Creation???

[Guest shiloh357]

But it is the earth that is "doing" the verb. God says, "Let the earth bring forth..." not "God brought forth from the earth." I realize it is causative but that still does not take away from my point that the earth is the one bringing forth the plants.

Yes, but because it is causative, it is not God simiply allowing it. He commands it and it obeys. God is the cause. He is not passively waiting for the earth to do it on its own. He is actively making it happen and the Hebrew bears that out in the sentence structure and causative verbs. That is why we call it a "creation" account.

Why would this be so? Based on the science, we only see about 1% of all the total species that have been alive in the past. There would have to be tons more. Assuming the 99% figure is accurate we would have to multiply by 99 to get all of the species that earth has supposedly contained.

It is like that Adam simply gave names to the general familes not to each species of possible. Again, you are trying to get hyper technical/and over literal in order to prove a non literal assumption about creation.

I would disagree. I would contend that I am using a literal approach to both. I am just using a different interpretation of the word yom then what most people are used to. It remains the same word and is therefore still literal...

You are applying a hyperliteral apporach to prove a nonliteral position on the word "yom."

Also, what exactly was your response to the fact that the word of the Lord has been proclaimed to a 1,000 generations? I can't find it for some reason...

"a thousand generations" is a common hebraism in the Old Testament and it simply means that God's promises perpetual.

[ByFaithAlone]

But it is the earth that is "doing" the verb. God says, "Let the earth bring forth..." not "God brought forth from the earth." I realize it is causative but that still does not take away from my point that the earth is the one bringing forth the plants.

Yes, but because it is causative, it is not God simiply allowing it. He commands it and it obeys. God is the cause. He is not passively waiting for the earth to do it on its own. He is actively making it happen and the Hebrew bears that out in the sentence structure and causative verbs. That is why we call it a "creation" account.

God says and the earth obeys. That is correct. However, it is still the earth bringing forth the plants so it must happen in the time that the earth can feasibly do so... correct?

Why would this be so? Based on the science, we only see about 1% of all the total species that have been alive in the past. There would have to be tons more. Assuming the 99% figure is accurate we would have to multiply by 99 to get all of the species that earth has supposedly contained.

It is like that Adam simply gave names to the general families not to each species of possible.

And that is supported by which Bible verse...? It says that Adam named each animal according to their kind. Do you want to say that this only refers to families? Subfamilies? Superfamilies? Orders?

I would disagree. I would contend that I am using a literal approach to both. I am just using a different interpretation of the word yom then what most people are used to. It remains the same word and is therefore still literal...

You are applying a hyperliteral apporach to prove a nonliteral position on the word "yom."

What do you mean by this. The word yom has three meanings. It is literal in each of those three meanings. For instance, take the word "work." Here are three definitions or meanings for the word.

1. Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result

- he was tired after a day's work in the fields

2. A place or premises for industrial activity, typically manufacturing

- he found a job in the ironworks

3. Such activity as a means of earning income; employment

- I'm still looking for work

These are all literal and correct meanings for the same word. Calling one nonliteral would be incorrect. In the same way, calling one of the meanings of yom nonliteral is fallacious. I am maintaining literalness throughout my interpretation of Scripture. You on the other hand switch from one of the literal definitions of yom to a nonliteral account of the naming of the animals in the garden.

Also, what exactly was your response to the fact that the word of the Lord has been proclaimed to a 1,000 generations? I can't find it for some reason...

"a thousand generations" is a common hebraism in the Old Testament and it simply means that God's promises perpetual.

Again, you switch from literal to nonliteral while at the same time, condemning me for doing no such thing. Hypocritical, are we?

[nebula]

I don't care what theory one calls this, but this is how I read the text:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was unformed and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. (Complete Jewish Bible)

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (English Standard Version)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said , Let there be light: and there was light. (KJV)

God created the Heavens and the earth.

The earth God created was without form and void. There was darkness over the face of the deep. The Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water.

God said, "Let there be light."

I see Earth's existence in a state of formlessness and void, with lots of water ("the deep" tends to mean oceans or seas), and then God says, "Let there be light."

If you want to argue that vs. 3 is going back in time, then I have to ask you -

If God is light, why did He have to create it?

The passage indicates God spoke light in response to the darkness mentioned in vs 2.

So where did the darkness come from?

[ByFaithAlone]

I don't care what theory one calls this, but this is how I read the text:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was unformed and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. (Complete Jewish Bible)

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (English Standard Version)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said , Let there be light: and there was light. (KJV)

God created the Heavens and the earth.

The earth God created was without form and void. There was darkness over the face of the deep. The Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water.

God said, "Let there be light."

I see Earth's existence in a state of formlessness and void, with lots of water ("the deep" tends to mean oceans or seas), and then God says, "Let there be light."

If you want to argue that vs. 3 is going back in time, then I have to ask you -

If God is light, why did He have to create it?

