LookingForAnswers Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 1, 2014 I believe both the context of verse 2 and verse 9 are consistent with the land being under the ocean: Now the land was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. Yeah, you are still going with the land mass under the ocean thing, which is contrary to be being formless in verse 2. God organizes and forms the dry land in verse 9. It is not contrary to be being formless in verse 2, the word used for formless in verse 2 is also used to describe the desert in Deut 32:10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 1, 2014 The Gap Theory is not without considerable Biblical references, scholarly support and ancient Jewish belief. It is just that YEC do not want to consider that. They too are guilty of the distortion of scriptures they accuse OEC of doing, by seeking to fit every point of scripture into a YEC model. So, you may say it is worthless, pointless or of no Biblical basis, (say the YEC), but it can be substantiated. The fact remains there are going to be differences of opinions and interpretation. No single one holds the key to that interpretation, even if they think so. We simply need to be open to consider, investigate without a personal bias or agenda, and see this as becoming more informed and not as having to win or defend an argument. You're a little late to this party, Shar. I have already demonstrated why the Gap theory has no biblical credibility, despite you and Spock desperately trying to keep it on life support. It cannot be substantiated. All of the evidence for the Gap theory is penciled in by its proponents and has no credibility in the slightest. And as for "scholarship," there is no genuine scholarship behind it. There are some radio and TV preachers that accept it because they want to be respected by their peers, but none of them who have accepted the Gap Theory have ever studied it out, otherwise they would see it for the false doctine that it is and reject it. There are no degreed Hebrew scholars who accept the Gap theory. So say you. No offense Shiloh, but you do not have the final say on this matter for me. Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 are pretty powerful descriptions of what was going on here on this planet with lucifer involved. I read your thoughts and I don't accept them as my own. Because of your arrogance, I have no desire to convince you to believe as me so I will not bother to continue this debate with YOU. Spock out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Understanding the Bible literally means to understand it from the perspective of the author and what the author is trying communicate. So why when reading Genesis 1 do people not consider the perspective of the author and what the author is trying to communicate? Because they can't bring themselves to see the Bible's authority as greater than what science claims. Was God interested in teaching His people about the creation for creations' sake, or was He interested in teaching them about Himself? He was interested in both. Why would it be one or the other? In addition, the Creation account given is very similar to the stories of creation given by other cultures. Comparing what God revealed in Genesis to what the nations at the time said, Genesis 1 is a very eye-opening experience on who God is and His superiority over the other gods worshiped at the time. That may be true, but how does that mean that we should not see the story as historically accurate? I don't see in that response any reason to believe that since Genesis is the beginning of God's self-disclosure to the world, and that this would serve as demonstrating his superiority over the other gods of the surrounding cultures in the region, that it follows that the days of Genesis 1 are not literal days or any of the YEC claims as being false. Reading Genesis 1 to understand creation for creations' sake teaches you what about God? About Jesus? Comparing Genesis 1 to the scientific data of modern times teaches you what about Jesus? Genesis 1:1-2:3 teaches us the following about God: 1. God exists 2. God is the Lifegiver 3. God alone is the Creator of all things living or inanimate 4. God is sovereign 5. God is benevolent 6. God is orderly and logical 7. God is all-knowing, all-powerful and omnipresent 8. God desired companionship and so He created man in His image and in his likeness 9. God gives man a purpose and reason for living 10. God made man to rest in Him and to enter into His rest. 11. God made a earth that was perfect, free of sin Since Jesus is the Creator and Jesus is God (Jn 1:1-3, Col.1:15-18) Then I would say this is a pretty good list of things it tells me about Jesus. Are you searching the Scriptures to know the Creature or to know the Creator? (How are you searching for the Creator when you are searching for the Creature?) That is a qustion you need to ask an theistic evolutionist. I am trying learn about the Creator through His creation. I am not "searching" for the creature. So why is Genesis 1 treated as if cosmology was what God is interested in? You are dealing with a different genre of literature in Genesis 1 than in Pslams. You are not dealing with the poetry of Psalms where the figurative language exists. You need to adjust your thinking when you are reading an historical narrative. You don't read it the same way you read the figurative imagery that is in Psalms. Genesis 1 is about God's creation of the material