The Missing Gap in Genesis
- Thread starter 6days
- Start date
Interplanner
Well-known member
It may be helpful here to read "Horrid Red Things" by Lewis. In "HRT" he describes a child's idea of poison. Poison was defined by some microscopic image the child saw when young and she always associated that with poison. When she got older, she discarded the HRTs thing when she talked about poision, but she still knew what it was.
The modern assumption of the secular world about the Bible is that it never really knew that poison is a harmful; the Bible is like the little girl with a reaction. What matters to the modern secular world is not whether the little girl had defined harm, but whether she was a chemist.
Some anomalies in the Bible like the 10 degrees of the two incidents here may be the only way for them to have described what they saw at that time, while underlying all that, there is another explanation to which they would agree.
The modern assumption of the secular world about the Bible is that it never really knew that poison is a harmful; the Bible is like the little girl with a reaction. What matters to the modern secular world is not whether the little girl had defined harm, but whether she was a chemist.
Some anomalies in the Bible like the 10 degrees of the two incidents here may be the only way for them to have described what they saw at that time, while underlying all that, there is another explanation to which they would agree.
6days
New member
There is only one person here...you, who is inventing stories and adding time into scripture.Interplanner said:
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep"
The watery world God created had no earth and was void / empty of life. God then made dry land...trees...animals...stars...sea monsters...Adam and Eve...etc.
INnterplanner, scripture says nothing about a previous creation... nothing about Pre-adamites. ..nothing about a previous creation destroyed by Satan's rebellion.*
You leapfrog around scripture trying to make it fit your unbiblical beliefs. Jeremiah is not telling us how to interpret Genesis. He compares the devestation of a city and lack of life to the initial state of creation...formless and void.*Interplanner said:
Dr. Ross rejects what God's Word tells us, as he adds secular ideas and millions of years to God's Word. Ross 'preaches' a false gospel of a world of death and suffering that was not a consequence of sin.*Interplanner said:
Also...it seems you have bought into Ross's false teachings, rather than what scripture teaches. The word 'hominid' is generally used by someone trying to blur the lines between animals and humans. Notice in Genesis 1 that God created animals...and God created man.*
Previous life forms??Interplanner said:
You reject what God plainly tells us "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"
My criticisms are always clear when it comes to posts of yours I respond to aikido, and I have no idea WHAT standard you refer to. The Bible is my standard.
I'm not your son pops, but I suggest you actually USE the Bible for support, instead of opining from fallacious POVs.
What I notice, is how some interpret a section of scripture from a completely eisegetical perspective and then CAN'T or WON'T back it up.
Ask a stupid question....
Like I said, ask a stupid question....
I'm a Trekkie....I have a great ability to suspend reality for imagination.
Like I said, ask a stupid question....
Actually a shadow moved, but regardless, no one travelled in through time, GOD did what He needed to do to give Hezekiah his answer.
Paul tells us...Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
You seem to like to paraphrase scripture and reinterpret it's meaning?
Interplanner
Well-known member
6day
Just look at Jer 4:23 for literary usage. Of course Gen 1 is not about Jerusalem, nor did I think for a moment that Jeremiah was saying that. You are ignorant to suggest so.
But the expression, as I have said many times now, means that there is a backstory. Not just a short stage of formlessness. But that "the universe is full of beings and entities"--Greek prof Goodrick. That's why Peter and Jude matter so much. Because the earth is initially blackedout dark to start with, I'm more inclined to go with Peter and Jude than hominids, but whether I see it in Scripture or not, the moon has been pocked and smattered by a huge collision nearby, hasn't it? So we have to integrate all knowledge into one account.
Again, look at Moses style, which you still have not addressed. Everywhere he introduces a section there is:
a title
a pre-existing setting or scene (backstory)
new action.
I can't tell if you pay any attention, because you have never responded to this.
