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

• We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, which come into being and go out of being (i.e., contingent beings).
• Assume that every being is a contingent being.
• For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
• Therefore, it is impossible for these always to exist.
• Therefore, there could have been a time when no things existed.
• Therefore, at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
• Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
• We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
• Therefore, not every being is a contingent being.
• Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

• There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
• Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter as it more nearly resembles what is hottest).
• The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
• Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Most natural things lack knowledge.

But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligent.

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

(slightly modified from Theodore Gracyk analysis of Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God)

AI-Expanded Reflection

Genesis opens by identifying God as the source of the heavens and the earth. It does not begin with a detached philosophical investigation and then introduce God as the best remaining hypothesis. Its narrative teaches readers how to regard the world: created, ordered, good, and dependent on a Creator who speaks. The original’s use of Psalm 19 and Romans 1 develops the conviction that this created order bears witness to its source. Such witness invites attention to the world rather than contempt for careful investigation of it.

Aquinas’s Five Ways address the question through a different kind of discourse. His argument from motion concerns the actualization of potential, so motion has a broader philosophical role than an object merely changing its location. His illustration of a staff moved by a hand also shows why the issue is not simply finding the earliest event on a timeline. The argument concerns dependence in an ordered sequence of causes. The efficient-cause argument similarly denies that something can be the cause of itself. These points can be checked against Aquinas’s own presentation in the Summa Theologiae, I, question 2, article 3. Aquinas, The existence of God

The supplied outline is a useful starting aid, but condensed syllogisms can conceal the premises that require the most discussion. In the argument from contingency, for example, a reader must examine carefully how conclusions about all things together follow from claims about individual contingent things. In the argument from degrees of perfection, one must ask why a maximum should be understood as a cause rather than merely a standard of comparison. In the argument from directed activity, one must clarify what it means for natural processes to act toward ends. Raising these questions is part of taking the arguments seriously, not an automatic rejection of theism.

It is equally important not to make the arguments say that everything whatsoever must have a cause, since that formulation immediately invites the question of what caused God. Their intended distinction is between dependent realities and a source that does not depend in the same way. Whether a particular argument successfully establishes that source remains a matter for reasoned examination. The conclusion also requires further theological development before it becomes a full account of the God Christians confess as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The original’s unnamed scientist quotation should therefore be received as an apologetic opinion, not as an established scientific finding. Similarly, alternatives to creation should not all be compressed into the claim that everything happened by chance. That description can obscure the actual position of the person with whom we are speaking. A constructive conversation asks what the other person believes about existence, intelligibility, and causation, and then responds to that account rather than to an easier substitute.

Finally, the biblical language of foolishness in Psalms 14 and 53 appears within an indictment of corruption and practical disregard for God. It should not become permission to mock the intelligence of someone wrestling with belief. Christian confidence can be accompanied by intellectual patience. Creation’s witness, philosophical reflection, and the particular revelation of God in Scripture raise related but distinguishable questions. Pursued honestly, they can lead believers toward wonder, gratitude, and responsible care for a world they receive as a gift rather than possess as their own ultimate achievement.

An interesting question occurred to me reading Genesis 1–3: why did Adam take the fruit? He had to know what it was and where the tree stood. Chapter 2 tells us the tree was in the garden when God created Adam; Eve's creation isn't mentioned until later in the chapter. Adam walked with God in the garden, and God pointed the tree out to him directly (Genesis 2:17). So why did Adam take it? Eve had something of an excuse — she hadn't walked with God as long, and didn't have the same relationship with Him that Adam had. Adam had no such excuse.

