young creation?

[Guest Jacee]

This topic is very interesting. Have been wading through the posts and if this is mentioned and I missed it, then I apologize.

There is a space of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I do believe in the old earth. And science has agreed with this space of time in showing us things that were here; an ice age etc. What I surmise from all this and from a few scriptures that are yet mysteries is that it could of been the time of the revolt in heaven, when satan was cast out. Might be why our planets around us are "dead"; without life. Maybe is why Adam was tempted by the serpent; and was not fufilled with God being God. And this creation of which we are a part is the history of the jews and this new re creation, and the saviour to come from the jewish line. This all makes sense to me but then again, I am not a scientific type anyway.

[Lekcit]

This topic is very interesting.  Have been wading through the posts and if this is mentioned and I missed it, then I apologize.

There is a space of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.  I do believe in the old earth.  And science has agreed with this space of time in showing us things that were here; an ice age etc.  What I surmise from all this and from a few scriptures that are yet mysteries is that it could of been the time of the revolt in heaven, when satan was cast out.  Might be why our planets around us are "dead"; without life.  Maybe is why Adam was tempted by the serpent; and was not fufilled with God being God.    And this creation of which we are a part is the history of the jews and this new re creation, and the saviour to come from the jewish line.  This all makes sense to me but then again, I am not a scientific type anyway. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again Jacee, I go back to my earlier point. There is no Biblical evidence to support a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. No where in all of Scripture is that ever seen or supported. It is simply another one of man's ways to add millions of years to the Bible. Now, if you want to believe that, fine by me. My point was that if you want to be sola scriptura, or scripture alone, then you don't get the idea of millions of years anywhere. My basic earlier point was that the clearest understanding is taking God at His word and calling it 6 literal days.

In Him.

[Lekcit]

Fog,

I will pretend that you really want an answer to this question and answer it but keep in mind that I know you are asking this question in an effort to catch me in a lapse of hypocrisy. I've been having this debate for too long to be tricked by you. You remind me of the lawyers that I deal with at work, asking questions they already know the answer to.

To answer your question, it's dependant on context. One would never read Psalms literally because it is a book of poetry. However, one would take the four Gospels and Acts literally because they are history books. The same holds true for Genesis through Chronicles and others. The book of Genesis is a history book and as such should be taken in a literal fashion. There is nothing in Genesis to suggest otherwise. Therefore if God says "6 days" then 6 days it is. Furthermore, Exodus is a history book and in the giving of the Ten Commandments harkens back to Genesis and therefore shows its historical validity.

In Him.

[Guest Jacee]

The hebrew language and the greek are poetic. Not just Psalms. In order to understand correctly we need study aids. My personal study journey is to see Jesus Christ in everything, and Holy Spirit has blessed me with many smal nuggets of gold.

To just say read it and accept verbatim what is said is not wise. Those who are greater than I have studied and written there is a space of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I don't want to be unteachable. My understanding is always subject to change for this is reality not eternity. He is eternal and I suspect we will always be learning eternally.

[Lekcit]

And Jacee, I applaude you for your openness to understanding. Check my link from before. There is just as much evidence to show that there is no gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. The point I was making was that when taking Scripture alone there is nothing to suggest an old earth. Again check the information I linked to previously and you will see.

Also anyone that thinks that I meant that Psalms was the only book to be taken figuratively is delusional and cannot understand the simple concept of using one example of many. Psalms was offered as one instance not the only instance. (But then Fog, you knew that's what I meant.)

In Him.

[Guest melo]

The Hebrew word for "day" is "yom". It is used in Genesis and elsewhere in the OT to refer to a discrete period of time, with a beginning and end. The word is used to refer to harvest (about three months), a time of God's judgement (again, an undefined period of time, albeit with a beginning and end), and a 24-hour time period. The word itself means a period of time with a beginning and end. THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS. Read a little for yourself an confirm this. It is often, but certainly not exclusively, used to refer to a 24-hour time period. The context is the key. Look at the Genesis account in the Hebrew. Each discrete time epoch of creation, as well as the entire creation period is referred to as a "yom." So it goes Yom1, Yom2, etc, and then the whole period is referred to as a "Yom". Think about it, the word cannot exclusively mean a 24-hour period is this context. Either that or explain how one literal week is the same as one literal day.

[Lekcit]

You are correct about the Hebrew word "yom." It can mean period of time or a 24 hour period but in Genesis chapter 1 it means 24 hours. You are also right that the word's meaning is dependant upon context.

Take a look. Aside from Genesis 1 every other time in the Old Testament, when yom is used in conjunction with the phrase "evening and morning" it means a literal day. Aside from Genesis 1 every other time in the Old Testament, when yom is used in conjunction with the word "night" it means a literal day. Aside from Genesis 1 every other time in the Old Testament, when yom is used in conjunction with a number it means a literal day.

Now look at Genesis 1 and what do you see? You see the word "night, the phrase evening and morning, and a number used in conjunction with the word yom (day). I am unclear how this could mean anything other than a literal day. Not one but three indications that the word day means a literal day. So again I am confused and go back to my original point. If you take the stance of Scripture alone, the meaning of the word yom in Genesis 1 is clearly a literal day. Furthermore there are better Hebrew words to use if the the idea of long periods are meant. Study your Hebrew and you'll see that the most common usage of the word yom is for a literal day. There are better words for long periods such as qedem (ancient or old), olam (everlasting, eternity, perpetual), dor (an age or revolution of time), tamid (continually), ad (unlimited time), orek (when used with yom means a length of days), shanah (year or revolution of time, most used to signify the changing of seasons), netsach (forever). You see there are many better words to use if the meaning was intended to show long periods of time.

Also you mention the usage of the word yom in Gen 2:4. I would agree with you that does mean a period of time. But look is it used in conjunction with the word night, the phrase evening and morning, or a number? No. What does it say? Day. It means in the "time" that God created and then it continued to hearken back and elaborate on the creation of man on the sixth day.

So again, I fail to understand that when you use the Bible to support itself, which by the way is what should happen, then the clearest and most obvious understanding is that the word yom in Genesis 1 means a literal day.

Check this article for some additional information:

How long were the days of Genesis 1?

In Him.

[Old Timer]

Melo, In the creation account of Genesis the word

[Guest Jacee]

Lekcit

I think you just called me delusional though in a nice way. Should I thank you or rebuke? Hhmmm. I see you are a Floridian too and not all that far from me. Perhaps it's the heat??

Edited February 2, 2005 by Jacee

[Lekcit]

Jacee,

I assure you that comment was not directed at you. The person to whom it referred knew who they were but has chosen to get mired in semantics rather than discussing the issue. Where are you? PM me if you'd rather everyone else not know.

Oh and it ain't hot here. I don't know about where you are but it ain't hot where I am.

In Him.

Edited February 2, 2005 by Lekcit