universe. That is the baseline, plain sense reading of the text. It is not poetry or figurative at all. IT uses no idiomatic language, it uses no symbolism, metaphors, hyprebole, no allegory, similies, no figurative devices of any kind. A plain reading of the text tells what the author is wanting you to know. Even atheists can admit it that. But what is "historical accuracy" in the ancient mindset? Were they concerned with chronology with the same precision as us? That is,were they interested in recording facts objectively and chronologically, or did they regard history as an attempt to preserve significant truths in meaningful or memorable ways whether or not details are objective facts? One of the most prominent evidences we have of the Bible's veracity is its stunning and sterling record of historical accuracy. The Bible has been vinidicated many times over by archeology over the last 200 years when it comes to how it describes the events that occurred. Even modern historians are impressed with the way Luke is able to navigate the complex political landscape of ancient Rome and Luke has been a source that modern historians have turned to untangle some of the confusion over who was governing when during the first century. Luke's geographical records are impeccible in the book of Acts, all of his over 60 geographical locations can be located today and Luke paid attention to details. The OT is accurate down to the detail when it records historical events and people. Jeremiah 38: 1 lists four men - Shephatiah the son of Mattan, and Gedaliah the son of Pashur, and Jucal the son of Shelemiah, and Pashur the son of Malchiah. Modern archeology has found the seals of four of these govenors from the first temple period in Jerusalem. I could provides hundreds of examples of biblical historial accuracy. So to answer your question, they saw historical accuracy the same way we do and that is why we can confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible right down to the finest details. Did they work with linear logic or "block" logic? Did they regard time as points on a straight line, or was time determined by content? Every source I have read concerning the ancient Hebrew mindset (such as this one) proclaim that the Hebrew mindset records history for the sake of preserving significant truths in meaningful and memorable ways, not for the sake of recording facts objectively and chronologically. They did not think in linear logic nor recorded time as points on a straight line. I would be careful who I relied on for understanding the Hebrew mindset. Not all sources are equal. Historical accuracy in an objective and chronological manner was very improtant to the mindset of ancient Jews because that kind of historical chronolgical accounting is vital for property ownership. Genealogical records had to be exacting in every detail. It is an objective and chronological historical record of property ownership and if it were found to be incorrect or missing information, you could have been dispossessed of property and renderd homeless. So this notion that the ancient Hebrew mindset was only reocrding history conceptually and not with any concern for real accuracy or objectivity is just hogwash. So why is it considered "historical accuracy" to interpret Genesis 1 as a recording of facts chronologically and on a time line? Because that is what Genesis 1 is. It is a chronological historical record. I have already shown you that on the distant starlight thread. Remember this: Gen 1:3 And God said… Gen 1:4 And God… Gen 1:5 And God called … Gen 1:6 And God said… Gen 1:7 And God made… Gen 1:8 And God called… Gen 1:9 And God said… Gen 1:10 And God… Gen 1:11 And God said… Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth… Gen 1:14 And God said… Gen 1:16 And God made… Gen 1:17 And God set them… Gen 1:18 …and God saw that it was good… Gen 1:20 And God said… Gen 1:21 And God… and God saw that it was good... Gen 1:22 And God blessed them… Gen 1:24 And God said… Gen 1:25 And God made… and God saw that it was good. Gen 1:26 And God said… Gen 1:27 So God created… Gen 1:28 And God blessed them… Gen 1:29 And God said… Gen 1:31 And God saw… That shows an objective and chronological recording of an historical account. But then how can you justify making a scientific case out of Genesis 1 if you are divorcing it from science from the get-go? For the umpteenth time, I am not making a scientific case for Genesis 1. I have not appealed to science at all. I have appealed to the integrity of the Scriptures and the Scriptures historical accuracy and its truthfulness in all it claims and describes. I am saying that you cannot judge the Bible by a scientific standard that the Bible isn't seeking to operate under. If the Bible made scientific claims, you could judge it by science. But the Bible isn't making scientific claims and so holding it to a standard that didn't exist when the Bible was being penned is unfair and unwarranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Consider this: How could there be a "deep" in vs. 2 without a landmass to contain it? How high was their number system? (For instance, when they read the words "a thousand," were they thinking 100 x 10 like we do, or was that their expression for an uncountable number?) Why were the sun and the moon called "the greater light" and "the lesser light" rather than the sun and the moon? Why is there a pattern in Genesis 1 of dividing and then filling? 