I think Adam remembered his life before Eve, and as much as he loved God, he wanted to keep his helpmate more. I think his love for his wife in that moment overwhelmed him, and he forgot who God was and how good his relationship with God had been, out of fear that God would take Eve away. He was afraid of the consequences she would face. And what the serpent said made a kind of sense. So even knowing God would be displeased, he ate anyway.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Genesis is spare about Adam's motive — it says only that Eve gave to her husband and he ate (3:6), with no stated reasoning at all — so the explanation offered here is a reconstruction rather than something the text supplies. As reconstructions go, it's a thoughtful one, and it has the merit of taking seriously a detail the narrative does emphasize: Adam received the prohibition directly and before Eve existed, which the text is careful to establish. Whether his motive was fear of losing her, simple passivity, or something else, the asymmetry in what each of them knew firsthand is genuinely in the text, and it's the kind of detail that rewards the close attention this comment is giving it.

Hallelujah! If you've followed the reading schedule on this site, you've completed the Bible in one year. Take a moment to give God an offering of thanksgiving — then move immediately into the new year of reading. Some milestones are done and over, but this one is like laying stones on the Taj Mahal: every stone is progress, but one stone, or even a few, doesn't complete the structure. One thing I've found helpful is to read a different Bible version each year. I just completed the NKJV; this year I'll read the ASV. You can change your default version under Account on this site.

On evolution. As I understand it, evolution describes change by natural selection over time, and is often divided into two broad categories. Microevolution refers to adaptive change within a species — variations in skin tone, eye color, and so on, influenced by environment. Macroevolution refers to change between species. Christians readily accept microevolution, understood as variation within a kind; we reject macroevolution because it runs counter to the biblical statement that God created the various creatures "according to its kind" (Genesis 1:11–12, 21, 25). The Bible is not primarily a scientific book, but where it addresses a scientific matter, I believe it is accurate and true.

On the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1. To make Scripture more consistent with scientific theory, many argue that "day" here isn't a literal 24-hour day but a long age representing thousands or millions of years. I find this view problematic in both the immediate and wider context of Scripture.

Ham's argument in summary: the Hebrew word yom can carry several meanings depending on context, but whenever it appears with a number or with the phrase "evening and morning," it denotes an ordinary day — and Genesis 1 uses both markers for each of the six days. He argues that 2 Peter 3:8, often cited to support long ages, actually concerns God's relationship to time in the context of Christ's return and says nothing about the creation days; and that its reciprocal phrasing (a thousand years as one day) cancels the argument it's enlisted for. His central theological concern is that admitting long ages admits death, disease, and suffering before Adam's sin, since the fossil record is a record of death — which he argues undermines the doctrine of original sin and the logic of the cross, given that Scripture ties death to sin and promises a future restoration free of both. He also points to Exodus 20:11, where the six-days-and-rest pattern grounds the seven-day week, arguing that long ages would render that pattern meaningless.

On Genesis 3:15. A brief comment on a theologically famous verse: God puts enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between their offspring — He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel. Theologians commonly read this as a pre-incarnate reference to the conflict between Christ and Satan. Perhaps. Or it may simply mean that since the serpent is cursed to crawl, it would strike at a person's heel while a person could crush its head. The fuller meaning is attributed not from anything in the immediate context but from what is revealed later — in fact, we have to go all the way to Revelation to find the serpent identified explicitly.

On Genesis 3 and 1 Timothy 2. Paul writes that Adam was formed first, then Eve, and that Adam was not deceived but the woman was — yet she will be "saved in childbearing" if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (a reference to 1 Timothy 2:13–15). This is a hard passage. Without an extensive discussion of gender roles here, let me note the link to Genesis 3 and the often-confused reference to being "saved in childbearing." First, it would contradict the whole testimony of Scripture to argue women are eternally saved from sin by bearing children; that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone. Second, it stretches the text to argue this refers to the birth of Christ through Mary. Better to read it in context, where Paul is addressing roles within the church and alluding to Genesis 3.

A final point. I encourage everyone to meditate on Genesis 3:19: "For dust you are." I've written many times that we humans, even Christians, hold too high a view of ourselves. Let us remember we are dust. Whatever dignity and worth we have is only by virtue of what God has granted. Some argue God does not override human will in salvation because that would make us robots. I'd contend we are less than robots — Scripture says we are dust, and a robot surely has greater worth than dust. We are clay in the Potter's hand, and our only claim to fame is His choice to extend saving grace for the sake of His Name.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Three of the threads in this comment sit on genuinely contested ground, and each deserves to be named as such rather than passed along as settled.

