Spirituality
08 Feb 15
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
12 Feb 15
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Notice that he admits that he does not understand the Hebrew completely and that virtually all the usual authorities quoted at the present time, if they are not against his rendering, at least have not seen fit to recommend it as a preferred alternative.
It is nice that by cutting and pasting a small portion of the introduction you can give an impression of familiarity with the treatise. It doesn't impress me as I have read the entire book.
Notice in chapter one - "A Long-Held View" he writes about what Jewish language scholars provided as reading helps in the Massoretic Text -
... in the Masoretic Text in which the Jewish scholars tried to incorporate enough "indicators" to guide the reader as to correct punctuation there is one small mark which is technically known as Rebhia, which is classified as a "disjunctive accent" intended to notify the reader that he should pause before proceeding to the next verse. In short, this mark indicates a "break" in the text. Such a mark appears at the end of Genesis 1.1. This mark has been noted by several scholars including Luther. It is one indication among others, that the initial waw ... which introduces verse 2 should be rendered "but" rather than "and", a dis-junctive rather than a con-junctive."
Interestingly he also indicates an interval understanding among pre-Darwinian Jewish readers of Hebrew made known by Ginsburg's book on Jewish thoughts.
In his great work The Legends of the Jews, Louis Ginsburg has put into continuous narrative a precis of their legends, as far as possible in the original phrases and terms. In Volume 1 which covers the period from the Creation to Jacob, he has this excerpt on Genesis 1:
"Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things earthly created by God. He made several other worlds before ours, but He destroyed them all, because He was pleased with none until He created ours."
Clearly this reflects the tradition underlying the translation which appears in the Targum of Onkelos to be noted below.
I do not submit this to suggest Legends of the Jews is more authoritative than the Bible. The chapter is on "A Long-Held View". And its sole purpose is to subtract out of the debate the completely false accusation of the Gap being the sole accommodation to 19th century science theories. That is often the underlying premise of people like Kent Hovind.
Readers of Genesis saw what we explain in chapter one for a long time, both Christian and native speaking Hebrew readers.
I think you should give a clear explanation of the history of the enemy of God so we can see exactly what if anything can be salvaged from the passages that expose him, especially in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.
It appears that you leave the Devil so much to hide behind that all we're left with is that Darwinism is his trick.
This is a being that challenges God. This is nearly inconceivable - a creature that would fight against God Himself. But what are you telling us?
I really do not know what you have left - a immaterial angel who in course of one earth week decided to lie to Eve? That is about a week's worth of time one created perfect in his ways and complete in wisdom, after a few days became bored enough to want to try something new - oppose the Creator of the universe and usurp the throne of The Most High ?
First he worked on Eve? And afterwards one third of the angels of heaven noticed how good things turned out for Adam and Eve when they followed Satan that THEY decided it would be to their benefit also ?
Explain where this enemy and the hordes following him to eternal damnation got their inspiration from.
12 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipThe INTRODUCTION had 9 pages of text. I couldn't have posted all that anyway. And much of it had nothing to do with what I wanted to point out to you.Notice that he admits that he does not understand the Hebrew completely and that virtually all the usual authorities quoted at the present time, if they are not against his rendering, at least have not seen fit to recommend it as a preferred alternative.
It is nice that by cutting and pasting a small portion of the introduction you c ...[text shortened]... n where this enemy and the hordes following him to eternal damnation got their inspiration from.
And what you just posted is nothing new because I already gave you the following English translation that is in the Greek Septuagint that I have in my personal library. Here it is again from the thread "Doctrine of Creation":
But the earth was unsightly and unfinished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.
(Genesis 1:2)
I also pointed out the following to you:
We already went over this and I explained this from the Hebrew and also from the Greek Septuagint. Genesis 1:1 could be better described as a "TOPIC SENTENCE" of a paragraph that gives the "SUBJECT" of the paragraph. Then follows the "DETAIL SENTENCES" that provide additional details on the subject. This is demonstrated and explained in the following link:
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/showcase/inconcert/assets/pdf/McWhorter_0321850378_C05.pdf
As I mentioned before the following sentences that begin with "AND" or "BUT" or "THEN" are "DETAIL SENTENCES" connected to the "TOPIC SENTENCE" to complete the thoughts of the paragraph. It does not indicate that the "TOPIC SENTENCE" was the complete thought of the paragrah in and of itself.
So, [b]In the beginning the heaven (heavens) and the earth were not created and pronounced good, because it is not indicating that it was complete, but this is a "TOPIC SENTENCE" that is providing the "TOPIC or SUBJECT" of the paragraph. The next sentence, verse 2, provides details about the unfinished earth and what God was doing.
Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are poetic prophecy and have nothing to do with Genesis 1:1-2 as I have already explained to you. I am nearly 71 years old and I can remember that, why can't you? You seem to be getting amnesia just like the JWs used to do with me. It appears that I could keep explaining and explaining to you and you wouldn't remember it anyway.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
12 Feb 15
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
And what you just posted is nothing new because I already gave you the following English translation that is in the Greek Septuagint that I have in my personal library. Here it is again from the thread "Doctrine of Creation":
But the earth was unsightly and unfinished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.
(Genesis 1:2)
It goes without saying that of course, if the earth had been judged and made in a desolate condition it would be UNFINISHED and UNSIGHTLY for the emergence of man.
While your English translation is noted it is not nearly as conclusive to back up your Ussher Young Earth chronology as you imagine.
You have not only English translations.
You have translations in many languages. I cannot print at this time Hebrew letters. But this note is also submitted:
The Aramaic translation of Gen. 1.2 - w'areteah hawath teadh'ya
In this passage, the verb _____ is compounded with the Aramaic verb _____ which appears here as a passive participle of a verb which itself means "to cut" or "to lay waste." We have here, therefore, a rendering "and the earth was laid waste", an interpretation of the original Hebrew of Gen. 1.2 which leaves little room for doubt that Onkelos understood this to mean that something had occurred between verse 1 and verse 2 to reduce the earth to this desolated condition. It reflects Ginsberg's Jewish legend.
[Custance, pg 15]
I appreciate that some English language interpreters of the Septuigent agree with you against me. Your sample is not conclusive to prove a 6,000 year old universe. It does reflect someone's concept of how the Septuigent in Gen. 1:2 is interpreted by them.
As you can see, it is not the only viewpoint. I have quoted above the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic Versions of the Old Testament written by Hebrew scholars. According to the Babylonian Talmud, Onkelos was a proselyte. Though the Targum bears his name - Onkelos, it is held that he received it from Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua both of whom lived in the of the first century and beginning of the second century A.D. However some argue that Onkelos is an older figure who was a relative of Emperor Hadrian living in the second century B.C.
We may not know who Onkelos was for sure. But the Aramiac translation of the Hebrew reveals some scholars comprehension of how the passage should be understood. And it is strongly destructive in verse 2 and not merely "unfinished". Something was laid waste or cut down.
I prefer that harmonization with God's preadamic judgment alluded to latter in the whole revelation of Scripture.
I also pointed out the following to you:
We already went over this and I explained this from the Hebrew and also from the Greek Septuagint. Genesis 1:1 could be better described as a "TOPIC SENTENCE" of a paragraph that gives the "SUBJECT" of the paragraph. Then follows the "DETAIL SENTENCES" that provide additional details on the subject. This is demonstrated and explained in the following link:
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/showcase/inconcert/assets/pdf/McWhorter_0321850378_C05.pdf
I noted your opinion. And the disjunctive mark noted to exist in the Masoretic Text sets verse 2 off apart after a signaled pause. You don't have proof there of Ussher's 6000 year old univese created on October 23rd at something like 9:00 am in the morning, as he calculated.
Your proposed outline just doesn't prove that.
That a judged world would be UNFINISHED for useful habitation is expected.
In the end of the Bible God says "Behold I make all things new" (Rev. 21:5) . That beforehand things were not yet FINISHED as to world is understandable also.
In that case John says "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away. and the sea is no more."
Why could God not judge an old world rendering it waste, void, topsy-turvy, helter-skelter, tohu -va-bohu, without form and void and in every sense UNFINSHED for the new creature MAN and his realm?
As you REMIND me of what you have previously said, so I also in turn remind you. The OLDEST book in the Bible, pre-dating Genensis = the book of Job says that the things we know of God's doing could be considered as the fringes or the outskirts. You and I do not know in detail all what God did from eternity.
Job 26:14
English Standard Version
Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways, and how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?”
New American Standard Bible
"Behold, these are the fringes of His ways; And how faint a word we hear of Him! But His mighty thunder, who can understand?"
King James Bible
Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?
I do not expect you to "back down" on what you believe. But I will give an answer for what I believe.
Now let's just take a look at MORE of that particular portion of Job to get a sense that Job is indeed speaking of creation when he says that these matters are only the fringes or outskirts of God's ways. And that He has done things, the thunder of the power of which we could barely understand.
Then Job answered and said ... The deceased are made to tremble beneath the waters, and those who inhabit them.
Sheol is naked before Him, And Abaddon has no covering.
He stretches out the north over the void;
He hangs the earth upon nothing.
He binds up the waters in His thick clouds,
And the cloud is not rent under them.
He covers the face of His throne;
He spreads His cloud over it.
He drew a circle on the surface of the waters
As a boundary of the light and the darkness.
The pillars of heaven shook
And were astounded at His rebuke.
By His power He stilled the sea,
And by His understanding He struck down Rehab.
By His Spirit the heavens became beauty;
His hand pierced the fleeing serpent.
INDEED, THESE ARE BUT THE FRINGES OF HIS WAYS; AND HOW SMALL A WHISPER DO WE HEAR OF HIM!
But as for the thundering of His mightiness, who can comprehend it ?
My point here is that from this passage you can derive many things which fit Genesis 1. Yet it is not exhaustive. Job says the little portion of our knowing what God has done is just a whisper.
What you are doing in your YEC zeal is arguing that the whisper is ALL God did. All things considered, I think that is not right.
The curtain on the unknown past is parted just a little, latter, in Ezekiel and in Isaiah to reveal just enough for us to know something of the church's FOE - the ancient Anointed Cherub, Lucifer, the Daystar, Satan.
You may notice that as Job is musing on things related to God preparing the earth, Job also mentions God's piercing of the fleeing serpent and fighting against Rehab, some great mythical monster. The mythology or legends known to Job and his audience of wise men most likely had some basis in real history. A patriarch of God would hardly boast of completely fictional matters.
In connection with creation and preparation of the world then, Job speaks of God's dealing with a great primordial monster.
It is possible that Moses did not elaborate on these things in Genesis 1 because God had already revealed some of them to earlier ages of people of God, as Job implies.
As I mentioned before the following sentences that begin with "AND" or "BUT" or "THEN" are "DETAIL SENTENCES" connected to the "TOPIC SENTENCE" to complete the thoughts of the paragraph. It does not indicate that the "TOPIC SENTENCE" was the complete thought of the paragrah in and of itself.
All this, even if accepted, doesn't insist on the earth being ill prepared for man BECAUSE of previous overthrow. The argument is not conclusive of that point.
And the relationship between the two verses has also be described in this way:
1. "That the first sentence is a simple, independent, all-comprehending axiom, to this effect: that matter, elementary or combined, aggregated only or organized, and dependent, sentient, and intellectual beings have not existed from eternity; that their beginning took place by the all powerful will of one Being, the self-existent, independent, and infinite in all perfection; and that the date of that beginning is not made known.
2. "That at a certain epoch, our planet was brought into a state of disorganization, detritus, or ruin, (perhaps we have no perfectly appropriate term) from a former condition.
3. "That is pleased the Almighty, wise and benevolent Supreme, out of that state of ruin to adjust the surface of the earth to its now existing condition, the whole extending through a period of six natural days."
[J. Pyre Smith - [i]Lectures on the Bearing of Geological Science upon Certain Parts of the Scriptural Narrative - A philological survey of the initial sections of the Bible, (Gen, 1,1, to II,3), London, 1839 ]
So, In the beginning the heaven (heavens) and the earth were not created and pronounced good, because it is not indicating that it was complete, but this is a "TOPIC SENTENCE" that is providing the "TOPIC or SUBJECT" of the paragraph. The next sentence, verse 2, provides details about the unfinished earth and what God was doing.
Okay, let's repeat what I have mentioned to you and this Forum in times past. The pronouncement of what is "good" by God is CURIOUSLY absent concerning two matters of note. And here is how it breaks down.
Day 1 -...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
12 Feb 15
2 edits
Okay, let's repeat what I have mentioned to you and this Forum in times past. The pronouncement of what is "good" by God is CURIOUSLY absent concerning a matter of note, the expanse of the atmosphere. And here is how it breaks down.
Day 1 - God says the light was good (verse 4)
The Second Day - God says NOTHING about the expanse of the heavens being good.
The Third Day - God says the dry land separated from the seas was good (verse 10).
Again, The Third Day - God saw that the vegetation was good -(verse 12)
The Fourth Day - God saw that the light-bearers he made of sun, moon, stars were good -(verse 18)
The Fifth Day - God saw the swarming life in the sea that it was good - (verse 21).
The Sixth Day - God saw the animals made for earth were good - (verse 25)
Everything which God had made He saw was very good - (verse 31)
If it has escaped your notice, it has not escaped everyone's. The pronouncement of "good" is forthcoming on EVERY day except the day in which the expanse of heaven was established. It is curiously absent from the Second Day.
"And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters. And God made the expanse and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse, and it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day." (Genesis 1:6-8)
We believe that this absence of the pronouncement of GOOD on the conclusion of the Second Day hints that there is something left in the atmosphere around the earth that is against God's will. That would be the ancient fallen angels following Satan and still able to breeze in and out of this new realm God has established.
Paul says that Satan is the authority of the air - " ... you once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience." (Ephesians 2:2)
At that time of the second day of Genesis 1 this evil authority of the air was seeking to inject his disobedience into any new beings, in order to operate in them. He and the evil angels were present in the atmosphere. He latter came to earth somehow possessive of the body of a serpent and succeeded in injecting this disobedient operation into the being of Adam and Eve.
It was very good that Adam was over all God's works and was charged to GUARD the garden (Gen. 1:31). Two things were not good.
