Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Genesis 1:2

196 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

These questions I ask keep getting lost in the debates of other issues, so I would like to see if anyone can actually produce an answer that makes sense. (My apologies if you feel I misrepresented anything you have said, but in the end I never perceived my questions to be given clear answers.)

 

Genesis 1:2

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.

 

(I posted  the NAB version; you are free to post another version if you prefer the wording.)

 

 

1.Why was the eretz (earth) "formless and void"?

 

2. How long did this eretz exist at this point?

 

3. Where did this "darkness" come from? Why was it there? How did it get there?

 

4. What is the "deep"? Where was it? Where did it come from? How long did it exist before this point?

 

5. What were "the waters"? Where did it/they come from? How long were they/it there?

 

6. Where were "the deep" and "the waters" in relation to the eretz?

 

7. Where was the darkness in relation to the eretz?

 

8. Is there or is there not a connection or correlation to the eretz and "the deep" and "the waters"? If so, what? If not, why not?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Earliest-Ages-G-Pember/dp/0825435331/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391020361&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=g.+h.+pemver

 

you can get the Kindle version of this for ten bucks......

 

 

The best review of the book copied from the Amazon web site.

 

G.H. Pember lived from 1837-1910. As a result, this book's language can be quite difficult for the modern reader to follow. However, it is worth it. To begin with, Pember ably reconciles the 6000 year history of man from Adam to the present age with the scientific findings that the earth is much older than 6000 years of age. He also discusses some of the finer points of the book of Genesis, including the time of Noah, and the evil that was taking place upon the earth that was so bad that God felt he had to start over.

Probably the most controversial chapter in the book is the last - "As It Was in the Days of Noah" - which talks about the current age being the last. Pember lays out seven trends that prove that these (in his case, the late 19th century) are the end times. This is where he really gets mocked on various websites I have visited, but he does have some points that are undeniable if you give them some thought.

First Pember says that man has come to regard God - if he regards him at all - as Creator and Benefactor, not as a God that must deal with sinners. In other words the common view among people today is that "God is Love" with no regard for justice, and that somehow nearly all, with the exception of the worst criminals, will escape God's judgement.

Second, Pember quotes "An undue prominence of the female sex, and a disregard for the primal law of marriage." He doesn't discuss much about the first part of this sentence, but the second part he discusses at length as man's willingness to see marriage as a contract that can be ended at any time. This has clearly come to pass.

Third, Pember notes "A rapid progress in the mechanical arts ...Also a proficiency in the fine arts". Here, Pember is noting that the industrial revolution, which had already occurred at the time he wrote this, made life so much easier that man could disregard God due to the mitigation of the original curse put on man at the time of Adam. Pember argues that the fine arts "induce an entire oblivion of God" because entertainment tends to distract man from God. If this was true in 1900, it is so much more true today! In the U.S. people are becoming more and more obese because the world of entertainment and an easy life are killing them physically as well as spiritually as they hardly need to get off of their couches to perform any task or fulfill any desire. Not that anyone would want to go back to carrying water from earthen wells, but the effect of man's reliance on automation for so many things coupled with the ability to fill the resulting leisure time with custom-built entertainment of every kind imaginable undoubtedly makes it easy to ignor God.

Pember's fourth trend is "an alliance between the nominal church and the World". Here Pember is basically saying that the nominal church and the World wed by subverting spiritual things and making their gatherings more of a show devoid of God and His desires. Again, this is still seen in the present age.

The fifth trend is "a vast increase in population". Here, he never really makes a case as to why this is a bad trend, at least in my opinion.

The sixth trend is "the rejection of the preaching of Enoch and Noah". Pember is talking about the rejection of calls to repentence, and the fact that the Lord is tarrying in returning is causing many to mock the preaching ones. At the time Pember wrote this, he mentions a revival that had been going on fifty years. Add another century, and look around, and you can see that getting anyone to take you seriously when you say the end times are here is indeed a problem. However,Pember notes it was 120 years from the time God decided to flood the earth until it actually happened.

The seventh and final trend is "The appearance upon earth of the Principalities of the Air and their unlawful union with the human race." This was something mentioned in the book of Genesis and discussed at length in Pember's book about the times of Noah, although even Pember doesn't make a strong argument for this currently happening.