The passage indicates God spoke light in response to the darkness mentioned in vs 2.

So where did the darkness come from?

Interesting ideas. However, I do see one flaw. Darkness is merely the lack of light... it does not come of it's own being...

[nebula]

Question:

Gen. 1

9 And God said , Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear : and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Was this a creation of land, or a separation of water from the land?

[nebula]

Question:

How come there is no mention of land masses (i.e mountains, caves, ravines, rivers) being formed/created?

[nebula]

Interesting ideas. However, I do see one flaw. Darkness is merely the lack of light... it does not come of it's own being...

So, why was there a lack of light anywhere?

(BTW, from what I can see in Scripture, "darkness" is spoken of as an entity or substance, especially in spiritual terms.)

Edited July 27, 2011 by nebula

[ByFaithAlone]

Question:

Gen. 1

9 And God said , Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear : and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Was this a creation of land, or a separation of water from the land?

The land was under the water, in other words, the water receded from high areas in the ocean floor. Science supports the idea that at one time the earth was covered with water just as Genesis says.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 27 July 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Quote

But it is the earth that is "doing" the verb. God says, "Let the earth bring forth..." not "God brought forth from the earth." I realize it is causative but that still does not take away from my point that the earth is the one bringing forth the plants.

Yes, but because it is causative, it is not God simiply allowing it. He commands it and it obeys. God is the cause. He is not passively waiting for the earth to do it on its own. He is actively making it happen and the Hebrew bears that out in the sentence structure and causative verbs. That is why we call it a "creation" account.

God says and the earth obeys. That is correct. However, it is still the earth bringing forth the plants so it must happen in the time that the earth can feasibly do so... correct?

The point is that you are trying to make a case for a long period of time on the grounds that the Bible says that God merely allowed the trees to sprout. I am pointing to the fact that the very grammatical structure of the passages under examination does not allow for that view. God commanded, thus He is the causal agent. He did not sit back and passively allow the earth, in it's own time, to sprout. He caused it to happen. It did not happen on its own apart from Him. Add to the fact that the usage of yom does not indicate anything but a single day as we conventionally understand it to mean in the plain, intended sense. You simply have no internal textual indicators in Genesis 1 or 2 to argue for a long period of time.

shiloh357, on 27 July 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Quote

Why would this be so? Based on the science, we only see about 1% of all the total species that have been alive in the past. There would have to be tons more. Assuming the 99% figure is accurate we would have to multiply by 99 to get all of the species that earth has supposedly contained.

It is like that Adam simply gave names to the general families not to each species of possible.

And that is supported by which Bible verse...? It says that Adam named each animal according to their kind. Do you want to say that this only refers to families? Subfamilies? Superfamilies? Orders?

The Bible does not use the word "kind" with the kind of scientific precision that modern science does. Its usage is more generalized. For example, Noah was commanded to bring two of each "kind" of animal on the ark. That means that noah did not need to bring two of every possible type of horse that was in existence at that time. He just needed two horses. He did not need two of every kind of cat in existence at that time. He just needed two cats. You should not try to read modern science back into the Bible. The Bible is not a science book.

shiloh357, on 27 July 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Quote

I would disagree. I would contend that I am using a literal approach to both. I am just using a different interpretation of the word yom then what most people are used to. It remains the same word and is therefore still literal...

You are applying a hyperliteral apporach to prove a nonliteral position on the word "yom."

What do you mean by this. The word yom has three meanings.

Yes, but the point is that you have to go with the meaning that is intended in the text. YOU as the reader do not get to decide which meaning best fits what you are prepared to believe or accept. The author's intention is the object we must keep in view. You can go on and on about what words mean. But it is the way a word is used in a given context that is one of the most important things when it comes to literary analysis.

These are all literal and correct meanings for the same word.

No. Words only have ONE meaning. They have many usages or applications, but anytime you are dealing interpretation, you need to realize the that everything no matter what text you are dealing with as only ONE interpretation, though it will have many applications or way it can be used in different contexts.

shiloh357, on 27 July 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Quote

Also, what exactly was your response to the fact that the word of the Lord has been proclaimed to a 1,000 generations? I can't find it for some reason...

"a thousand generations" is a common hebraism in the Old Testament and it simply means that God's promises perpetual.

Again, you switch from literal to nonliteral while at the same time, condemning me for doing no such thing. Hypocritical, are we?

No. the problem is that you don't understand what "literal" means. Taking something "literally" means to understand it in the light of the author's intended meaning. It means if the author uses a figurative device, we look for the intended meaning behind that device. So when the author uses "a thousand generations" to refer to a perpetual covenant, that is the literal, intended meaning. You are confusing literal with face value. The face value approach tries to calculate the amount of time 1,000 generations really is. Face value is a subjective and unreliable approach when it comes to interpretation of Scripture.

[nChrist]

Isaiah 55:6-11 KJV Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.