1. What makes you think that deep simply means, deep ocean-like water? 2. Their numbering system was like ours. How could it be different. Ancient builders were using the mathematical concept of pi before it was codifed by the ancient Greeks. 3. I don't know. 4. First God brings order then he fills it. I am not sure what the point is behind that question or any of these questions for that matter What I mentioned in post 111 - electrical force, magnetic force, gravity, and nuclear forces. And you assume that these forces were operating in that chaotic state the way they are now? What you keep calling "a chaotic, formless mass", scientists would describe as ions and isotopes and molecules. I am just calling it what the Bible is describing. It may be ions, and isotope an molecules but the fact is that they are in a chaotic, not a creative state. In every response you have given, you have shown by your words time and time again that you are not interested in the scientific understanding, nor the scientific definitions, nor the scientific descriptions of these things - basically, you are not interested in the science. Up to this point, all scientists have been able to offer is assumptions and hypothesis, not facts. Why should put much faith in the assumptions of fallible when I hold in my hands the truth of an all-knowing, all powerful God? So what is the goal of YEC, to usurp science, overthrow science, ignore science - all the while pushing for a scientific interpretation of Genesis 1? I don't get it. YEC simply holds to the literal account of Creation in Genesis. Nor is it trying to usurp science. If anything, it is the scientific community that tries to usurp the authority of the Bible as our source for understanding God as the source of life and the universe itself. Until someone produces substantial data that the forces of the universe changed, what valid reason is there to assume otherwise? Arent these forces what bring order to how creation works. What would happen if all of those forces suddenly stopped working? What would be the end result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 The Gap Theory is not without considerable Biblical references, scholarly support and ancient Jewish belief. It is just that YEC do not want to consider that. They too are guilty of the distortion of scriptures they accuse OEC of doing, by seeking to fit every point of scripture into a YEC model. So, you may say it is worthless, pointless or of no Biblical basis, (say the YEC), but it can be substantiated. The fact remains there are going to be differences of opinions and interpretation. No single one holds the key to that interpretation, even if they think so. We simply need to be open to consider, investigate without a personal bias or agenda, and see this as becoming more informed and not as having to win or defend an argument. You're a little late to this party, Shar. I have already demonstrated why the Gap theory has no biblical credibility, despite you and Spock desperately trying to keep it on life support. It cannot be substantiated. All of the evidence for the Gap theory is penciled in by its proponents and has no credibility in the slightest. And as for "scholarship," there is no genuine scholarship behind it. There are some radio and TV preachers that accept it because they want to be respected by their peers, but none of them who have accepted the Gap Theory have ever studied it out, otherwise they would see it for the false doctine that it is and reject it. There are no degreed Hebrew scholars who accept the Gap theory. So say you. So says that fact that you cannot produce ONE degreed Hebrew scholar that says I am wrong. Every translation of the Bible agrees with me, even the NIV translates it the way I have said it should be translated. You cannot provide one mainstream scholar or translation that contradicts what I have said. No offense Shiloh, but you do not have the final say on this matter for me. That's a foregone conclusion. You trust in men, I trust the Holy Word of God. Your views are rooted in baseless, long debunked opinions. My view is based on the Truth of Scripture. God's word has the last word for me. I'll stand by that. Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 are pretty powerful descriptions of what was going on here on this planet with lucifer involved. I read your thoughts and I don't accept them as my own. But the text doesn't set a timeline for that. You penciled that in yourself. Because of your arrogance, I have no desire to convince you to believe as me so I will not bother to continue this debate with YOU. I am not arrogant. I am simply right. There is a difference between arrogance and simply have a better grasp of the facts. You dont have to respond to me. But I will continue to address the false doctrines that come from your posts. Whether you respond or not, is really immaterial. I will simply protect people from being led astray by the false doctrine that you and Shar are promoting. In fact, it would be easier on me if you didnt respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 1, 2014 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. This is sure a fast moving thread. To be honest Neb, there are some unanswered questions in scripture, and this happens to be one of them. Just questioning a train of thought here, but if science tries to answer questions for God, and if God does not give a clear answer - causing us to turn to science for the answers - where will it end? This