In summary, even though it is over 100 years old, I really recommend this book. It is hard to read due to the antiquity of the 19th century writing style, but it discusses matters you won't find in any other book. Also, if you think long and hard about what Pember is saying, you'll see that he has many points to make that are relevant to today's believers and the world condition. Of course, if you are not a Christian, you will probably be totally unconvinced by this book, since it is not a beginning book of evangelism.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Is there anything in this book that addresses the questions I asked?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Is there anything in this book that addresses the questions I asked?

in looking for a good overview of the book I ran across an online version of it for free.

 

https://archive.org/stream/earthsearliestag00pemb#page/24/mode/2up

 

look through it ....    I think it will give some things to consider concerning all these questions.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

These questions I ask keep getting lost in the debates of other issues, so I would like to see if anyone can actually produce an answer that makes sense. (My apologies if you feel I misrepresented anything you have said, but in the end I never perceived my questions to be given clear answers.)

 

Genesis 1:2

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.

 

(I posted  the NAB version; you are free to post another version if you prefer the wording.)

 

 

1.Why was the eretz (earth) "formless and void"?

 

2. How long did this eretz exist at this point?

 

3. Where did this "darkness" come from? Why was it there? How did it get there?

 

4. What is the "deep"? Where was it? Where did it come from? How long did it exist before this point?

 

5. What were "the waters"? Where did it/they come from? How long were they/it there?

 

6. Where were "the deep" and "the waters" in relation to the eretz?

 

7. Where was the darkness in relation to the eretz?

 

8. Is there or is there not a connection or correlation to the eretz and "the deep" and "the waters"? If so, what? If not, why not?

Can you point to one question that cannot be answered without a complete reliance on pure speculation or assumption?    Why do you want answers to questions you know that no one alive today can actually answer.?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

These questions I ask keep getting lost in the debates of other issues, so I would like to see if anyone can actually produce an answer that makes sense. (My apologies if you feel I misrepresented anything you have said, but in the end I never perceived my questions to be given clear answers.)

 

Genesis 1:2

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.

 

(I posted  the NAB version; you are free to post another version if you prefer the wording.)

 

 

1.Why was the eretz (earth) "formless and void"?

 

2. How long did this eretz exist at this point?

 

3. Where did this "darkness" come from? Why was it there? How did it get there?

 

4. What is the "deep"? Where was it? Where did it come from? How long did it exist before this point?

 

5. What were "the waters"? Where did it/they come from? How long were they/it there?

 

6. Where were "the deep" and "the waters" in relation to the eretz?

 

7. Where was the darkness in relation to the eretz?

 

8. Is there or is there not a connection or correlation to the eretz and "the deep" and "the waters"? If so, what? If not, why not?

These are interesting questions. I have wondered some similar things to this. What are these waters etc. Unfortunately I have no good insight here.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Is there anything in this book that addresses the questions I asked?

in looking for a good overview of the book I ran across an online version of it for free.

 

https://archive.org/stream/earthsearliestag00pemb#page/24/mode/2up

 

look through it ....    I think it will give some things to consider concerning all these questions.

 

Thanks, Other One! What he wrote provides the most clarity of anything I have seen.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Can you point to one question that cannot be answered without a complete reliance on pure speculation or assumption?    Why do you want answers to questions you know that no one alive today can actually answer.?

 

Looking at Genesis 1:2 this way, asking these questions, are the reason I first questioned the validity of the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1, why I eventually turned away from that intepretation, and why I cannot return to it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Pember is putting forth the tired old myth about the Gap Theory where there is a huge gap of millions upon millions of years between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2.   It can be demonstrated biblically to be false on every claim it makes.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Pember is putting forth the tired old myth about the Gap Theory where there is a huge gap of millions upon millions of years between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2.   It can be demonstrated biblically to be false on every claim it makes.  

 

Well,so far, it offers the best answers.

 

I'm up for alternatives.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Can you point to one question that cannot be answered without a complete reliance on pure speculation or assumption?    Why do you want answers to questions you know that no one alive today can actually answer.?

 

Looking at Genesis 1:2 this way, asking these questions, are the reason I first questioned the validity of the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1, why I eventually turned away from that intepretation, and why I cannot return to it.

 

But nothing you are asking about has anything to the claims made by either YEC or OEC.   

 

There are all kinds of questions about things in the Bible that we have no clear definitive answers to.  Questions about God and where He came from and all kinds of things about biblical history that no one has ever been able figure out.  