On creation and evolution: the micro/macro distinction as drawn here does not correspond to how the scientific community frames the question — mainstream biology regards the two as the same process operating over different timescales, and considers common descent to be supported by converging evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetics rather than an untested conjecture. Whether that evidence should change how a Christian reads Genesis 1 is exactly where believers who hold Scripture equally authoritative divide, and the range is wider than this comment's framing suggests: young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, and evolutionary creation are all held by people with serious commitments to biblical authority. Readers should know they are choosing among live options, not between Scripture and unbelief.

On Genesis 3:15: the comment's caution is fair as far as it goes, but the messianic reading it treats as merely possible has very deep roots, appearing in Jewish interpretation before the New Testament and echoed by Paul when he writes that God will soon crush Satan under the feet of believers (Romans 16:20). That the fuller identification arrives later in the canon is not unusual for how Scripture handles promise and fulfillment.

On 1 Timothy 2:15: this is among the most debated verses in the Pauline corpus, and the disagreement extends well beyond the two readings ruled out here. Complementarian and egalitarian interpreters both take Paul seriously and both have substantial exegetical cases, differing over whether his appeal to the created order establishes a permanent pattern or addresses a specific situation in Ephesus. Whatever position a reader holds, it's worth separating that question from the claim about a woman's "natural bent" toward usurping authority — that inference goes beyond what either Genesis 3 or 1 Timothy 2 states, and it isn't necessary to the complementarian case, which its more careful defenders typically ground in created order rather than in an attributed disposition.

Having just read the first three chapters of Genesis, it confirmed for me exactly why we need to keep reading the Bible, over and over, year after year.

When the serpent deceived Eve, he asked, "did God really say...?" When we face similar questions in our own lives, how can we answer if we don't actually know what God said — how could we know, without reading His Word regularly? To fight deception and temptation in our own lives, we absolutely must know the truth revealed in God's actual words.

The whole conversation is fascinating. God had said Adam and Eve were free to eat from any tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, since eating from it would surely bring death (a paraphrase of Genesis 2:16–17). First, the serpent misquotes God, asking whether He'd really said they couldn't eat from any tree in the garden — a clever, misleading trick question, putting words in God's mouth He never actually said. In response, Eve actually adds to what God said herself, claiming they weren't even allowed to touch the forbidden tree, not just eat from it (a paraphrase of Genesis 3:3). Why did Eve add to God's actual words? We need to be careful about what we add to Scripture ourselves. Many so-called "Christian" cults either subtract from clearly revealed biblical truth or add extra material to it — errors both old and still emerging today generally trace back to exactly this pattern: deletions from, or additions to, the truth God has already revealed.

So many Christians today keep looking for more than what God has already shown us — described under various labels like "a new anointing" or "new revelation." Many simply aren't satisfied with what God has already sufficiently revealed.

My prayer for our church is that through this year's Bible reading, God would reveal Himself anew to each of us — that as we learn with our minds the redemptive plan God had from the very beginning of creation, that knowledge would transform our hearts into Christ's own likeness. Jesus tells us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind — the first and greatest commandment (a paraphrase of Matthew 22:37–38).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The specific dynamic this comment identifies — subtracting from or adding to revealed truth — is worth naming as the two basic moves virtually every significant doctrinal departure from historic Christian teaching has taken, across many centuries and many different movements, whatever their specific content. Naming the pattern this broadly, without needing to single out any particular contemporary group, may actually be the more useful diagnostic tool here — since the warning applies just as much to well-meaning mainstream believers quietly reshaping God to fit their preferences as it does to any formally organized movement, which is closer to the caution this comment's own closing prayer is actually reaching for.

