Is Genesis the story of the earth's creation?

[exrockstar]

Exactly, which is why this earth is not a recreation of an earlier one.

i'll take nebulas advice and go back on topic. i believe she said you posted some thing in the studies forum

about this topic. if this is the link she is talking about:

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/Creat...ves-t15005.html

then im going to read it. i want to get a feel of what you perceive.

I just hope it answers a question: "does Shiloh believe Adam walked around with a T-Rex?"

[Guest shiloh357]

Exactly, which is why this earth is not a recreation of an earlier one.

i'll take nebulas advice and go back on topic. i believe she said you posted some thing in the studies forum

about this topic. if this is the link she is talking about:

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/Creat...ves-t15005.html

then im going to read it. i want to get a feel of what you perceive.

I just hope it answers a question: "does Shiloh believe Adam walked around with a T-Rex?"

Uh, the topic is the recreation of earth. I have stayed on topic. You are the one who brought up some nonexistant "plan of salvation for angels" out of thin air.

[Fraught]

The word used for create in Genesis 1:1 does speak of creation ex nihilo, not reformation

this is from Strong...

Bara'

to create, shape, form

(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)

of heaven and earth

of individual man

of new conditions and circumstances

of transformations

Seems that reformation could fit nicely into this.

No it doesn't. It follows "Brehesis" which means, "at the first." If it is at the first or "in the beginning," then it defies "bara" being used in that verse as a "reformation" as that would imply something prior. If "bara" in verse one means "reformation," then the 1st verse of the Bible is internally inconsistent with itself.

maybe the word 'brehesis' could be at the first in contrast with the new heavens and new earth that will be after Jesus' return. a possibility?

[Guest shiloh357]

The word used for create in Genesis 1:1 does speak of creation ex nihilo, not reformation

this is from Strong...

Bara'

to create, shape, form

(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)

of heaven and earth

of individual man

of new conditions and circumstances

of transformations

Seems that reformation could fit nicely into this.

No it doesn't. It follows "Brehesis" which means, "at the first." If it is at the first or "in the beginning," then it defies "bara" being used in that verse as a "reformation" as that would imply something prior. If "bara" in verse one means "reformation," then the 1st verse of the Bible is internally inconsistent with itself.

maybe the word 'brehesis' could be at the first in contrast with the new heavens and new earth that will be after Jesus' return. a possibility?

No, because there can only be one "first."

[exrockstar]

Uh, the topic is the recreation of earth. I have stayed on topic. You are the one who brought up some nonexistant "plan of salvation for angels" out of thin air.

i apologize. i actually was astrayed by your comment that lacked thought: "It seems to me that it diminishes man because it makes us a "do over" and not what God originally was after. It makes us "Plan B" when God's first attempt at managing earth failed."

then i went on and tried to explain to you that there isn't a plan "B."

somehow i went astray.

my fault.

[Guest shiloh357]

Uh, the topic is the recreation of earth. I have stayed on topic. You are the one who brought up some nonexistant "plan of salvation for angels" out of thin air.

i apologize. i actually was astrayed by your comment that lacked thought: "It seems to me that it diminishes man because it makes us a "do over" and not what God originally was after. It makes us "Plan B" when God's first attempt at managing earth failed."

then i went on and tried to explain to you that there isn't a plan "B."

somehow i went astray.

my fault.

Well I stand behind my comment and so far you have provided nothing but a lot smartalek comments and some unbiblical notion about angels having a plan of redemption that you cannnot back up in the Bible. My remark was right on the money as a recreation of earth in Genesis creates a whole host of implications that stand in contradiction to the revealed Word, which addresses the OP's topic head on. If this earth is a doever, then we are God's second plan, Plan B. Like it or not. I did not fly off on some unbiblical speculation about angels.

You were not taken astray by anything I said. You were taken astray and off by a weird, unbiblical assertion about a plan of redemption for angels that you still have not been able to demonsrate from Scripture.

[exrockstar]

If this earth is a doever, then we are God's second plan, Plan B. Like it or not.

Do you believe Adam lived alongside the earth with a Brontasauraus?

[exrockstar]

Do you believe Adam lived alongside the earth with dinosaurs?

^ for Shiloh

[Guest shiloh357]

If this earth is a doever, then we are God's second plan, Plan B. Like it or not.

Do you believe Adam lived alongside the earth with a Brontasauraus?

I dunno. I am not a scientist. I don't approach the Bible as book of science, as it does not intend for us to understand it in that manner. I am open to the possibility that he did. I don't see any biblical doctrine or teaching that would be threatened if that were the case.

If he did, or if he didn't, I don't really care. It is a nonissue to me.

[exrockstar]

If this earth is a doever, then we are God's second plan, Plan B. Like it or not.

Do you believe Adam lived alongside the earth with a Brontasauraus?

I dunno. I am not a scientist. I don't approach the Bible as book of science, as it does not intend for us to understand it in that manner. I am open to the possibility that he did. I don't see any biblical doctrine or teaching that would be threatened if that were the case.

If he did, or if he didn't, I don't really care. It is a nonissue to me.

it should be an issue because i feel you want to say "i think dinosaurs existed long before Adam." If you felt they both co-existed then there's a problem because some dinosaurs were carnivores which means that dinosaurs went from herbivores to carnivores after the fall; which, again, means they co-existed.

but you don't want to say that just yet.

so when you say "It seems to me that it diminishes man because it makes us a "do over" and not what God originally was after. It makes us "Plan B" when God's first attempt at managing earth failed."

i never said God created mankind twice. yet you are quick to jump to the "do-over" arguement. well, if there aren't any do-overs then you should proudly say "YES Adam walked with dinosaurs" and not take the "i dunno stance"

I don't believe that dinosaurs walked with Adam. I also don't see pre-Adamic creation as a do-over.

You don't have to be a scientist to take a stance. there are museums full of evidence that these huge monsters that existed a long long long time ago.