 

Should we give up on the Bible because we have no answers to those questions???

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Pember is putting forth the tired old myth about the Gap Theory where there is a huge gap of millions upon millions of years between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2.   It can be demonstrated biblically to be false on every claim it makes.  

 

Well,so far, it offers the best answers.

 

I'm up for alternatives.

 

 

So you think it offers the best answers?   Riddle me this, then.   Explain why God would completely destroy a pre-adamite human race for sin insetead of offering them a plan of redemption?

 

On its very face, it contradicts the redemptive nature of God that He would judge a race of human beings and provide them no hope, no love, no future, no forgiveness, no plan of salvation, nothing.

 

Evidently you have not really thought this unbiblcial Gap Theory through very well.    The Gap Theory is an affront to the very nature of God.  

 

That's before we get into the way the Hebrew language is mangled by Pember in order to foist this deception on others.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

But nothing you are asking about has anything to the claims made by either YEC or OEC.

OK, Shiloh - YEC interpretation.

When were the waters created?

When was eretz created?

If God does not create chaos, why was there chaos before Day 1 of creation?

 

There are all kinds of questions about things in the Bible that we have no clear definitive answers to.  Questions about God and where He came from and all kinds of things about biblical history that no one has ever been able figure out.  

 

Should we give up on the Bible because we have no answers to those questions???

Shiloh, if you are implying that turning away from the YEC interpetation of Creation is giving up on the Bible, we have a huge problem between us.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

OK, Shiloh - YEC interpretation.

When were the waters created?

When was eretz created?

If God does not create chaos, why was there chaos before Day 1 of creation?

 

Again, none of this has anything to do with what either YEC or OEC holds to.

 

You are asking questions that NO ONE including OEC has any definitive answers to.   Holding these things up as reasons to reject is YEC is rather hollow because OEC can't answer those kinds of questions, either. 

 

So I am at a loss as to why if YEC can't answers those questions, it serves as a valid reason to reject the YEC model, but the fact that OEC can't answer them either doesn't serve as a reason to reject the OEC model.  Do you see the internal inconsistency in your argument?

 

Shiloh, if you are implying that turning away from the YEC interpetation of Creation is giving up on the Bible, we have a huge problem between us.

 

No, I am simply showing the internal inconsistency of your argument.   You are claiming that the questions posed in the OP and the weakness of the YEC model to answer them served as your reason to reject that model.  

 

My point is that in the Bible leaves us with questions that are just as unanswerable, that God simply has not given us enough light to answer at all.   We don't give up on the Bible simply because the Bible doesn't provide us answers to certain questions about God, life, eternity, history, etc.   So why should unanswered questions serve as the basis for rejecting the YEC model.

 

Your OP is asking questions that neither YEC or OEC are equipped to answer, but you inconsistently reject only one of those models on the basis that it can't answer those questions.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So you think it offers the best answers?   Riddle me this, then.   Explain why God would completely destroy a pre-adamite human race for sin insetead of offering them a plan of redemption?

Like you said, do we have to know and understand all mysteries?

And how do you know there was not a redemptive plan given to them?

Imagine what would have happened in the days of Noah had there been no Noah.

 

On its very face, it contradicts the redemptive nature of God that He would judge a race of human beings and provide them no hope, no love, no future, no forgiveness, no plan of salvation, nothing.

See above.

 

Evidently you have not really thought this unbiblcial Gap Theory through very well.    The Gap Theory is an affront to the very nature of God.

Again, how do you know? How would you know how God did or did not reveal Himself to these people?

I find it amusing that you rebuke me for rejecting YEC over the mysteries of vs. 2, yet you reject someone else's interpretation of vs. 2 based on mysteries and assumptions to those mysteries.

Do you see how ironic this seems to me?

  

 

That's before we get into the way the Hebrew language is mangled by Pember in order to foist this deception on others.

Like I said, Shiloh if you have a better alternative to the questions I posed I am all ears.

Refuting someone else's answer is NOT and alternative.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

OK, Shiloh - YEC interpretation.

When were the waters created?

When was eretz created?

If God does not create chaos, why was there chaos before Day 1 of creation?

Again, none of this has anything to do with what either YEC or OEC holds to.

 

You are asking questions that NO ONE including OEC has any definitive answers to.   Holding these things up as reasons to reject is YEC is rather hollow because OEC can't answer those kinds of questions, either. 

 

So I am at a loss as to why if YEC can't answers those questions, it serves as a valid reason to reject the YEC model, but the fact that OEC can't answer them either doesn't serve as a reason to reject the OEC model.  Do you see the internal inconsistency in your argument?

 

Yes, it does relate to YEC.

The fact that you are trying to negate the questions are evidence to this.

YEC acts like vs 2 never existed.

I ask again:

ACCORDING TO YEC, WHEN WERE THE WATERS CREATED?

 

 

Shiloh, if you are implying that turning away from the YEC interpetation of Creation is giving up on the Bible, we have a huge problem between us.

No, I am simply showing the internal inconsistency of your argument.   You are claiming that the questions posed in the OP and the weakness of the YEC model to answer them served as your reason to reject that model.

 

The waters, the deep, and eretz existing before God said, "Let there be light" serves as huge monkey wrench to the YEC model.

I have yet to hear a YEC make a reasonable explanation for what was going on in vs. 2.

 

My point is that in the Bible leaves us with questions that are just as unanswerable, that God simply has not given us enough light to answer at all.

Well, you are rejecting an intepretation based on mysteries and assumptions to mysteries.

 

We don't give up on the Bible

There you go again. I am NOT giving up on the Bible. Argh!

 

simply because the Bible doesn't provide us answers to certain questions about God, life, eternity, history, etc.   So why should unanswered questions serve as the basis for rejecting the YEC model.

 

Your OP is asking questions that neither YEC or OEC are equipped to answer, but you inconsistently reject only one of those models on the basis that it can't answer those questions.

Facepalm

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

formless and void, darkness, deep, the waters...all things ancient men were afraid of and from which they needed God to protect them.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Like you said, do we have to know and understand all mysteries?

 

Wrong.  The redemptive nature of God isn't one of those things we don't have enough light on to understand.  We may not fully understand it all, but we have enough light to know how God thinks and acts.  He doesn't leave us in the dark about that.   So that is not a valid comparison.

 

And how do you know there was not a redemptive plan given to them?

 

Because the Gap Theory makes no room for it.  The theory states that God destroyed them with no plan of redemption no hope.   So on its face it contradicts biblical revelation about God's very nature.

 

 

Imagine what would have happened in the days of Noah had there been no Noah.

 

Do you think things simply got bad in the days of Noah??   God waited for Noah before He judged the earth.   God waited until there was a righteous man in order to provide a means of keeping the seed of man in the earth.   God never judged humanity with out the possibility of redemption.  It is why God has never wiped humanity off the earth.  He always provides a means for man to be redeemed.

 

Again, the Gap Theory contradicts what we know about God.

 

Again, how do you know? How would you know how God did or did not reveal Himself to these people?

 

You ask me these questions as if the Gap Theory is factual event in history and it isn't.  The Bible says nothing about it.  If it were true, why doesn't the Bible mention it?  As it stands there is not one shred of biblical corroboration for it.  Not a shred.   Why are you so quick to jump on board to advance a theory that is not only not corroborated by SCripture but actually sheds a reproach on the very character of God?

 

Are you so desperate to have answers to unanswerable questions that you are willing to support a theory that challenges God and brings a reproach upon Him???

 

I find it amusing that you rebuke me for rejecting YEC over the mysteries of vs. 2, yet you reject someone else's interpretation of vs. 2 based on mysteries and assumptions to those mysteries.

 

 

That is not true.   My comments about your rejection YEC point to an internal inconsistency in your logic.   You reject YEC because it is not equipped to answer the questions you listed in the OP but see no reason to reject OEC even though it is also not equipped to answer those questions.  I guess you are not really reading my responses too closely as you can't seem to frame them correctly.

 

I am rejecting the Gap Theory not on the basis of mysteries or assumptions to those mysteries; I am rejecting them on the grounds that it contradicts the Bible's claim that sin came into the world through Adam and because the Gap Theory brings reproach upon God.  

 

Like I said, Shiloh if you have a better alternative to the questions I posed I am all ears.

Refuting someone else's answer is NOT and alternative.

 

The alternative is to actually believe God's word on the matter.  Why is so hard to simply take God at His word?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Shiloh, do I need to pull up a list of logical fallicies and point out to you how many you are commiting in your argument?

 

 

Case in point:

 

The alternative is to actually believe God's word on the matter.  Why is so hard to simply take God at His word?