Friends, we begin just the second full year of our joint Quiet Time experience through this site. I hope 2010 was meaningful for you in God's Word — though I know it wasn't, for all of you. In my own experience, I've learned that lasting transformation happens through fits and starts, within a context of longstanding obedience. So my charge to you this year is simple: persevere. At the proper time, we'll reap a harvest if we don't give up (a paraphrase of Galatians 6:9). Remember the collective testimony of the saints of old, through which we understand that a life of faith is a life of constant discipline — no discipline feels pleasant at the time, only painful, but it later produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those trained by it (a paraphrase of Hebrews 12:11). Looking forward to that harvest, let's persevere.

Someone recently asked what the serpent meant telling Eve they'd "be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5), especially since God seems to confirm this outcome afterward, saying the man had indeed become like one of them, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:22). One example of this new "knowing good and evil" was their shift from being unashamed of their nakedness (cf. Genesis 2:25) to becoming aware of it and ashamed (cf. Genesis 3:7–8) — a change punctuated by God's confrontational question, "who told you that you were naked?" — and, if no one had told them, His follow-up: had they eaten from the tree He'd commanded them not to eat from (a paraphrase of Genesis 3:11)?

This exchange helps us understand what actually happened when the first man and woman disobeyed God. They gained something, but they also lost something. They gained knowledge — moral awareness of good and evil — but lost their innocence. They trusted the serpent's "you will not surely die" over God's own "you will surely die" (Genesis 3:4; 2:17), following their own desire (Genesis 3:6) instead of God's command (Genesis 2:16–17). Rather than remaining satisfied with God's generous provision — free to eat from any tree in the garden (Genesis 2:16) — they questioned His goodness, believed Satan's lie (Genesis 3:1), and fixated instead on the one tree that was forbidden. Before this disobedience, they trusted God alone, and so only knew and only did what was good. The moment they disobeyed, they severed that pure dependence on God — becoming self-aware, independent, and morally separated from their Creator. From that moment, they began to "die" (cf. Genesis 2:17), a sentence punctuated by their removal from Eden and, specifically, their new exclusion from the tree of life, which would have granted them immortality (cf. Genesis 3:22–24).

Interestingly, a well-known Christian psychologist once observed that every human problem can be traced back to our desire for independence from God — meaning most psychological counsel and technique amounts to little more than a bandage, sometimes doing more harm than good, with the real solution found only in a return to simple dependence on God alone. Another well-known Christian teacher captures the same principle slightly differently, describing it as complete delight in God alone. Friends, let's learn from these early chapters of Genesis what was true at the beginning and remains true now — that we were created simply and completely to depend upon, and delight in, God alone.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The dependence-versus-independence framework this comment closes with is worth extending one step further into the rest of Scripture's story: the whole biblical narrative can be read as God's long project of restoring exactly the dependence lost in this scene — culminating in Jesus, described as the "last Adam," who, unlike the first, remained in perfect dependence on the Father even under direct satanic temptation in the wilderness (a paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 15:45; cf. Luke 4:1–13). Where the first Adam grasped for independent knowledge and lost paradise, the last Adam refused that same grasp and secured redemption instead. The garden's original failure and the wilderness's later success form two deliberate bookends around the same fundamental temptation — trusting one's own judgment over God's word — with opposite outcomes.

"In the beginning God" — this is an amazing start to an amazing book. The Bible begins with the presumption of God's existence and preeminence. Since all things must have a starting point, and whatever starts all things must extend beyond our own perception, the Bible tells us that this starting point, exceeding all our perception, is God.

AI-Expanded Reflection

John's Gospel deliberately echoes this exact opening phrase over a thousand years later, beginning "in the beginning was the Word" (a paraphrase of John 1:1) — a direct, unmistakable callback linking Genesis's account of creation to Christ's own role in it. The Bible's very first and its most theologically dense book both choose the identical opening words on purpose, suggesting that everything else Scripture describes about redemption is meant to be read against the backdrop of this same starting point: a God who precedes everything else that exists.