is why we are to have faith in Him and His words, especially when scripture is silent, otherwise, the more we lean on science, the less we lean on God. If science is correct because of their proof, then we must accept God does not exist because we lack direct proof to Him, according to science. Personally, I will let my faith in Him be enough to believe His word. I would much rather place my faith in scripture, even if my understanding is wrong and corrected when I see Him, then to not truth scripture and trust science, be wrong and then corrected when I see Him. Just thought I would throw this in the mix because I cannot answer your questions with scripture outside of Proverbs 3:5-6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted February 1, 2014 If you want to maintain that the chaos and nothingness/emptiness and pitch black darkness that is described in v. 2 constitutes a "universe" that is your call, but I consider that assertion to be absurd on its face, and it doesn't matter how many scientists you can dig up that would agree with you. How many scientists I can dig up? What kind of response is that? Look, if you want to take on the the scientific community and challenge them that their understanding of what is the "universe" is a bogus concept, that is your prerogative. I don't make the rules; I am just relaying them to the best of my ability. What you call "raw ingredients," scientists call ions, isotopes, and molecules. And they do not constitute the universe; rather they are contained within the universe. But the point is there is a huge conflict in the definition of what you are claiming the universe to be and that of what those who have studied the cosmos define it to be. And I have a very hard time believing the people running all these complex calculations to determine if the universe is curved or flat and all that other fun stuff would give the consideration of the universe beginning when objects formed the time of day. What is it that I am claiming the universe to be that differs from what scientists claim the universe to be? Firstly, I need to ask you where the word "universe" is found in the Scriptures, because in all my searches I can't find it. In any event, "universe" is a word that has a changed meaning over time as new information of what is "out there" is discovered. Today, the "universe" is understood to be something that has a shape to it. It encompasses the totality of existence - from the minutest of subatomic particles to the largest of galaxies, it includes all forms of energy, and even the intergalactic space itself. And I would also add that you have NO way of determning how long the conditions of Gen. 1:2 lasted. You cannot tell me with any degree of certainty that the conditions listed in v. 2 lasted for milions or billions of years. Can you claim with any degree of certainty that it did not? No, and that's my point. You appear to be working from an assumption that it was a long indeterminite period of time, thus supporting an old earth, but it is still just an assumption on your part. Your old earth view has no factual basis to stand on. So you can't discredit YEC with a baseless assumption. Ah, but you are missing my train of thought. Again, when I answered your question as to why I asked the questions I gave in the OP, I only said I questioned the validity of YEC. There is more to YEC than just the age of the earth. I never introduced the OEC vs YEC debate, only responded to comments regarding such. Since YEC doesn't address that issue, I don't have to make any claims or assumptions about it at all. I would also argue that from what I understand of your pont of view, it really wouldn't matter as you believe the earth wasn't created in six literal days, either. You, as far as I know also agree with the view that the "days" of Gen. 1 were long epoch periods of time or something to that effect. Is that true? My belief is that God's revelation of creation was not presented in a way that was meant to be interpreted scientifically, like YEC tries to make of it. (After all, they want it taught in science classes.) It was meant to be interpreted theologically. I refer back to what I wrote a few posts ago concerning the ancient Hebrew mindset. Was God interested in telling the people, "Look at what I can do in 24 hours!"? Or was He telling the people, "This is how I turned the darkness into a new dawning!"? While the first interpretation may give you a sense of the bigness of God, it also makes Him seem, well, "out there", unapproachable. The second gives a sense of the nearness of God, like the gentle hands caressing an injured bird an healing its wings. Instead of God's magnificence being the "big power", His magnificence is being the healer, the deliverer, the restorer - like we see Jesus when He walked this earth. When darkness is surrounding me and my life is in chaos, I don't need the Great Cosmic Being who created a septillion stars and innumerably more planets in 24 hours, I need the God who is attached to my chaos, darkness, and void, and will bring me into His light, make order of the chaos, and bring new life out of the void. Interpreting Genesis 1 for scientific historicity does not give the latter to me. So how do I interpret the "days" of Genesis? I have no reason to believe that "time" was God's concern in this, and thus it is not mine either. I read Genesis 1 to find God, not find the earth and the cosmos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 1, 