 

I take Gen. 1:2 at face value. Do you? How does it fit into the order of Creation?

 

 

 

Face it, vs. 2 is a challenge to YEC, and your only solution is to tear down another theory? Really?

 

The only thing I said about this "Gap Theory" is that the book presented the only solution to answering the questions.

 

And I never said anything about OEC.

 

Really, if you put the claims of OEC in front of me, I'd probably find pieces I'd throw away too.

 

 

I am truly sick and tired of you how you keep implying faith and redemption hanging on the balance of mindlessly accepting YEC. This type of defense lacks grace. In fact, it acts more like a cult manipulation than rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

 

The fact remains - vs. 2 presents things that do not fit the YEC model. So what do you do, pretend vs. 2 isn't there? Or do byou find a way to tackle the questions.

 

I dare a YEC to fit vs. 2 into the YEC model.

 

If you can't, then please stop trying to burn the questions.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Pember is putting forth the tired old myth about the Gap Theory where there is a huge gap of millions upon millions of years between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2.   It can be demonstrated biblically to be false on every claim it makes.  

 

Well,so far, it offers the best answers.

 

I'm up for alternatives.

 

 

So you think it offers the best answers?   Riddle me this, then.   Explain why God would completely destroy a pre-adamite human race for sin insetead of offering them a plan of redemption?

 

On its very face, it contradicts the redemptive nature of God that He would judge a race of human beings and provide them no hope, no love, no future, no forgiveness, no plan of salvation, nothing.

 

Evidently you have not really thought this unbiblcial Gap Theory through very well.    The Gap Theory is an affront to the very nature of God.  

 

That's before we get into the way the Hebrew language is mangled by Pember in order to foist this deception on others.

 

I don't remember reading anything about a pre Adamite human race in the book.    Angels and things yes......  humans no.

 

I might add that Tomas Horn agrees with Pember and he's a published theologian who was a pastor at one of the largest churches in the nation for about 25 years, a practicing exorcist for about five of those years, has a doctor of divinity degree and is a published author with many years of research experience.

 

He also used to have a forum here on worthy, so I would think that George wouldn't think him a heretic anyway.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Can you point to one question that cannot be answered without a complete reliance on pure speculation or assumption?    Why do you want answers to questions you know that no one alive today can actually answer.?

 

Looking at Genesis 1:2 this way, asking these questions, are the reason I first questioned the validity of the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1, why I eventually turned away from that intepretation, and why I cannot return to it.

 

 

Well roll on over to:  OEC MUST have a Local vs. Global Flood, and all you'll have left for OEC is the StarLight "begging the question" Fallacy.  GOD deals directly with that issue in Day 4.

 

Or,

 

You believe in a Local Flood and maintain the status quo.

 

Go on now :)

 

Or would you like me to post it here? (all you need is the OP post...you seen it a little while ago)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Shiloh, do I need to pull up a list of logical fallicies and point out to you how many you are commiting in your argument?

 

 

Case in point:

 

The alternative is to actually believe God's word on the matter.  Why is so hard to simply take God at His word?

 

I take Gen. 1:2 at face value. Do you? How does it fit into the order of Creation?

I don't take it at face value. I take it literally and I have the Hebrew to back up my position.   You have basically nothing to go on.   Taking a passage a face value and taking God at His word are not interchangable concepts.

 

Face it, vs. 2 is a challenge to YEC, and your only solution is to tear down another theory? Really?

 

Verse 2 is NOT a challenge to YEC because it does not speak to any claims YEC makes  For that matter, it doesn't even speak to the claims OEC makes.

 

The only thing I said about this "Gap Theory" is that the book presented the only solution to answering the questions.

 

And I never said anything about OEC.

 

But the fact that you think it supports OEC is the logical conclusion.  That is where this line of thinking leads doesn't it?  I mean come on.   The theory presents NO answers because it is not based on any facts whatsoever.  It can't even be substantiated with the Bible.  

 

Really, if you put the claims of OEC in front of me, I'd probably find pieces I'd throw away too.

 

But OEC doesn't answer any of the questions you posed in the OP, but for some reason, that doesn't lead to you abandon OEC the way it led you to abandon YEC.  That's the glaring difference (and the doublestandard).