Just as Jer 4 is not about creation as such, Ex 20 is not a complete description of everything in Gen 1 all over. He's not going to take time to develop a back story again when he's busy giving out the basic laws of the community as they face life among Canaanite religion.
Why don't you deal with what I said? You contradicted yourself saying that God exists and that he is outside time and space.
Why don't you answer the question: for God, was there a time when he had not yet created the world?
Yes or no? If you want proper discussion of theology then respond to me!
6days
New member
I said no such thing.*interplanner said:
Yes. .. you really have said that many times. But it isn't in the Bible. There is nothing about a long period of formlessness. * There is nothing about a universe full of beings and entities that existed before the six day creation.interplanner said:
interplanner said:
Yes...before God created light on day 1, it was dark. Wow!
You are more inclined to go with God's Word? Wow!interplanner said:
Yes, but without adding to scripture as you do.*interplanner said:
interplanner said:
I have responded to your assertions numerous times. *You simply refuse to let scripture speak for itself and instead try explain how we can fit secular ideas into Gods Word. There is no room to insert billions of years (or any additional time) into Genesis 1...or before Genesis 1. There was no pre-existing earth, as there is in your 'back story'.*
Like Calvin said of the 'history of the universe as has been set forth by Moses'..." from this history we should learn that God by the power of His Word and Spirit created heaven and earth out of nothing that thereupon he brought forth living beings and inanimate things of....."
Now, the thing is...we don't believe an interpretation just because a theologian gives his opinion. We believe it because God's Word tells us. However, it is noteworthy that virtually all the the early church father's and subsequent theologians up to the 19th century expressed similar ideas like Calvin.*
Does the Bible say God re-formed a pre-existing creation? *No!*
Heb. 11:3 "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible"
Psalm 33:9 "For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm"
Genesis 1 tells us about God speaking the universe into existence.*
Not about creation at all.*interplanner said:
No but it summarizes why God created in 6 days. 'In six days God created the heavens and the earth a d everything in them'interplanner said:
So for brevity sake, God fudged a little?interplanner said:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Sorry but you're just defensive. You're not persuasive about what these texts mean positively.
You won't deal with Peter mentioning Tartarus. If you are uncomfortable with the NT bouncing off of Greek legend, please read Lewis "The Myth that Became Fact" in GOD IN THE DOCK. It is about why the degenerated legends around the world should be expected to be there, rather than ignored or disdained. They have mistakes but they still enlighten as to what was there.
You don't deal correctly with the contrast between 'ekpalai' and 'archeia' in 2 Pet 2 and 3. He specifically contrasts the heavens as being there from of old, while the earth was more recently formed and that forming is grouped with the flood as part of the ancient world, different from ekpalai.
We do know that there was conflict among the angels and Satan took maybe a third down with him. This was before the world was formed. Peter and Jude affirm that they were constrained on places called the blackest darkness, like wandering stars that burn out.
So yes, wow, the first thing we find out about the earth is that it is dark and murky and there is no light that would be significant to be called a day.
The nature of 'formless and void' allows for much time as it is the end- result of other things going on. We don't know exactly what.
So long as you keep entrenching like you do, you will have a split world, which is not what Ps 19 says we have. It says it is all integrated.
I have reviewed 'phaino' in Heb 11:3 because of comments by ___ and many times it means something is not visible in one phase and comes to light later. It is used about natural objects which do this as well as acts by humans (sins, good works). So "nothing" means unformed material in some cases, as it does in Gen 1:1, because of the pre-existing setting found in the next verse.
I am not saying material was eternal, only that there are many indicators of long ages both in and out of the Bible.
btw, Dr. Schaeffer's objection to the Big Bang was not the mechanical steps of it, but the philosophical mistake. He says there was much excitement about it but it didn't answer the ultimate source question. I don't see why there can't be a creation step in which the heavens are formed by such an event ("God's fireworks") and are actually as described and understood by astronomers. But that is not what took place locally in Gen 1. The forming of earth from 'formless and void' was a very different kind of act. Actually (I think you'll enjoy this), 6 days of forming is an 'eternity' compared to how people think of the Big Bang. You may recall how they theorize in as much detail as thousands of a second about what happened.
I'm saying that the heavens sometimes means the distant celestials, as it does in 2 Pet 3, and the earth is sometimes used to mean our sun and moon system in addition to earth.
The people between creation and the flood did not even see Orion, which is where the Greek term heavens comes from ('ouranos'), until after the canopy crashed. There does not appear to have been any astrology until after the flood, because there was only the two lights. After they could see them, they invented stories about them. They worshiped created things rather than the Creator, Rom 1.
6days
New member
What's to deal with?Interplanner said:
The verse says:
◄ 2 Peter 2:4 ►
New International Version
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;
New Living Translation
For God did not spare even the angels who sinned. He threw them into hell, in gloomy pits of darkness, where they are being held until the day of judgment.
English Standard Version
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
Berean Study Bible
For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell, delivering them in chains to be held in gloomy darkness until their judgment;
Berean Literal Bible
For if God did not spare the angels having sinned, but having cast them down to Tartarus, in chains of gloomy darkness, delivered them, being kept for judgment;
New American Standard Bible
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
King James Bible
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
◄ 2 Peter 2:3 ►Interplanner said:
New International Version
In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
New Living Translation
In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed.
English Standard Version
And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
Berean Study Bible
In their greed, these false teachers will exploit you with tales they have concocted. The longstanding verdict against them remains in force, and their destruction does not sleep.
Berean Literal Bible
And through covetousness they will exploit you with fabricated words, for whom the judgment of long ago is not idle, and their destruction does not slumber.
New American Standard Bible
and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
King James Bible
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not
Satan's rebellion may or may not have been before the world was formed. Ex. 20:11 suggests it was actually afterwards, since the angels are created beings.Interplanner said:
The opposite. God's Word does not refer to formless and void as the end result of other things, but instead it refers to it as the beginning.Interplanner said:
Once again you are offering a contrived or tortured explanation of scripture to try and make it fit your belief system. Hebrews 11:3 offers no suggestion at all of a pre-existing creation. You seem to think scripture uses words with obscure meanings that few would understand.Interplanner said:
Yes...of course you want to somehow integrate secular ideas into God's Word.The Big Bang, and many of your beliefs, is totally contradictory to what God tells us.*Interplanner said:
For example
●You seem to believe the sun and stars were created before the earth.
○ The Bible tells us God created the sun and stars on day 4, after the earth which had been created on day one.
●You seem to believe Genesis 1 is describing a 2nd go around for God
○ The Bible tells it was "the beginning"
● You seem to believe that death, disease and suffering existed before man was created.
○ the Bible tells us that death disease and suffering are a result of man's sin.
● You seem to believe that the earth and universe are billions of years old.
○ Jesus refers to Adam and Eve as existing from "The creation".
Etc... the list can go on and on of how you reject scripture.
Laughing.Interplanner said:
You seem to know a lot of things which are not necessarily true. There is nothing in scripture to suggest Adam and Eve could not see the stars.Interplanner said:
Interplanner
Well-known member
There are some items to address here because you are simply not understanding what I'm saying. Other times you're just refusing, and I'll skip those.
1, there is no point in a pile of English translation quotes if you don't read Greek is there? "Hell" is 'tartarus' from Greek myth, but used about hell or these places of blackness; that's the question. Do you always do this poorly on your homework?
2, 'ouranos' and 'archeia' are separated by Peter. They are not the same because of distance but also time. The ancient person thought of the sun and moon as equipment that serviced the earth; they did not have any idea how large it was back then. So the local things are earth. The distant ones are heavens. You know this from day 4: the sun and moon are placed then, but nothing about distant things, which were already there, according to 2 Peter 3.