2014 Shiloh said- "You dont have to respond to me. But I will continue to address the false doctrines that come from your posts. Whether you respond or not, is really immaterial. I will simply protect people from being led astray by the false doctrine that you and Shar are promoting. In fact, it would be easier on me if you didnt respond." So your mission here is to PROTECT people from being LED ASTRY through false doctrine who believe in an old earth. I'm not sure to what extent you believe old earthers are being led astray. I hope and trust your efforts and energy are equally set upon essential faith issues, winning souls to Christ and saving them from believing any doctrine that does not teach - JESUS SAVES! It seems to me this debate of old earth vs. young earth serves the body of Christ very little, and in fact may be more harmful by causing schisms in the body when the conversation does not show mutual respect and love in the area of disagreements. You judging who is right and who is wrong to me is just that. Anyhow, I'm sure you see yourself as Gods soldier here doing Gods work in stopping evil, so my words of admonition for you to learn to respect other opinions and beliefs will probably fall on deaf ears. March on Shiloh, Spock out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 327 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 232 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/01/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 1, 2014 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. This is sure a fast moving thread. To be honest Neb, there are some unanswered questions in scripture, and this happens to be one of them. Just questioning a train of thought here, but if science tries to answer questions for God, and if God does not give a clear answer - causing us to turn to science for the answers - where will it end? This is why we are to have faith in Him and His words, especially when scripture is silent, otherwise, the more we lean on science, the less we lean on God. If science is correct because of their proof, then we must accept God does not exist because we lack direct proof to Him, according to science. Personally, I will let my faith in Him be enough to believe His word. I would much rather place my faith in scripture, even if my understanding is wrong and corrected when I see Him, then to not truth scripture and trust science, be wrong and then corrected when I see Him. Just thought I would throw this in the mix because I cannot answer your questions with scripture outside of Proverbs 3:5-6. There is no harm in turning to science for some answers. We know that knowledge is increasing and knowledge is given by G-d. Discovery and proofs in science have often shown the Bible is correct. There are many, many aspects of science in scripture that man, over time, are now discovering. Before man believed the earth was flat, the Bible says "G-d sets above the sphere of the earth". the cycle of weather patterns, the unhealthiness of mold and how to recognize and destroy it, etc. See, faith is not only present in our belief in the Bible, but faith is present in every aspect of our lives. Even science has its aspects of faith. I cannot see the air, but I know it exists. I have proof from science, even though I do not see it. If the scriptures appear silent, they may well not be. It may be through science and knowledge that we are given a greater insight to the invisible or past unknowns. We have to weigh the science in correlation to G-d and His word. What is not fully known, may sometime be more clearly revealed in time. We do not need to compromise our faith in Him by looking further into science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 So your mission here is to PROTECT people from being LED ASTRY through false doctrine by believing in an old earth. I'm not sure to what extent you believe old earthers are being led astray. I wasn't referring to OEC. I was referring to the Gap Theory. The false doctrine is the Gap theory, but your attempt to deflect from the context my comments and misrepresent what I said is noted. It seems to me this debate of old earth vs. young earth serves the body of Christ very little, and in fact may be more harmful by causing schisms in the body when the conversation does not show mutual respect and love in the area of disagreements. You judging who is right and who is wrong to me is just that. Which is what you say when you run out of steam. It didn't matter before when you were parcipating and you probably thought you could make short work of the YEC model, but when it is clear that you arguments can't stand up in the light of Scripture, suddenly the conversation is overrated and harmful to the body of Christ. Anyhow, I'm sure you see yourself as Gods soldier here doing Gods work in stopping evil, so my words of admonition for you to learn to respect other opinions and beliefs will probably fall on deaf ears. Yes, it would be easier if I simply sat by and watched people spout off baseless claims about what the Bible says and never checked their facts and never spoke up. That is what I am sure you would prefer in your rather beggardly defintion of "respect." I respect opinions, but that doesn't mean I am supposed to sit by and watch people pencil their opinions into the Bible and present that to the world as truth, when it is in fact, not truth. Truth is more important than opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts