_The Hebrew spelling of this word means ‘breath,’ ‘vapor,’ that which is ‘insubstantial.’  However, it is more likely that the name should be linked with the Accadian word meaning ‘son.’  Abel was the second son of Adam and Eve and was murdered by his brother Cain because God preferred Abel’s sacrifice over Cain’s.

Abel is referenced multiple times throughout the Bible, including in Heb 11:4; 1 John 3:12; Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51; and Heb 12:24, always as a faithful, innocent, righteous man. 

Biblical references:
Genesis 4:2- “Next she bore his brother Abel.  Abel became a keeper of flocks, and Cain a tiller of the soil. 
Genesis 4:4- “…while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock.  The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering,…”
Genesis 4:8- “Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.”  When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.” 


Sources:
Catholic Book Publishing. (various) Genesis: Chapter 2 Notes. “St. Joseph Edition, New American Bible.” New York, NY: Catholic Book Publishing.

Green, Kevin (compiler). (2008). Eden. “All-In-One Bible Reference Guide”.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Lockyear Sr., H. (Ed.) (1986) Eden. “Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible”. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

While I will cover the actual book of Psalms, its authors, and origins in greater detail when we reach there, I want to gradually intersperse the Psalms throughout our journey through the Bible.
This is for two reasons:
1) We are doing very detailed studies.  Everyone (including me!) needs a day or so to stop "studying" and instead browse God's word for pleasure. 
2) When we do reach the Book of Psalms, I don't want to spend 150 days posting a single psalm with very few notes, as is the case with most of the Psalms. 

So, enjoy the relaxing days when I post just the a psalm!  They will, of course, also be posted under their appropriate section on the website.  In this case, Psalms is under the "OT 2" tab. 

Psalm 1:
True Happiness in God's Law

1 Happy those who do not follow the counsel of the wicked,
Nor go the way of sinners, nor sit in company with scoffers.
2 Rather, the law of the Lord is their joy; God's law they study day and night.
3 They are like a tree planted near streams of water, that yields is fruit in season;
Its leaves never wither; whatever they do prospers.
4 But not the wicked!  They are like chaff driven by the wind.
5 Therefore the wicked will not survive judgement, nor will sinners in the assembly of the just.
6 The Lord watches over the way of the just, but the way of the wicked leads to ruin. 

The Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  It is derived from the Greek "pentateuchos" meaning "five containers" or "five-volumed."  It enjoys particular prestige among Jews as the "Law" or "Torah," the concrete expression of God's will.  It also has the benefit of being containing five books that have NEVER had their canonicity called into question (by either Jews, Catholics, or Protestants).  The division of the material into five sections is supported by both the Septuagint, a 3rd century B.C. translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, as well as the Samaritan Pentateuch, which dates from even earlier. 

As for material, it contains: a body of legal doctrine, the formation of the People of God (Abraham and the patriarchs), Moses and the oppressed Hebrews in Egypt, the birth of Israel in the Sinai covenant, the journey to the promised land, and the "discourses" of Moses.  The time frame is from creation to the end of the Mosaic era. 

Many scholars divide/identify the material as coming from four major historical traditions/sources: Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P), and Deuteronomic (D).  This theory is called the "Documentary Hypothesis."  However, this is a simplification, and one that many scholars are now rejecting, due to the simple fact that all four of these "divisions" draw upon even older material from different sources (not just from four major sources), and that it ignores what we know of literary traditions of the time (for example, how stories would often be told from two or more points of view, even by the same author).  However, other scholars feel that modifying the initial hypothesis, not rejecting it outright, is the proper course of action.  By looking at the Pentateuch from the Documentary Hypothesis viewpoint, one can accept the fact that Moses was not the sole author of this entire section of the Bible, as previously believed.  It also gives us deeper insight in the meaning behind various verses if one can understand the background and viewpoint of that particular "author" or school of authorship.  It must be noted that more conservative scholars vehemently reject this theory, saying that it shows a complete misunderstanding of how early writings were passed on, and "rewrites the Bible" by forcing a 19th century and later editing process on material that is ancient. 