3, I'm not sure if you have read Gen 3. Satan was already fallen and humiliatedly groveling around earth. He is elsewhere explained as a dazzling and large creature among the stars of God. How can you not be sure of their being banished already (before man's sin) when here he is scraping to get people on his side?
4, So you tell me about 'formless and void.' What did God destroy? What is the story there? All 5Ws please. That's what the phrase means, deny it though you will.
5, There is nothing tortured about listening to an astronomer say that hydrogen cycles from invisible to visible. You may not like to hear about the length of that but it does.
6, A view of life is secular. An objective event has no way to be secular. If you don't know this, you need to start over. The destruction of Jerusalem in 66+ is just an event. it is not secular because it is not "in" the Bible as an account (it is predicted). The smattering on the moon is not "secular" information. All information is to be integrated as the Psalms say, and Scripture reflects.
7, there is the kind of light that marks morning and evening on day 1, so a later sun and moon is puzzling, at best, isn't it? Ie, what would it look like on day 1 and why?
8, Many times "beginning" means this only this earth. That's why there is the verbal distinction between heavens and earth in 2 Pet 3 which you can't or won't see. 'estin' constrasts with 'sunestosa'; it does not echo it. Likewise, there is nothing about the distant objects in the 6 days. Just the local ones, and the ancient person thought of them as part of the earth's system, except in Egypt.
You "laughed" at my expressing this but is quite simple. It's local vs distant, in which the sun and moon and earth are in the local bucket as one thing; the distant objects in the other.
9, The universe and the raw material of earth is very old, yes, but not the act of forming this earth as we know it. Is it so hard to understand that distinction? I'm not rejecting Scripture; I might be rejecting your favorite way of seeing it, which has its weak points.
10, Look at the list of lights in the sky on day 4. What does that tell you about the distant objects? The canopy? don't tell me it was written that way to be brief, because, if so, Ex 20 is also to be understood as brief, and not covering everything it could, which it does not.
6days
New member
The "pile of English translation quotes" was actually various modern Bible translations from teams of people who do know Greek.Interplanner said:
Wrong... God made the distant things on the 4th day. God told the "ancient person" the purpose of the sun and moon.Interplanner said:
Gen. 1:16 "God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day
It would seem (Although I don't think we can be certain) that Satan was created on day 1 of the creation week.Interplanner said:
Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is"
And it would seen from Job 38:7 that the angels were there on day 4... not yet fallen, "ALL the angels shouted for joy"
It seems your religion is centered around that phrase, formless and void, and the hope that "In the beginning..." was only 'a' beginning'.Interplanner said:
Formless and void (tohu wabohu) In Gen 1 is NOT referring to chaos or judgment, as gap theorists want to believe. It quite simply means that in the initial stage of creation, the earth was empty of living things and without features such as land mass. Formless and void was the first of several stages of the creation week.
The torture is to scripture when you add in unbiblical ideas which ultimately compromise the gospel.Interplanner said:
Don't be such a goof. Where did you get the idea that "smattering on the moon is "secular" information"??Interplanner said:
Re. Integrating... That's what many cults do is to integrate outside ideas into scripture. God's Word is our source of absolute truth... our absolute authority. You have it backwards holding outside ideas (long ages) as your authority, then squeezing it into God's Word.
It's not puzzling at all. God simply created light. Why are you imaging that "evening and morning" look different, or mean different things between day 1 and day 4?Interplanner said:
Gen.1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
So unbiblical....Interplanner said:
2 Peter 3 states the heavens existed long ago. It is a relative term and when used elsewhere in scripture, it is relative to human life spans. You falsely claim "long ago" in this passage means a previous creation... a time before "The beginning".
Re your comment about distant objects in 2Peter 3, ..."But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. " Compare that to Genesis 1 and the distant objects...'stars'.
I laughed in pity at the way you torture scripture which inevitably ends up weakening or destroying the gospel.Interplanner said:
But that's not what His Word tells us.Interplanner said:
Genesis1"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep..."
Gen. 1:14" And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."Interplanner said:
Interplanner
Well-known member
1, I know what the pile was! Did YOU notice that no one translated 'tartarus' as Tartarus, but just said hell? Tartarus was a confinement of evil super-beings in Greek myth. Before the creation of man.
2, I have been neglecting a distinction in the vocab. The heavens are distant, the stars of Gen 1:16 refer to the locals (the planets do affect our gravity) and then the two lights. My mistake. So to be clear: the heavens was their term for those things outside our local system. I'm not sure that they counted all 9 locals, but they knew of 4-5 of them on a regular basis.
2A. I have to say, I'm understanding the relation of day 1 and 4 less than ever. Is "God's Word" something that keeps saying things twice so that you have to say 'you already said that'? I have that question for you in particular about your neglecting the Hebrew section title of 1:1. Why say it was created, and then say it was created?
3. I can see why you'd want to have a creation of Satan at that time (day 1), but I don't think you realize in the whole chapter of Job 38 that it is further to my point of God's victory over or stopping of evil on the earth at that point. The angels shout with God about the victory (the term is a victory shout). Why would you have a victory shout on the first day of founding the earth, if there was no victory?
Further you must have missed vs 12-15. The evil who were on the earth were shaken out as you would a tent or carpet. They were not humankind of course, they were part of this black darkness matter that was there before. You neglect this because of your select view of "God's Word."
4, F&V is referring to a judgement like the Word of God says in Jer 4:23. Because of Job 38:12-15. It is that event.
4A. So how long was the stage of F&V and why? Why were there stages? Is it just coincidence that two places in the Bible mention black, dark pits (Gen 1 and Peter/Jude) but that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
5. the most ridiculous of your accusations is that of somehow ruining the Gospel. There is no sense to what you are saying. Don't mention it again unless you give a paragraph, OK, buddy? Rom 3:21-31 is the Gospel. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Unless you cut the grounding from under the cosmology of the Bible with your selective view of God's Word.
6. You were the one who said that the event of the Big Bang was a secular event. Either it is fact or not , we'll see. But like the smattered face of the moon, it is not secular. Secular would mean a belief of a closed system of natural causes and effects. I do not believe our universe is closed as such, as you can see from what I said happened in Job 38 and F&V and in God forming the surface of this world in 6 days. Those are all things that show a system open to God's infinite-personal acts. So my view is not secular.
Those scientists who believe the earth and moon were separated by 'Theia' (a massive object's perfect hit of the earth ) can't possibly stay in the closed system view very long. It fries the brain to think that way. God could have used such, but not without perfect guidance and design, like a blacksmith. Not a chance. Maybe that's why they chose a name that has a whiff of Theo-logy in it. Theia.
Integrating. I'm not in a cult. I'm doing what Ps 19 says and Calvin said that Scripture and nature ultimately integrate. Do you realize in the history of science that once the Reformers said that, the padlocks of Papal superstition were broken about understanding nature, and really helpful science began?
7. I'm not imagining that the days look different (unless all this day 1 and 4 is just literary). I'm trying to account for a day and a night without our sun and moon. What do you say they look like? Am I the only person who asks such ordinary questions? Why does there need to be a day and night? What does day and night without the sun and moon look like?
8, 2 Pet 3 does not say the earth was formed ekpalai, nor that the heavens were formed from water, got it? Those are the distinctions it is making. You think you have the corner on God's Word, but you won't recognize this. You don't believe the heavens were formed from water, do you? The translations all show the long existence for one, and then the recent forming through water for the other.
9. "God's Word" does not say there was the creation and then there was the creation. 1:1 is a section title. Forget it as far as action details go. Otherwise we have to say 'didn't he already say that?' As in dozens of cases in Moses' writing (God's Word), there is:
the title
the setting or scene
the new action.
The title is not the new action, and the setting or scene has been there quite a while in most cases.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The Bible can sound a little different from what we are used to because of who it was written to. The NT materials mostly speak to 1st century Judaism. That means 'the water of life' is a bit different for the former follower of Judaism than it is to the modern person who feels meaningless.
Gen 1-11 is for the nations. The neighbors of Israel. There was no surprise to them that there was a pre-existing condition of the earth. The surprise was that it was the LORD who was the victor and creator over that condition.
That's going to sound different than the modern believer reading Gen 1 and concerned about evolution and people who believe in a closed system of natural causes and effects.
Gen 1-11 is for the nations. The neighbors of Israel. There was no surprise to them that there was a pre-existing condition of the earth. The surprise was that it was the LORD who was the victor and creator over that condition.
That's going to sound different than the modern believer reading Gen 1 and concerned about evolution and people who believe in a closed system of natural causes and effects.
Interplanner
Well-known member
6days,
I knew all about Job 38 before you brought it up. Now you have to finish.
I knew all about Job 38 before you brought it up. Now you have to finish.
6days
New member
interplanner said:
Gehenna, hades, tartarus, lake of fire, hell, *sheol, abyss, bottomless pit, eternal flames. There are many words used to describe where the unsaved spend eternity. If you wish to discuss different levels or places of punishment, it may be a good topic in ECT.
interplanner said:
Your mistake is not trusting what God says, and assigning your own definitions to words to fit your religion.
Gen. 1:16 "he made the stars also"
Gen. 15:5 "He took him outside and said, "Look up at the sky and count the stars--if indeed you can count them"
interplanner said:
Of course you are confused when you try sync secular ideas into God's Word.
He does not say He created the heavens on day 4. (That was day 1)He does say He created the lights in the heavens on day 4.
You pervert scripture.... Satan has no power to create.interplanner said:
Furthermore, the verse about the angels rejoicing is about the creation event.... God is giving Job a little science quiz and asks him "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?"
You pervert scripture.... There was no life when God laid the foundations of the world. I think you would like to take *v12-15 and sneak them in before v4? *Oh...and perhaps you want to change the words to 'when God re-laid the foundations of the earth'?interplanner said:
Again, you are perverting scripture. Job 38 says nothing about formless and void.*interplanner said:
Job 4 compares the utter destruction of Jerusalem to formless and void. By suggesting that there was utter destruction of a pre-existing creation in Genesis 1, is an attempt to add secular beliefs into the Bible.*
Why God created in stages is answered with "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" Ex. 20:11interplanner said:
Re. how long formless and void lasted... we don't know...30 seconds...3 hours?*
Formless and void ...
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(2) And the earth.—The conjunction “and” negatives the well-meant attempt to harmonise geology and Scripture by taking Genesis 1:1 as a mere heading; the two verses go together, and form a general summary of creation, which is afterwards divided into its several stages.
Was is not the copula, but the substantive verb existed, and expresses duration of time. After creation, the earth existed as a shapeless and empty waste.
"Without form, and void.—Literally, tohu and bohu, which words are both substantives, and signify wasteness and emptiness. The similarity of their forms, joined with the harshness of their sound, made them pass almost into a proverb for everything that was dreary and desolate (Isaiah 34:11; Jeremiah 4:23). It expresses here the state of primæval matter immediately after creation, when as yet there was no cohesion between the separate particles."
Also it is noteworthy that Genesis 1, verses 1&2 are connected with the Hebrew waw consecutive. * (Used more than 30 times in Chapter 1). It would be similar to us saying "and then next". Waw consecutive are used primarily in narrative sequence to denote consecutive actions, that is, action occuring in sequence". (Patico and Van Pelt)
There was no pre-existing creation.
interplanner said:
Note V25. ..*
Jesus shed His blood (death) ...substituionary atonement for us. By claiming death existed before sin, means physical death was not a punishment for sin; meaning Christ's physical death was meaningless.