 

 

 

I am truly sick and tired of you how you keep implying faith and redemption hanging on the balance of mindlessly accepting YEC. This type of defense lacks grace. In fact, it acts more like a cult manipulation than rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

How is accepting YEC any more "mindless" that accepting OEC??  OEC is based on unproven assumptions and untested hypothesis that people are just supposed suck up and accept as fact or be labeled a crackpot.   There is nothing about any of the OEC claims that are grounded in actual fact, but they are expected to be accepted if one wants to remain respected in the scientific community and some sectors the Christian community. 

 

If anything the cult manipulation comes from the scientific community that demands fotal compliance to their views and those who don't are cast out and rejected by the scientific community.  That is were the resemblance of a cult mentality lies.  

 

 

The fact remains - vs. 2 presents things that do not fit the YEC model. So what do you do, pretend vs. 2 isn't there? Or do byou find a way to tackle the questions.

 

I dare a YEC to fit vs. 2 into the YEC model.

 

If you can't, then please stop trying to burn the questions.

 

 

That makes no sense.   Your questions have nothing to do with YEC claims. Verse 2 fits just fine with how a YEC person views the Bible.  Your questions are the problem, not Gen. 1:2.   You are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.    Your questions can't be answered by anyone OEC or YEC.   You are asking questions for which there isn't sufficient information from either the scientific community or the Bible to answer.

 

YEC is based on the view that the days of creation are six solar days.   That is why it is the YEC view.  OEC sees the days of creation as long epochs of time.  That is the debate between OEC and YEC.   Your questions are not material to that debate.   They don't address the heart of the differences between OEC and YEC.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes, it does relate to YEC.

The fact that you are trying to negate the questions are evidence to this.

YEC acts like vs 2 never existed.

 

None of those comments are true at all.  None of them.   It doesn't even touch on the claims YEC makes.   I am not negating your questions, whatever that means.  I am simply pointing out the fact that we are not in possession of the answers to them.  Why is that so hard to accept??   We are acking like verse 2 never existed. That is absurd and unfair.  YOU are trying to use verse 2 to manufacture a problem that isn't there.

 

The waters, the deep, and eretz existing before God said, "Let there be light" serves as huge monkey wrench to the YEC model.

I have yet to hear a YEC make a reasonable explanation for what was going on in vs. 2.

 

It doesn't throw wrench in it all.  YEC model only addresses the days of creation, as does the OEC model.  The OEC model doesn't offer any real answers to those questions either but for some reason that doesn't seem to matter to you.  

 

YEC = Young Earth Creation.  Emphasis on the word "Creation."   We are talking about the creation week in Genesis and not what happened before that week. 

 

Well, you are rejecting an intepretation based on mysteries and assumptions to mysteries

 

No I am not.   In the first place, the Gap Theory is not an interpretation. It is not rooted in Scripture at all and is not supported by any biblical text.  It has no theological value at all.   It is not an intepretation in any sense of the word.    I reject it not on the basis of mysteries, but onthe basis that it contradicts the known character of God and how He has revealed Himself.  But evidently that doesn't mean anything to you, based on the way you have brushed over any discussion of that.

 

There you go again. I am NOT giving up on the Bible. Argh!

 

 

And once again, I didn't say you are.   I am showing the inconsistency in your argument.   You dont give up on the Bible even though it creates questions for us that it doesn't answer.   Yet, the questions in OP caused you to abandon YEC because the model doesn't address those questions.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't remember reading anything about a pre Adamite human race in the book.    Angels and things yes......  humans no.

 

Thank you, other one.

 

It would be nice to have the actual points presented challenged rather than continual strawman's thrown at me.

 

Sigh.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Can you point to one question that cannot be answered without a complete reliance on pure speculation or assumption?    Why do you want answers to questions you know that no one alive today can actually answer.?

 

Looking at Genesis 1:2 this way, asking these questions, are the reason I first questioned the validity of the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1, why I eventually turned away from that intepretation, and why I cannot return to it.

 

 

Well roll on over to:  OEC MUST have a Local vs. Global Flood, and all you'll have left for OEC is the StarLight "begging the question" Fallacy.  GOD deals directly with that issue in Day 4.

 

Or,

 

You believe in a Local Flood and maintain the status quo.

 

Go on now :)

 

Or would you like me to post it here? (all you need is the OP post...you seen it a little while ago)

 

Goodness gravy. Will you lay off the strawman?

 

I'm asking for how people deal with Genesis 1:2, not with how I handle any conclusions I've come to from the questions or not.

 

Argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0