1.) The atmosphere, the expanse of the firmament of the heavens was still infested with enemies of God. So He did not see that as good as indicated by the silence concerning the second Day.
2.) Of course it was not good that Adam FAILED to obey God and remain under God's authority as His deputy. Instead Adam came under the authority of darkness and transfered his dominion to the old ancient ruler again - Satan.
But God cannot be defeated and therefore you have the whole rest of the Bible speaking to God's plan of salvation.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
12 Feb 15
6 edits
Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are poetic prophecy and have nothing to do with Genesis 1:1-2 as I have already explained to you.
Your explanation is rejected by me, by many other teachers of the Bible. Sorry. We reject your explanation on grounds that we have a better one. This is done with all due respect.
I am nearly 71 years old and I can remember that, why can't you? You seem to be getting amnesia just like the JWs used to do with me. It appears that I could keep explaining and explaining to you and you wouldn't remember it anyway.
You are older than me and you have my respect. But I started seriously studying the Scriptures at the age of about 20 - 21. When I first turned my life over to Jesus, after reading the New Testament I girded on boldness to attack the Old Testament.
At FIRST I did read some Creation Science books. I read about the Genesis Flood by Price (I do believe). I read at least one and a half other YEC books. I was probably about 23 or 24 then. I am now 65.
Finally I read a book called Earth's Earliest Ages by G.H. Pember. And I said to myself that I find this more edifying, more exalting of Christ, and making more sense. I got persuaded of the preadamic age about 41 years ago.
Around 1978 or maybe latter, or so I noticed that some Young Earth interpretors refered to my belief as "Gap Theory". So I decided to take it on the chin and read through one critical critique of Pember's basic exegesis of early Genesis. The arguments were noted. You repeat some of them here.
The arguments were not convincing enough to me to discard the basic enfluence Pember's book Earth's Earliest Ages had on my Christian life.
That book that I studied to get a critical analysis of "Gap Theory" was Donald Whitcomb's, ( written in conjunction with some Dallas Theological seminarian ) called "The Early Earth".
All due respect brother Hinds humanly and spiritually - Young Earth expositions of the creation in the Bible are unconvincing to me. I won't teach that.
Some good points are often made though. I honestly think God is leading His people in a different direction from this. And that is not at all a statement of the quality of any Christian's spiritual walk who happens, like you, to be more persuaded by Ussher's 6,000 year old universe.
There are TWO important matters to the Christian church-
1.) How did it all start?
2.) How will it all end?
This is a matter of spiritual warfare. We need to see that man is so key to God's eternal purpose to defeat Satan by being saturated with divine life in Christ.
I believe that to get it right on how it will all end, we need to be clear about the ancient history of our enemy Satan. And YEC, I think, greatly obscures the nature and backround of the church's main enemy - Satan. They may be good in insisting that man is not an animal. They are not so good in exposing what God has exposed in Scripture about His enemies'' motives and ancient warfare.
Add to your library sometime "The Invisible War" by Dr. Donald Barnhouse.
12 Feb 15
9 edits
Originally posted by sonshipI am sure Satan would be happy to add billions or millions of years between the first two verses of Genesis, but it simply is not there. There is nothing to indicate that the earth is anything but vacant (empty - void) and unfinished (without form) and covered with water. Then the spirit of God moved over the water and began forming it into a place that could be inhabited by living creatures.
Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are poetic prophecy and have nothing to do with Genesis 1:1-2 as I have already explained to you.
Your explanation is rejected by me, by many other teachers of the Bible. Sorry. We reject your explanation on grounds that we have a better one. This is done with all due respect.
[quote]
I am nearly 71 ye ...[text shortened]... nt warfare.
Add to your library sometime [b]"The Invisible War" by Dr. Donald Barnhouse.[/b]
God did not pass any kind of Judgment on the earth until after the sin of man.
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."
(Genesis 3:17-19 NASB)
But Satan wishes to deceive the very elect into believing otherwise and to believe his lie (the lie).
Arthur C. Custance has been deceived by his education in anthropology to believe in millions of years of pre-historic times; and he ever warns us of his possible goal by saying again in his introduction the follow words:
I must repeat something which I said earlier, namely, that the question of whether Genesis, Chapter one, can be squared with modern geological theory is of secondary importance.
Of primary importance for Satan is to deceive you in to believing a lie.
You have already seen how the Septuagint version that was translated from the Hebrew to Greek during the time the Greeks were controlling the Jews is translated into English. That Greek translation was done by 70 Jews and is NOT just one person's opinion.
The title and its Roman numeral acronym LXX refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who completed the translation as early as the late 2nd century BCE. As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the Greek Old Testament. This translation is quoted in the New Testament, particularly in the Pauline epistles, and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
I have indicated in my first paragraph how I believe the King James Version accurately compares with the Greek Septuagint version by using different words having the same meaning which are called synonyms. So let us reason this out.
Looking up the word "VOID" in my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, I see the first meaning of "VOID" is 1. containing nothing; empty; and 2. unoccupied; vacant.-- Syn. See EMPTY.
Then looking up the word "FORM" I see 1. The shape and stucture of anything; figure. 2.a. A body, esp. of a human being. b Archaic. Pleasing external appearance; beauty. Syn. See MAKE.
The KJV says "WITHOUT FORM AND VOID" which compares very well with "UNSIGHTLY AND UNFINISHED" of the SEPTUAGINT when one takes the archaic definiton of "FORM" and the synonym "MAKE" to mean "NOT MADE INTO A PLEASING APPEARANCE" because it is unfinished.
If we look up the Hebrew words used in the Strong's Concordance we see that the first word translated "without form" is 8414 TOHUW and gives several meanings and among those are: empty place, without form, and nothing. And the second word translated "void" is 922 bohuw from an unused root (mean. to be empty) -- emptiness, void.
From the above analysis, I see no need to makeup any gap of time to place between the first two verses of Genesis. It makes perfect sense without that if one understands the definitions of the words.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
13 Feb 15
7 edits
I am sure Satan would be happy to add billions or millions of years between the first two verses of Genesis, but it simply is not there. There is nothing to indicate that the earth is anything but vacant (empty - void) and unfinished (without form) and covered with water. Then the spirit of God moved over the water and began forming it into a place that could be inhabited by living creatures.
God did not pass any kind of Judgment on the earth until after the sin of man.
Ezekiel 28:12-19 is called a Lamentation which indicates that there is nothing there for Satan to be happy about.
As for tohu va-bohu -
And the TWO other passages in the Holy Bible (Jeremiah, Isaiah) which use that particular play on words definitely indicate God's Judgment. So we believe in Genesis 1:2 it also does.
Furthermore the complete removal of the SEA (Rev. 21:1) (along with Death and Hades) in the new heaven and new earth suggests strongly it was a remnant of something God wants no trace of which to remain in the age of the New Jerusalem.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
13 Feb 15
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsAs I said - I do not expect you to back down on what you believe. I can only give reason for why I believe what I do.
I have indicated in my first paragraph how I believe the King James Version accurately compares with the Greek Septuagint version by using different words having the same meaning which are called synonyms. So let us reason this out.
Looking up the word "VOID" in my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, I see the first meaning of "VOID" is 1. containing nothing; empty; and 2. unoccupied; vacant.-- Syn. See EMPTY.
The two words used separately may NOT indicate divine overthrow. Evidence that the two words used together to form the assonance or sound play DO indicate divine judgment.
1.) Concerning the judgment of Edom -
Isaiah 34:5,8 -11 For My sword has drunk its fill in heaven, Now it will descend in judgment upon Edom and upon the people whom I have devoted to judgment. (v.5) ... For Jehovah has a day of vengeance, A year of recompense ... (v.8)... And its streams will be turned into pitch, And its dust into brimstone; And its land will become burning pitch. (v.9) ... Its smoke will go up forever; It will be desolate from generation to generation; No one will pass through it forever and ever (v.10) ...And He will stretch over it the line of nothingness and the plummet weights of emptiness." (v.11b)
2.) Concerning another cataclysmic judgment -
Jeremiah 4:34 - "I looked at the earth, and there it was, waste and emptiness; And at the heavens, and they had no light. I looked at the mountains, and there they were, shaking, And all the hills were swaying ... I looked and there was the fruitful land, a wilderness, And ll its cities were torn down before Jehovah, before His burning anger."
We do not say that as separate usages, always these words would be indicative of judgment. Together as they appear in these samples and in Genesis 1:2 we believe divine judgment from God's anger is indicated.
Then looking up the word "FORM" I see 1. The shape and stucture of anything; figure. 2.a. A body, esp. of a human being. b Archaic. Pleasing external appearance; beauty. Syn. See MAKE.
The KJV says "WITHOUT FORM AND VOID" which compares very well with "UNSIGHTLY AND UNFINISHED" of the SEPTUAGINT when one takes the archaic definition of "FORM" and the synonym "MAKE" to mean "NOT MADE INTO A PLEASING APPEARANCE" because it is unfinished.
If you build a house and leave it unfinished, it is of course unsightly and ill - prepared YET for habitation.
However the same would be true if the house PREVIOUSLY was well furnished and proper and had been destroyed in a violent overthrow. It ALSO would be true that in that state it would be unsightly and ill prepared until renovation took place.
We see renovation and some further creation in Genesis 1.
Your logic is that UNFINISHED and UNSIGHTLY could not mean any previous use. And that simply does not follow that that MUST be the case.
Neither do we believe, in consideration of other passages, that is the case with Genesis 1:2.
Four descriptive words are found there in verse 2 - tohu, bohu, ghshek, and tehom
In the Authorized Version they are translated respectively "without form", "void", "darkness", and "deep".
If we take four English translations in order - AV, RV, Berkley, and RSV we can see how tohu was rendered in various places.
Duet. 32:10 waste, wilderness, in a ... waste, in a waste
Psalm 107:40 - wilderness, waste, pathless wastes, trackless wastes
1 Sam. 12:21 - vain things, vain, mere nothings, vain
Isaiah 24:10 confusion, confusion, desolate, chaos
Job 6:10 to nothing, into a waste, wastes, the waste
Isaiah 29:21 a thing of nought, thing of nought, empty, empty
Job 12:24 a wilderness, wilderness, in a jungle, a pathless waste
Isaiah 34:11 confusion, confusion, chaos, confusion
Job 26:7 empty place, empty place, empty place, the void
Isaiah 40:17 vanity, confusion, worthlessness, as emptiness
Isaiah 40:23 vanity, as in a waste, like nothing, as nothing
Isaiah 45:19 not in vain, as in a waste, in vain, in chaos
Isaiah 41:29 confusion, confusion, waste, empty
Isaiah 49:4 for nought, for nought, for nothing, for nothing
Isaiah 44:9 vanity, confusion, in vain, nothing
Isaiah 59:4 in vanity, vanity, in confusion, empty place
Isaiah 45:18 not in vain, a waste, in vain, a chaos
Jeremiah 4:23 without form, waste, formless, waste
These examples reveal how for English versions have rendered tohu.
Custance says that in no where the Hebrew employs tohu does the Septuagint use the word Chaos (in Greek). The word does appear twice elsewhere in the Septuagint. IE Micah 1:6 and Zechariah 14:4.
In both those cases the context is dramatic disordering and no chaos in the classical sense - the first thing in existence was chaos. That is as yet un-ordered.
While some Young Earth believers are sensative that Christians be NOT enfluenced by popular contemporary beliefs of millions of years of evolution, the usually do not reveal a similar concern for pagan myths about the first thing to exist being chaos.
IE. The ancient poet Hesiod, around 900 B.C. tells us that the first thing in existence was Chaos. The first etymology of the word meant "the yawning and void receptacle for created matter." But the word Chaos soon lost this strict meaning and was used to mean a crude and shapeless mass of material out of which the heavens and the earth were supposed to have been formed.
Pagan cosmogony influences many Christians who compromise the revelation of the Bible by reading into Genesis that God, like many mythologies, first created formless, crude, chaotic, and unfinished mess. We see in this discussion arguments that "without form and void" essentially should be taken to mean the pagan concept of chaos.
Ovid in Metam i.6,7 wrote - "There was but one appearance of nature throughout the whole world: this they called Chaos, an unformed and confused bulk".
In ancient pagan poetry we have one Janus character identified as Chaos speak in this way -
"The ancients used to call me Chaos: for a primeval being am I. See how remote an age I shall recount the events! This air, full of light, and the three reemaining elements, fire, water, and earth, were a confused heap. As soon as this mass was separated through the discord of its component parts, and had dissolved and passed away into new positions, the flame ascended upwards; a nearer place - that is, nearer to earth - received the air; the earth and the sea settled down to the bottom. Then I, who had been a mass and shapeless bulk, passed into a form and limbs worthuy of a god" (Fasti i. 1030112)
[Quoted from Earth's Earliest Ages, G.H. Pember, Regel, pg. 27) ]
Greek and Roman cosmogonies similarly had traditions that the universe sprang from Chaos. Uranus, or Heaven, was supposed to be the supreme god. Uranus was driven from power by his son Cronos or Saturn. Cronos or Saturn received the same treatment by his son Zues or Jupitar. And Chaos was the first thing in existence. The transient series of gods came into being from Chaos.
I submit that some Christians who would disdain to show influence of Darwinian thinking in their understanding of Scripture do not escape the influence of ancient pagan mythology like Greek and Roman creation concepts in their understanding.
Without form and void in Genesis 1:2 they insist is the Chaos, the chaotic mess that first existed much like the Greek and Roman pantheons. The world, they say, was just unformed and yet unsuitable.
I think the whole revelation of the Bible teaches it was unsuitable not because God first made Chaos. But it became unsuitable because God judged something previous in anger. Some of us teach that it was the realm of the disposed Anointed Cherub that caused what was under his rulership to become chaotic.
If millions of years was involved, it was not millions of years of nothing significant happening. The fermentation of the conspiracy was gradually unfolding.
This being was perfect in his ways from the time he was created. He corrupted his wisdom by reason of his beauty. That this conspiratorial rebellion fermented and developed over perhaps millions of years, is not shocking. No being had ever thought to challenge God Himself before.
Satan probably thought God was a pushover or too good or too kind to fight back against this colossal challenge to His ultimate government. I can see such a revolt hatching over a long period of time growing increasingly more and more rotten until it was obvious that the Daystar was an adversary to the Most High God.
The argument here by RJ is that our reading of Genesis is more like the traditions of pagan cosmogenies - God put the first thing in existence - Chaos - a formless unfinished mess.
From the above analysis, I see no need to makeup any gap of time to place between the first two verses of Genesis. It makes perfect sense without that if one understands the definitions of the words.
Standing alone, I would agree. In the light of latter passages in Ezekiel and Isaiah the curtain is drawn for us on the "prophetic past." We get a glimpse of happenings not during the six days or shortly after the six days. But rather we see things pertaining to a prior Eden and the government of God before man was created - dealing with the angelic and the things of a creation prior to Genesis 1:2.
But I might...
13 Feb 15
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipI was not referring to Ezekiel 28 but to the imaginary gap before Genesis 1:2 when I said:
[quote] I am sure Satan would be happy to add billions or millions of years between the first two verses of Genesis, but it simply is not there. There is nothing to indicate that the earth is anything but vacant (empty - void) and unfinished (without form) and covered with water. Then the spirit of God moved over the water and began forming it into a place t ...[text shortened]... as a remnant of something God wants no trace of which to remain in the age of the New Jerusalem.
I am sure Satan would be happy to add billions or millions of years between the first two verses of Genesis, but it simply is not there.
You do not seem to understand that Genesis one is NOT poetic play on words, but historical facts using the exact meanings of the words. However, I acknowledge that some of Jeremiah and Ezekial are in Hebrew poetic form where one is free to use play on words. Likewise, play on words may also be use in the Revelation prophecy visions.
13 Feb 15
7 edits
Originally posted by sonshipI believe that human myths from pagan religions are distortions from Satan the devil. I don't believe that Moses borrowed from the pagan religions like sonhouse does. If I did, then I probably would not believe in Christianity; and I might even believe in the miracle of evolution, even if it does seem stupid.
As I said - I do not expect you to back down on what you believe. I can only give reason for why I believe what I do.
[quote]
I have indicated in my first paragraph how I believe the King James Version accurately compares with the Greek Septuagint version by using different words having the same meaning which are called synonyms. So let us reason this ...[text shortened]... g with the angelic and the things of a creation prior to [b]Genesis 1:2.
But I might...[/b]
I agree with kent Hovind that we must understand the meanings of the original words when they were written and the meanings of the translated words when they were written. Many words accumlated additional meanings and usage over time and some of the old meanings become obsolete.
I discovered years ago that there were different meanings for some English words when the King James Bible was translated. For example, unicorn today has come to mean a mythical one-horned animal resembling a horse. But in the time of the King James translators it was defined in the English dictionary of the time as a one-horned rhinoceros. If you google it up you will see that the scientific name still uses "UNICORN" it it.
So we must consider that Hebrew words, in time, also gained other meanings than from the time of Moses.
Let me say again that the paradise near the throne of God with the river and tree of life is spiritual, wheras the paradise that God made for Adam and Eve was on a physical earth and it was physical. So the term "Eden" may not just refer to the physical one on earth. Be careful not to get them mixed up or else your understanding will be distorted like the pagan myths. Did you ever determine what the "stones of fire" was referring to? You were asked that question by lemon lime, I think.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHinds
I was not referring to Ezekiel 28 but to the imaginary gap before Genesis 1:2 when I said:
I am sure Satan would be happy to add billions or millions of years between the first two verses of Genesis, but it simply is not there.
I understood exactly what you meant.
And I went with the real situation as the Scripture states.
That is what is important to me.
You do not seem to understand that Genesis one is NOT poetic play on words,
The phrase tohu va-bohu we believe is an assonance or play on the sound in Hebrew. We do not say the entire book of Genesis is such an assonance.
but historical facts using the exact meanings of the words. However, I acknowledge that some of Jeremiah and Ezekial are in Hebrew poetic form where one is free to use play on words.
Then you see biblical ground why the two instances in Jeremiah and Isaiah are believed by some to be accompanied also with Genesis 1:2. Though you do not agree with the overall conclusion.
I am not sure why you mentioned Ezekiel.
But let me comment on your comment. Your suggestion is that Satan would be happy for men to see millions of years. I guess you mean "millions of years of evolution". For the main enemy is the theory of evolution.
Well, evolution is indeed harmful to our faith in that in its strongest form means God the Creator is nowhere to be involved and accidents over long periods of time are responsible for all the life we see. And it also obscures the exalted nature of man by blurring the line between man and beasts.
Sure, in that sense, Satan would be happy that men eliminate God's involvement altogether in favor of some crazy random process with no purpose.
But he has no reason to be happy that we see that this archangel lost his exalted closeness to God, his majesty, his beauty, his reign, his function, his priesthood and kingship in utter incompetence being CRUSHED by His Creator's wisdom and having a destiny to be thoroughly upstaged and even executed by a smaller being made out of dust who can be one with God.
He is seen as "the avenger" seething with an obsession to "get even" against God for the loss of all his past pristine beauty and dignity -all of which loss was his own fault.
"Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings You [God] have established strength because of Your adversaries, To stop the enemy and the avenger." (Psalm 8:2)
We should preach to Satan thus - "Shame on you. You were the highest of beings - leading the universal worship of your Creator, a priestly king full of wisdom and beauty. Look at you defeated, incompetent, defeated by the Man Jesus Christ and having no hope of any destiny except of the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Wait, don't go away. Come back. You are only a little snake crushed under the heel of the Son of God and crushed also under the prevailing church for God said of us - "Now the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you." (Romans 16:20)
The Lord rebuke you Satan. The Godman Jesus defeat you and we thoroughly identified with Jesus our Lord also crush you under our feet according to Romans 16:20. We don't care about you lies whatever they may be.
Why John has ALREADY seen you in the lake of fire, you and all your angels. Disgraced, defeated, conquered by a MAN - the Lord Jesus Christ and His church.
Shame on you little snake !"
We defeat the little snake not in our own power of the Adam nature. We defeat him by being filled with Christ, thoroughly joined to Christ, saturated with Christ, and built up in love and oneness in Christ.
We are not worried about the little snake being "happy."
So we can sit down and preach a good message to Satan and give him plenty of reasons why he has no reason to be happy. Of course we have to be very much in Christ to do this.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe that human myths from pagan religions are distortions from Satan the devil. I don't believe that Moses borrowed from the pagan religions like sonhouse does. If I did, then I probably would not believe in Christianity; and I might even believe in the miracle of evolution, even if it does seem stupid.
I agree with kent Hovind that we must unders ...[text shortened]... what the "stones of fire" was referring to? You were asked that question by lemon lime, I think.
Let me say again that the paradise near the throne of God with the river and tree of life is spiritual, wheras the paradise that God made for Adam and Eve was on a physical earth and it was physical. So the term "Eden" may not just refer to the physical one on earth. Be careful not to get them mixed up or else your understanding will be distorted like the pagan myths. Did you ever determine what the "stones of fire" was referring to? You were asked that question by lemon lime, I think.
Under the feet of God whom Moses and the elders of Israel saw on Mount Sinai were blazing blueish paved work. Maybe that is what was meant by the stones of fire.
I cannot speak to the physics or the science of such. What is communicated to us in terms we humans can understand is that God's whole realm was terribly glorious, dazzling, holy, infinitely sacred and in blazing splendor.
That is really all we need to grasp there -
"You were the anointed cherub who covered the Ark; indeed I set you, so that you were upon the holy mountain of God; you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire." (Ezek. 28:14)
Now you are quite right to point out the spiritual significance of matters in Revelation. Actually the entire Bible bears this kind of significance even history or physical things are being mentioned, very often.
It should therefore be noted WHY Satan would HATE, HATE the man created and gained by God. For the climax of man's salvation replaces Satan's pre-rebellion splendor -
COMPARE:
"You were in Eden, the garden of God. every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx, jasper, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald, with gold ..." (Ezek. 28:13)
"The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every precious stone: the first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; the fifth, sardonyxx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst." (Revelation 21:19,20)
The precious stones stand for TRANSFORMED human beings. That is God's salvation has transformed them and built them up into a living house of God. The transformed human beings bear more than the glory originally had by the anointed cherub - his 11 stones compared to the New Jerusalem's 12 stones.
And they adorn the "wall" of the city - keeping God's interests inside and keeping all that is not of God out. They preserve God's interests on earth.
Whereas the garden was to be guarded by Adam, who failed, the last Adam produces a city, a corporate new human race GUARDED, WALLED around by transformed, glorified, deified, sanctified, resurrected, conformed to the image of God's Son saints.
You can see the ancient foe is reminded in the lake of fire, that all the glory that was once his is now more than borne by the dusty creature whom God Himself became and whom God saved.
Now, let's have a Hallelujah - Praise the Lord genuinely. Amen.
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by sonshipI still believe your problem is that you are trying to learn from a cult leader just like the JWs.I was not referring to Ezekiel 28 but to the imaginary gap before Genesis 1:2 when I said:
I am sure Satan would be happy to add billions or millions of years between the first two verses of Genesis, but it simply is not there.
I understood exactly what you meant.
And I went with the real situation as the Scripture states.
That i ...[text shortened]... easons why he has no reason to be happy. Of course we have to be very much in Christ to do this.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen I read and was convinced of the pre-Adamic history of Satan by reading Pember's book, I did know even know the name of Witness Lee.
I still believe your problem is that you are trying to learn from a cult leader just like the JWs.
I guess you should make up your mind which debate you want to have here.