11 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonshipThe video just show that there are many other people who do not agree with the crazy idea of the gap theory. 😏Could there be a gap of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? No.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7olX8h7Fsk
I am not going to go through every video RJHinds puts up there in the manner I go through this one.
But at 11:28 the speaker says there is "no way" you can put a gap of time in before verse 2. That is false. It ...[text shortened]... for His own reasons decided to reveal LATTER in the Bible and not in passages in [b]Genesis.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Could there be a gap of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? No.
At 11:61 the hosts go into a discussion of how Chalrmers did not read the Hebrew.
Well, I do not know about Thomas Chalrmers Hebrew reading skills. I do know G.H. Pember and Arthur Custance read Hebrew.
I know that Joseph Rotherham, translator of "The Emphasized Bible" translated from Hebrew to English.
And his note on Genesis 1:2 was as follows -
" Heb.: tohu wa-vohu Evidently an idiomatic phrase, with a play on the sound ("assonance" ) ; The two words occur together only in Is. xxxiv. 11; Jer. iv.23; examples which favour the conclusion that here also they describe the result of previous overthrow ..."
In other words, this Hebrew scholar and translator gives opinion that "But the earth became waste and emptiness" as he translated it, uses a play on words that elsewhere meant divine judgment and overthrow.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsAnswer my question about the last day why don't you?
The video just show that there are many other people who do not agree with the crazy idea of the gap theory. 😏
At least I am giving time to carefully consider your recommended video.
A wisecrack and a self serving smug moniker are not that impressive.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Apr 15
Could there be a gap of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? No.
So now I am at 12:06 and the hosts are accusing Chalrmers of inventing a time gap and finding something to fill it with.
Well, I learned this from G.H. Pember's writing and not those of Chalrmers. And the interesting thing is that after discussing this on the phone with Kent Hovind in the early 90s he curiously told me of his own assumed gap between the seventh day and the day that the serpent deceived Eve.
Kent told me that it could have been 100 years before the issue came up about the two trees.
Now, I have no immediate opinion on his alledged possible 100 years. But it is also a gap. In order to make sense of other data in the Bible Kent Hovind imagined a interval of time possibly 100 years. I suppose he believed this in order to account for the fall of Lucifer. But I do not know.
The point I make is that if there is an interval of time it is best to leave it where it appears best to be - between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
So some YECs, while scoffing at a gap in time between verse 1 and 2 concoct their OWN gap of perhaps 100 years between the seventh day and the day that Eve ate of the forbidden tree.
I would say to Hovind and any other YECers who feel the need for TIME for Satan's fall to just go by where Genesis best indicates a judgment of some kind took place -
"And the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep." (Gen. 1:2)
Leave the gap where it appears to be rather than concoct one AFTER the creation of Adam and Eve and before the disobedience of Genesis 3.
11 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonshipI guess you must have missed my answer. Here it is again:
Answer my question about [b]the last day why don't you?
At least I am giving time to carefully consider your recommended video.
A wisecrack and a self serving smug moniker are not that impressive.[/b]
I don't believe Jesus was making reference to the creation days when He said that He would raise up His believers on "the last day". The "last day" here must refer to His coming at the end of the age and the resurrection, which we are told that it is not for us to know the day or the hour.
The "last day" obviously refers to the end of the age when the first resurrection takes place because the second resurrection is not for another thousand years. It stands to reason that there would be a "last day" at the end of the thousand year reign too.
However, none of of these "last days" would add any days to "day one" or the "first day" of creation. It seems very clear that the creation week consisted of six normal days for the work plus a day for memorial and rest.
I don't understand why you wish to add more time for creation than is clearly indicated by the scriptures.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Could there be a gap of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? No.
At 13:17 the speakers make the case that "became" can never be the translation of verb there.
This is technical and cannot be addressed in one post at this time. But the same wording of the hayah is "became" in Genesis 19 in reference to Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt.
Much space is given this argument in Custance's book "Without Form and Void" .
In 13:42 one speaker says the the author of Genesis has gone out of his way to stress that there could not be a gap in time.
I don't agree at all. I would say that the immediate burden of the seer or writer is to emphasize that the present world was made for man. Man is the chief interest. There God is not concerned with speaking of the pre-Adamic world that much.
Man is the key and Man is the center and is what is on God's heart.
However, other portions of the divine revelation show the creation and fall of a creature in Eden and the judgment that followed. It is apparent that he was vested with kingly and priestly authority.
Why should we not understand that he had some REALM over which his jurisdiction extended ?
While Genesis 1 immediately focuses on the creation of Adam's world and Adam and Eve, elsewhere in the Bible there is an Eden in which one with great deputy authority enjoyed closeness to God.
Nothing, not a whisper is spoken of another deputy authority beside Man in Eden. You have a lying serpent with some kind of chip on his shoulder, to say the least. You have an avenging creature with a vendetta.
His lies indicate some kind of previous experience or inside knowledge. That Genesis did not elaborate on the history of this being is understandable. Just as understandable is the fact that at the proper time in the proper place God would unveil the ancient past of SOME Eden and expose the original despot Satan in his beginnings.
To imagine that WHILE God is commiting the creation to Adam He [God] also simultaneously invested similar deputy authority to an angel is confusing. It is far more likely that the deputy authority of Satan and that of Adam were not simultaneous but contiguous. IE. One FAILED and was replaced by another.
" And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, ... and let dominion ..." (1:26) [my emphasis].
Instead of God giving dominion in Eden to Lucifer AND to Adam at the same time or even in any overlapping sense, is less likely. It is more likely that one failed dominion ran its rebellions course for some unknown (to us) and unspecified time length. And then God replaced this economy with a new creation made of the dust - man.
The old fired kingly priest and his fired and judged hordes were still around seeking to derail God's new economy.
Young Earthers tend to be confused about this in shoe horning Satan's fall somehow in the first week of Genesis. But the Eden spoken of in Genesis know nothing of a glorious cherubic priestly and kingly authority perfect from the moment of his creation.
I submit that "You were perfect in your ways from THE DAY that you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." (Ezek. 28:15) speaks of a DAY before Genesis 1:2.
I do not believe this DAY is a day between "one day" (Genesis 1:5) and "the sixth day" (v.31) or "the seventh day" (2:3) .
Nor do I believe that this DAY was on any day within a gap of time between the seventh day and the day in which Adam and Eve sinned in disobedience. I cannot prove it possibly. But I think the running of Satan's rebellions course in an Eden from perfection to hopeless rebel occurred before "the earth became [ or was ] without form and void" .
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThanks.
I guess you must have missed my answer. Here it is again:
[quote]
[b]I don't believe Jesus was making reference to the creation days when He said that He would raise up His believers on "the last day".
I agree that He was not referring to creation days. But the point is that the clear expression [b]"the last day" HAS to be considered with contributing data and context.
It should not be LITERALLY "the last day" of the whole universe.
If so, it is not outlandish that, the day in Eden in which the Anointed Cherub has his doings was a day before the days mentioned in Genesis.
The Bible does not say that God CREATED the sun on the fourth day. It says that the sun and moon and stars as light holders were MADE then.
The word for MADE there is also used for the trimming of fingernails and the cooking of a meal or the trimming of a beard. It is to work with existing material. It also can be translated APPOINTED.
ASAHziah - Appointed by Jah
The "last day" here must refer to His coming at the end of the age and the resurrection, which we are told that it is not for us to know the day or the hour.
I agree. But He said "the last day". So why cannot "one day" or if you wish first day of Genesis 1:5 be the beginning of a new period ?
The "last day" obviously refers to the end of the age when the first resurrection takes place because the second resurrection is not for another thousand years.
So after "the last day" there are days.
Why could there not be in a previous sequence "one day" or first day signaling a new dispensation?
It stands to reason that there would be a "last day" at the end of the thousand year reign too.
There is " a little while" following the 1,000 years -
Revelation 20:3 - "And cast him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, that he might not deceive the nations any longer until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be loosed for a little while."
We really have no idea what "a little while" is there. None whatsoever. It is unspecified. Days or years or more are impossible for us to ascertain.
Likewise there could be an interval of unknown time between God creating the heavens and the earth in the beginning and the earth in the condition it is seen in in verse 2 of Genesis.
Without Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 about Satan's past, there might not be any need to understand it that way.
However, none of of these "last days" would add any days to "day one" or the "first day" of creation. It seems very clear that the creation week consisted of six normal days for the work plus a day for memorial and rest.
Creation ... CREATE is used three times in Genesis 1. It is used for the heaven and the earth in verse 1. It is used in chapter one for the sea creatures and for man.
So when you speak of "creation week" you could very well appropriate refer to that week as MAKING week with "create" used only for sea creatures and man:
"And God CREATED the great sea creatures ..." (v.21)
"And God CREATED man in His own image ..." (v.27)
So some of us understand Destruction / Reconstruction with some MAKING and some further creating.
Of the general statement "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" seems to be creation of the universe in the beginning of time.
I don't understand why you wish to add more time for creation than is clearly indicated by the scriptures.
The feeling is very mutual. I do not understand why you want to argue that Eve was the first creature deceived by Satan before he deceived minions of angels and demons.
My logic may puzzle you. But your logic seems just as peculiar and unnecessary to me.
What is really at stake here is obscuring the Bible's exposing of Satan's past. Your zeal for an earth whose birth date you want to pinpoint seems to carry the side effect of obfuscating the crucial exposing of the church's arch enemy Satan.
The more you argue to defend Ussher's young earth chronology it seems the more you have to heap up unknowns about Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 in their stripping this enemy being stark naked. It goes to the point of you even attempting to refute the whole tone of those passages showing Satan's past.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Apr 15
Could there be a gap of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? No.
Around 14:52 both hosts state that Gap Theorists are guilty of trying to make the Scriptures more palatable.
I suppose the question here is why don't they accuse Christians of believing that the earth moves around the sun and in turn moves around with the solar system in the galaxy of capitulating to bad science?
I mean didn't the Scripture say that the earth would not be moved ? Was that not believed by believers AND unbelievers in God for over 1,000 years ?
If Old Earth believers have thrown in the towel and become turn coats giving into bad science for not believing in a 6,000 year old universe, why aren't these Bible students fighting to return to a STILL EARTH of Ptolemy contrary to Copernicus?
With many it is a matter of going back to the Bible and saying "Well, let's see what it REALLY says there."
I think that is allowed and I think we would be proud to think that our interpretations are as infallible as the words of Scripture are. We can hold that the Scripture is infallible. We can be cautious that all of our interpretations of Scripture may not be infallible.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Apr 15
There is nothing wrong with going back to the Bible to be careful for what it really said especially giving heed to the original language.
Many people might insist that three wise men came to visit Jesus.
What does it say?
It says that wise men bore three gifts.
Two wise men could bear three gifts.
Four wise men could bear three gifts.
Thirteen wise men could also bear three gifts.
Any number of [plural] wise men could bear three gifts to the baby Jesus.
It is a traditional assumption that there were three wise men.
There is no harm in going back to the word of God and asking "Well, let's look again at what it really SAID."
Some of us have done this with Genesis. And we were not the first to say "Pinpointing the date of the creation of the whole universe is impossible to ascertain in the Bible."
11 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonshipWhat day did God create serpents and dragons?
Thanks.
[b]I guess you must have missed my answer. Here it is again:
[quote]
[b]I don't believe Jesus was making reference to the creation days when He said that He would raise up His believers on "the last day".
I agree that He was not referring to creation days. But the point is that the clear expression [b]"the last day" ...[text shortened]... he point of you even attempting to refute the whole tone of those passages showing Satan's past.[/b]