First of all, I would like to thank all of my readers who take time to comment.  But I cannot approve comments that are "rants" again certain denominations or groups of people.  While legitimate criticisms can be applied to all churches (after all, Churches are made up of sinners, as is every human), I don't want to provide a platform for biased arguments.

I would like to state that my original statement: "The Catholic Church, the most conservative of believers" was incorrect.  There are churches and denominations that ARE more conservative.  The point I was trying to get across was that even very conservative churches and scholars generally accept that the Bible must be interpreted.  I chose my words poorly, and labeled a single church with a single label, which is unfair to the church in question, other churches, and the members of those churches.  Thank you to the reader in question for pointing that out. 

In Chapter 4, we meet Cain and Abel, and witness the first murder committed by man.  In our prior discussion, we studied the word origins of various names used in Chapter 4.  We also looked at the practice of sacrifice and why Abel’s sacrifice was preferred.   

 For additional discussion, we are going to look at Cain and at the perplexing question of Cain’s wife.  This will be divided into two parts: 1) Biography of Cain  -and-  2) Where did Cain find his wife?

Part 1:
Cain (biography):
Origin of the name: Genesis 4:1- “The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying ‘I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.’”  The Hebrew name "qayin" (Cain) and the term "qaniti" (I have produced) is another play on words that would be recognized in the original Hebrew, but is lost in translation.  An extremely rough equivalent would be “I have gained Cain”, with gain meaning “to begat” or “to create”

The first son of Adam and Eve.  The first murderer in human history- killed his brother Abel because God preferred Abel’s sacrifice over his own.  In punishment, Cain was “banned from the soil” and condemned to wander the Earth.  He settled in the land of Nod and built a city.  His descendants include: Jabal (forefather of tent-dwelling cattle-keepers), Jubal (forefather of musicians), Tubal-Cain (forefather of smiths).  It is also hypothesized that Cain is the father of the Kenites, which included both shepherds and metal-workers.  In this theory, though, some of the descendants of Cain must have survived the flood.  This is entirely possible as it is becoming more common to accept that the flood was not world-wide. 

The Oxford Illustrated Companion to the Bible lists multiple later interpretations, including identifying Cain as the son of either Satan, the wicked angel Sammael, or the serpent in the Garden of Eden.  It also states that the “Zohar” and various medieval legends speculate on the fate of Cain’s offspring (with his wife Awan, meaning “Wickedness”) as demons.

Part 2:
4:17 Where did Cain find his wife?  Reading the Bible, one naturally comes to a perplexing question: if Cain’s parents were literally the first two people on Earth, where did Cain find his wife?  There are two possible solutions to this dilemma. 

1) If one takes a literal view of the story of Genesis (see Genesis: Chapter 3: Additional Notes & Discussion for more information), then one accepts not only that Adam and Eve were literal figures, but that they really lived for 800 years.   The Bible also states that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters.  Genesis states that Cain “settled in the land of Nod.”  One reads specifically that Cain spent many years wandering before he settled down and started a family.  Quite logically, then, Cain may have married one of his sisters, or the daughter of one of his many brother or sisters. 

2) One can also accept that between the literary traditions of the time and the oral tradition by which we have received these stories, that Genesis is figurative, not explicitly literal.  In that case, early humans may have fallen from grace and Adam and Eve could have been literal people, but they may have been part of a tribe of humans, not the only two humans ever in existence.  Cain, in this theory, has multiple options when choosing a wife. 

Brown, Raymond E. (S.S.), Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (S.J.), & Murphy, Roland E. (O. Carm). (1990) Genesis. “The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.” Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Catholic Book Publishing. (various) Genesis: Chapter 4 Notes. “St. Joseph Edition, New American Bible.” New York, NY: Catholic Book Publishing.

Geisler, Norman & Howe, Thomas. (1992). Genesis 4:17. “The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.” Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Green, Kevin (compiler). (2008). Cain. “All-In-One Bible Reference Guide”.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Metzger, Bruce M. & Coogan, Michael D. (2003). Eden. “The Oxford Illustrated Companion to the Bible”. New York, NY: Tess Press.

Rhodes, Ron. (2008). Genesis 4:17. “Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses.” Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers.”

Adam & Eve:  Past the Hype

This article is divided into three parts:
1) Notes and Discussion on Language
2) “The Fall of Eve?” or “The Fall of Adam and Eve?”
3) The Bible Uses Figurative Language: Follow Your Heart

1) Notes and Discussion on Language:
Many people underestimate both the challenge of understanding the translation process and the rich amount of learning that can be gained by thoroughly understanding that same process.  I shall set forth the many proposals put forth, and allow the reader to absorb what they will. 

Adam:
-It could be ultimately derived from Hebrew meaning “to be red”, referring to the ruddy colour of human, or from Akkadian “adamu” meaning “to make.” 
-With Adam, God is portrayed as a potter molding man's body out of the clay.  This is a play on the how the words sound in Hebrew.  The Hebrew "Adam" is "man" and "adama" is "ground".  Adam is literally simply named “man”.
-“Adham” is Hebrew for “of the ground” or “taken out of the red earth.”  

Eve:
-From the Hebrew name “Chawwah”, which was derived from the Hebrew word “chawah”, “to breath” or the related word “chayah,” “to live.” 
-With Eve, the name is also descriptive.  The Hebrew name “hawwa” (Eve) is related to the Hebrew word “Hay” (living).  This implies that she is not only the mother of all the living, but also the mother of promised Seed who would give life to the human race now subjected to death. 
-The name given to the first woman by the first man (Gen. 3:20).  The Bible interprets this name to mean “the mother of all living,” both because Eve is, through her sons, the female ancestor of the entire human race and because the name sounds similar to the Hebrew word for “living being.”  The wordplay is probably etymologically incorrect, and later rabbinic tradition proposed a connection with the Aramaic word “serpent.”  The actual linguistic derivation of the name remains uncertain. (Oxford)

2) “The Fall of Eve?”  or “The Fall of Adam and Eve?”
Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, has dedicated her life to understand the Bible and sharing that knowledge with others.  I am going to quote her directly out of my great respect for her learning…..my paraphrasing would be insult to her concise and well-reasoned arguments.  I went back and double-checked the Bible verses myself.  She’s right…the Bible specifically states that they WERE together when the serpent spoke to them; God DID create them as equal; and they were BOTH cursed/punished, not just Eve.  Anyway, in her own words:

“According to the the account in Genesis 2-3, the woman is created to be a companion corresponding to (not originally subordinate to) the man.  Because the two of them eat the forbidden fruit, the man is destined to toil as a farmer in fields of thorns and thistles, and the woman is destined to suffer pain in childbearing.  It is in the aftermath of these divine pronouncements that the man names the woman as he had earlier named the animals, thus indicating dominion over her. 
   
Both Jewish tradition and the New Testament offer a very negative view of Eve, presenting her as representative of the alleged weaknesses of women.  Paul feared that the Corinthian Christians would be led astray from Christ as Eve was deceived by the serpent (2 Cor 11.2).  In 1 Timonthy 2.13-15, Eve’s deception by the serpent and also her creation subsequent to the man are cited as reasons that women must keep silent in church (cf 1 Cor 14.34-35) and hold no authority over men.  Early Christian theologians contrasted Eve’s sinfulness with the perfection of the “new Eve,” Mary,  the mother of Jesus.

This traditional emphasis on the gullibility of Eve and her tendency toward sin is one possible interpretation of the Genesis narrative itself.  Genesis 3 gives no indication why the serpent addressed the woman and even indicates that the man and woman were together when the serpent spoke.  It has been suggested that the serpent might have addressed the woman as provider of food or as theological thinker, not as the more gullible of the couple, and that the woman’s addition to the divine prohibition about the fruit (“we may not touch it”) represents not a lie, but a desirable exaggeration meant to make sure that the basic command would not be broken.  The man and woman together discover their nakedness, together make fig leaf garments, and together hide from the deity.  Both are destined to a life of pain (neither is cursed) because of their actions, and together they are expelled from the garden.  Thus, once the reader sets aside the portrait of Eve based on later tradition, the great skill of the Genesis narrator in presenting a character open to diverse interpretation becomes apparent.”


3) The Bible Uses Figurative Language: Follow Your Heart
This current insistence on refusing to accept that the Bible uses various literary techniques and that every single word is a literal fact, not to be interpreted in any way, is simply foolish.  I’m sorry, but it’s true.  The Catholic Church, the most conservative of believers, maintains the position that we as human being must INTERPRET the Bible, that God can have placed more than one meaning in each story, and that our understanding can be wrong. 
It also specifically, and in multiple places states, that the various events in Genesis are used to illustrate an eternal truth, that God is behind the existence of all, NOT that every event in Genesis took place during a literal 24-hour day, that the world began only 10,000 years ago, or that evolution is completely false.   The following article explain these concepts at further length: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution 
As with all, use your mind.  Pray to God for guidance.  And follow your heart.

When we first contemplate Eden, the best place to start is with the exact Biblical verses that talk of Eden.  After reading the Bible verses, we will look at possible word origins and translation notes as well as the various locations scholars have suggested for Eden.  And finally, we will look at the various meanings and interpretations that can be drawn from the verses about the Garden of Eden.

In this case, I have taken these verses from the St. Joseph Edition, New American Bible. 
Genesis, Chapter 2, Verses 8-15:
8 Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed.
9 Out of the ground the Lord God made various trees grow that were delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
10 A river rises in Eden to water the garden; beyond there it divides and becomes four branches.
11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it is the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 
12 The gold of that land is excellent; bdellium and lapis lazuli are also there.
13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it is the one that winds all through the land of Cush.
14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it is the one that flows east of Asshur.  The fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.

Word Translation & Origins:
In the Saint Joseph Bible, the notes for this section note that in Sumerian the word Eden is derived from ‘eden’, meaning ‘fertile plain.  In Hebrew, a similar-sounding word means ‘delight.’  Together:  the garden in Eden could therefore be understood as the ‘garden of delight,’ so that, through the Greek version, it comes to us as ‘paradise,’ literally, a ‘pleasure park.’
The Archeological Study Bible has a slightly different meaning for the words.  They state that the Sumerian word ‘eden’ means ‘steppe’ or ‘open field,’ and the identical Semitic word, denotes ‘luxury’ or ‘delight.’   The Garden of Eden is not only the name of the garden in which the first humans resided but also a metaphor for the Garden of God, or Yahweh’s dwelling place. 
The Oxford Illustrated Companion to the Bible agrees with the general meanings stated above: that some scholars connect the word ‘eden’ with a Sumerian meaning  of “wilderness” or “plain,” while others have proposed a derivation from the Hebrew word for “delight” or “pleasure.”  Therefore, we identify Eden as an ideal garden of delight, or paradise. 


Location:

*****St. Jerome’s commentary takes perhaps the most logical stand about the location: it states simply that the Garden of Eden is the locale of God.  They take the following reasons as evidence:
    “The river going forth from Eden to water the garden and thence dividing into four rivers of the world, may be the ‘flow’ referenced in verse 6.
    In some Ugaritic and Akk texts the high god dwells at the ‘source of the double deep,’ i.e., the source of all life-giving waters of the earth. 
    The totality of the world is symbolized by ‘four,’ as in the Akk phrase ‘the four quarters of the earth.’ 
St. Jerome’s commentary goes on to state flatly that the location of Pishon and Havilah in this text is unknown.  Later in the Bible, Havilah is a descendant of Shem and Gihon is the name of a spring in Jerusalem.  However, here the river Gihon flows through Cush in southern Mesopotamia (as deduced by the known positions of the Tigris and Euphrates).  
The Zondervan All-in-One Bible Reference Guide also admits the truth: we simply do not have sufficient evidence to determine where the Garden of Eden was actually located. 
The Archeological Study Bible puts forth possible meanings for the Gihon River and Pishon River, with the Gihon possibly being Hebrew for ‘to gush’ and the Pishon being understood as a form of the Semitic verb ‘to spring up.’ Even with these meanings, the ASB admits that the two rivers are difficult to identify.

*****Some scholars believe that the Gihon refers to the Nile, as Cush is sometimes associated with Nubia, south of Egypt.  This is a belief with many complications as by naming the Gihon as the Nile, it makes the rest of the geography impossible, as the other rivers are in a completely different region.

*****Other scholars identify Cush as the land of Kassites, east of the Tigris, which was also known as Kush during ancient times.  This theory has the benefit of placing three of the rivers noted (Gihon, Tigris, & Euphrates) in the same region.  Supported by the verse that God placed the Garden “in the east,” presumably, to the east of Canaan/Israel, where most of the later events of the Bible took place. 

*****A final theory is that Gihon and Pishon were simply parts of the Tigris or Euphrates Rivers, in the form of canals or tributaries.  This is also supported by the verse that God placed the Garden “in the east,” presumably, to the east of Canaan/Israel, where most of the later events of the Bible took place

These theories, while separate from each other, can be incorporated into another set of theories, these based around the words in Verse 10: “A river rises in Eden to water the garden; beyond there it divides and becomes four branches.”  These theories debate whether Eden was upriver of the four branches, encompassed the four rivers, or was downstream of the location of the four branches.

*****The first theory is that the four rivers shared a common source in Eden, placing Eden in northern Mesopotamia or Armenia.  However, the fact that the Tigris and Euphrates lack a common source makes this theory suspect.

*****The second theory is that Eden is upriver of the four branches.  This makes some sense with the current geography as the Tigris and Euphrates do indeed converge in southern Mesopotamia before they empty into the Persian Gulf.  In this scenario Eden may still, as above, have been located in northern Mesopotamia or in the mountains in Armenia, from which the Tigris and Euphrates spring. 

*****A third is theory is that Eden was in southern Mesopotamia, where the Tigris and Euphrates converge.  This would place Eden downriver of the four branches. 

*****A fourth theory is that Eden refers to an extremely large area of land, and that the four rivers referred to did not actually “meet” at any point, and instead, that they simply flowed within the boundaries of Eden.  In this theory, some believe that the Pishon and Gihon respresent the Indus and Nile, indicating that Eden includes the entire Fertile Crescent from India to Egypt.

Further Notes:

Once we have dispensed with the many, many theories about where Eden was located, we must look beyond the literal words to the various meanings and interpretations included in these verses.  Eden has at its center the tree of life and the tree of knowledge.  Thus, the garden is not simply an earthly garden, but a place created especially by God for humans.  It is a model of the perfect relationship that existed between God and humans before the disobedience. 

According to the Oxford Illustrated Companion to the Bible, later prophets had an altered meaning of the term.  I’ll quote directly from that source: “The image of the garden of Eden reappears in somewhat altered form in the later prophets.  The expulsion from Eden functions as a metaphor for the coming judgment against the nations (Tyre: Ezek. 28:11-19; Egypt: Ezek 31:8,9,16,18), and for the coming judgment of the day of the Lord (Joel 2:3).  The garden of Eden is also an image of promise; in parallel with ‘the garden of the Lord,’ Eden appears in Isaiah 51:3 as a metaphor for the renewal of the land of Israel after the Babylonian exile (see also Ezek. 26:25, Rev. 22:2-3).”


Further reading:
I found a wonderful site that goes much more deeply into the matter of the location that I do.  If you want more- or more complete- information, please visit: http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/biblical-garden-of-eden.html.
 

Sources:

Brown, Raymond E. (S.S.), Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (S.J.), & Murphy, Roland E. (O. Carm). (1990) Genesis. “The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.” Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Catholic Book Publishing. (various) Genesis: Chapter 2 Notes. “St. Joseph Edition, New American Bible.” New York, NY: Catholic Book Publishing.

Geisler, Norman & Howe, Thomas. (1992). Genesis 2:8. “The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.” Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. (2005). The Location of Eden. “New International Version: Archaeological Study Bible”. Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, MI.

Green, Kevin (compiler). (2008). Eden. “All-In-One Bible Reference Guide”.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Lockyear Sr., H. (Ed.) (1986) Eden. “Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible”. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Metzger, Bruce M. & Coogan, Michael D. (2003). Eden. “The Oxford Illustrated Companion to the Bible”. New York, NY: Tess Press.

There are "difficulties" and misunderstandings about a lot of Bible verses, and some of the most complex and interesting of these are in Genesis. 

2:2- Were the "days" and "nights" referred to during creation literal 24-hour periods?  There is evidence both for and against the idea that these days were meant to be interpreted as 24-hour periods of time.  First of all, there is no contradiction between the Bible and fact; it is a contradiction about the scientific evidence and/or the interpretation of scripture.  The evidence of the Earth being billions of years old agrees completely if one interprets the "days" referenced to be longer periods of time than a simple 24 hours.  So, either most scientists are wrong about the age of the Earth or SOME Biblical commentators are incorrect in their interpretation when they insist the days of creation were 24-hour periods with no gaps before, during, or after.  (Evidence for the different interpretations of the meaning of the word "day" are available in multiple commentaries, study books, internet pages, and Bibles.  I won't belabor the issue by re-hashing all of the quotes on both sides of the issue.)

2:8- Was Eden a real location on Earth?  See "Eden" entry under Dictionary & Facts section of the website (Eden is located on the "Places" page).

2:17- God states "the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."   Why, then, didn't Adam immediately die?  Various explanations include: From the moment he took the first bite, the endless, happy existence he was going to have in Eden vanished and the fact that he would eventually die became a reality.  Hence, he began to physically die.  Adam "died" spiritually, that is, he was separated from God from the moment he ate of the fruit. 

2:19- The order of creation: animals, man, then man naming the animals, seems to be different in chapters 1 and 2.  Chapter 1 gives a strict chronological explanation of creation.  Chapter 2 covers the story in general, with the focus being on God bringing the animals (which he had previously created) to Adam to be named. 

Authored by Leandro Delgado

I have found myself in the midst of a great rivalry. Of course it is not as old and has not gotten as famous like some of the well-known rivalries like: the Hatfileds vs. the McCoys, Cox vs Direct tv, or Tyson vs. Holyfield. The only people who are aware of the rivalry are my husband (because he is forced to listen) and the barista involved. I visit the coffee shop across the street every morning. I order the same thing everyday. Several times she has made my drink the wrong way, politely, I drank it and decided not to complain. After I felt like the mistake was on the reg, I decided to point it out. What a mistake! Now, when she waits on me she is careful to take her time. I waited for ten minutes the other morning for my latte when no one else was in line. She will make my skinny latte, with whole milk! I don’t know what to do. My husband suggested I just go to the coffee shop next door, but that would be like losing!

There are "difficulties" and misunderstanding about a lot of Bible verses, and some of the most complex and interesting are in Genesis. 

Genesis 1:1- the actual point of creation.  In science, it is called "THE singularity" (a singularity is a zone that cannot be explained with our current understanding of physics).  The theory of the Big Bang works perfectly mathematically until it goes back it time towards the actual point of creation.  Thus far, science cannot explain the actual moment of creation.  The same problem arises with the scientific law "energy is neither created nor destroyed."  The math falls apart at the actual moment of creation.  So, the Biblical explanation does NOT contradict with the scientific explanation.  However, many scientists are starting to disbelieve the Big Bang theory due to the fact there are many contradictions.  Research and theories are constantly being developed and are beyond the scope of this book.

Genesis 1:1-5- were the "days" and "nights" literally 24-hour periods?  (See Genesis: Chapter 2 for more complete discussion). 

Genesis 1: 13-18- the sun wasn't created until the third day, but God separated the light and darkness on the first day.  There are two explanations often put forth: 1) God Himself was the source of light prior to the creation of the sun  -and/or-  2) God had already made the sun prior to this point and it was providing light, but it wasn't until the third day he put it in it's current position (1:17 "set them in the dome of sky"). 

Genesis 1:26- God refers to Himself in the plural when he says "let us make man in our image."  This is simply how the Hebrew language uses the word.  "Us" is simply a more majestic form of "I"....not an indication of multiple Gods, references to the angels, or any other crazy theories (aliens, for example).  Many Middle Eastern languages work this same way.  Some claim that the "us" is a way of proving the existence of the trinity, but that is a misunderstanding of the translation.  Other Old Testament verses more clearly foreshadow the trinity.