So... yes, the way you compromise adding death before sin does ruin the gospel. If I didn't think you destroy the gospel, then it hardly be a point worth arguing about....it wouldn't matter.
You are being goofy.interplanner said:
I'm looking out my window and I see green grass. Green grass is not secular. We can also look out or window at the moon and see "the smattered face". The moon is not secular. *But we can't look at the Big Bang. It is a belief about the past.*
interplanner said:
without sun and moon
Gen. 1:5 "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
with sun and moon
Gen. 1:31 "And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
interplanner said:
You are trying to add long ages to God's Word with mental gymnastics.*
'Ekpalai' (Greek) simply means long ago. Yes, it was long ago when God created the heavens and formed the earth out of water. (2 Peter 3:5). Cf Gen *. 1: 1,2 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And, the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."
interplanner said:
It does not matter if we call it a title or not. It in no way suggests a previous creation. The initial stage of creation was formless *(watery earth) and void (empty of life). Then over the following few days, God formed and filled. Stop adding that gap, previous creation and death before sin after v1, and before v2.
Interplanner
Well-known member
There's several things to address, but really whatever your problem is about the Gospel, I wish you see a communication therapist or something. I know Rom 3:21-31 forward and back, and I have no idea what your accusation is. It would probably be best to PM it.
On most other points, you are just being evasive. Starting merely with the first one, you don't listen. It's Peter using Tartarus. Tartarus has a timeframe in its other Greek literary usage. It (and the black places of Peter/Jude) are not where the other judged people or beings will go; they are places of confinement from before time. Not the same as hell, and I was not saying that. They were made when there was a rebellion in heaven, and sent to them.
Your treatment of Job 38 is unacceptable. The whole point of the story is detail about sending Satan and his followers away. Like shaking out a carpet. Then with that done, the earth could be formed. God told Job he had to purge out the evil ones and get rid of them, and he did.
Are we just supposed to take your word for it about those time frames for stages for F&V and why? Where do you claim such a corner on "God's Word" instead of finding out what it says in its natural sense. Look how long the story was of Jerusalem before it was found F&V. Let the mysterious stuff of the Bible be mysterious. If you suck that out of it you lose the supernatural side of it all through as it should be, as though Gen 1 was a tidy biological progression.
You still don't understand "secular." It can only be a view of things. It is not data or facts themselves. There are commentaries on day 1 that say that that event was a splitting of an atom because we have learned that unleashing light creates energy. Then day 4 there is local lighting. If those are the facts, it is not secular. Nor is a space of time between the section title and setting secular if they were there as 2 Pet 3 indicates and Job 38. Because it was part of God's work. Secular would be to subtract God from the picture, and say that the text is subjective, the word God is a religious feeling, and a closed system of natural causes and effects explains all. Which I am not on any of those three.
I don't understand a total human time frame less than 20K from the data, and I don't understand what you are worried about if there is one that long. It is just the data of Gen 1. It is not secular timing, and it does not disturb the basis of Christian faith like a 'closed system of natural causes and effects' does. I'm nowhere close to T. Huxley.
6days
New member
Interplanner said:
Illogical and unscriptural. There was nothing except God before time.
Interplanner said:
Your treatment of Job 38 is unscriptural.
Looking through several commentaries I find nothing remotely close to your belief system that God could only form the earth after He sent Satan and His followers away.
Interplanner said:
No... take God's Word. He tells us how He formed and filled the earth over six days.
Interplanner said:
But those are not the facts. You are adding in secular / wordly opinions to God's Word. It says nothing about "local lighting'.
Interplanner said:
Again... the spin you put on scripture is secular ideas of deep time.
2 Peter 3 and Job 38 support the creation account of Genesis 1... As does Jesus when He refers to male and female from the beginning of creation.... Not a 2nd creation.... not thousands or millions of years after "the beginning".
Interplanner said:
