Genesis 1:2

[Spock]

Shiloh said-

"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."

Spock:So, am I to believe by this above statement, that you now hold an old earth to be a TRUE doctrine since the Gap theory is the false doctrine you are attempting to PROTECT people from? Or in the alternative, do you not feel a need to PROTECT PEOPLE from an old earth doctrine, just the Gap Theory?

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh said-

"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."

Spock:So, am I to believe by this above statement, that you now hold an old earth to be a TRUE doctrine since the Gap theory is the false doctrine you are attempting to PROTECT people from? Or in the alternative, do you not feel a need to PROTECT PEOPLE from an old earth doctrine, just the Gap Theory?

I consider OEC to be a false doctrine as well.   What I was saying is that the false dotrine I was referring to at that moment in time wasn't OEC, but the Gap Theory. My comments weren't meant to exclude OEC, but to address your attempt to misrepresnt response to you.

 

Both are false doctrines.

[nebula]

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?

The Israelites had just come from a nation whose people worshiped the things of creation. What reason would He have for giving the people a reason to focus on that which they had been taught to worship by their society?

 

 

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.

One can gain this understanding of Jesus without comparing Genesis 1 to the scientific data of modern times.

In fact, I would say that the "science vs creation" focus takes away from focusing on 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.

How is studying the Bible to determine the origins of the earth not a search for the created things?

[Spock]

Shiloh said-

"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."

Spock:So, am I to believe by this above statement, that you now hold an old earth to be a TRUE doctrine since the Gap theory is the false doctrine you are attempting to PROTECT people from? Or in the alternative, do you not feel a need to PROTECT PEOPLE from an old earth doctrine, just the Gap Theory?

I consider OEC to be a false doctrine as well. What I was saying is that the false dotrine I was referring to at that moment in time wasn't OEC, but the Gap Theory. My comments weren't meant to exclude OEC, but to address your attempt to misrepresnt response to you.

Both are false doctrines.

And you are trying to PROTECT people from these doctrines, right?

Protect them from what?

Do I need protection too?

Protection from what?

We've already agreed in prior posts that these are nonessential matters, so what kind of protection do we need?

Do you honestly believe God needs all of us to believe exactly as you do in these nonessential matters in order for us to be effective Christians and ambassadors for Christ?

Look at all the old earthers here at this forum who have spoken up. Do you see your light any brighter than theirs? Do you see their belief in these "false doctrines" (your words) in any way hurting their Christian witness?

I don't. Do you?

Has it ever occurred to you that believing in a young earth might be a stumbling block for some people? Some seekers just may think, there is no way I could believe this, so I might as well not even try to consider the claims of Christ?

[Shar]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Well, Shiloh when someone challenges you, can give you points of scripture to support other theories which you cannot  and did not fully support, you then can only turn to trying to discredit others by saying they are promoting false doctrine, because they do not accept your very limited, often biased Hebrew, interpretations.

 

G-d has not called you to defend this.  We are to defend the "good news" - Salvation has come to all through our L-rd and Savior: Jesus Christ.  Defend against those false doctrines that declare that good news otherwise.  But for you to put your personal spin on something, swear it to be G-d's truth, declare yourself the expert in every field, from Hebrew, to science, to interpretation of all scripture, is horrendously prideful.  Worst yet, to hold out fellow believers in a most disparaging light, because they disagree with YOU is just plain WRONG.

[OneLight]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

You are correct as long as science does not point one away from scripture.  I personally believe that science was created to know God, but has since been used to try and show God does not exist.  The latter usage of science is what I refer to.

[wincam]

you might also be interested in 2 Peter 3:3 - 5 - in my Bible Gen.1:2 reads and the earth was void and empty = no vegetation or life - wincam

[Fez]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

You are correct as long as science does not point one away from scripture.  I personally believe that science was created to know God, but has since been used to try and show God does not exist.  The latter usage of science is what I refer to.

 

And I am with OneLight in this. Even on this Ministry site there are those who try and use science to either prove that God does not exist, allude to the misconception that God was wrong, or try and fit God into their "box", the one they feel most comfortable with. (the latter is the predominant stance).

[nebula]

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

1. What else has it ever meant?

2. They didn't have the concept of zero as a number back then. Their concept of "one thousand" was not "1000".

3. I read an intriguing answer to this question when someone compared Genesis 1 with other creation stories of that time period. In essence, back then the sun and moon were worshiped as gods by the nations, and the word they had for these celestial bodies was the name of the god. It was also noted that while the nations claimed such things as sea creatures were responsible for creating things, God specifically mentions here that He created these creatures. Thus, in comparing the Biblical creation account, one sees how God was addressing and challenging the concepts they were taught to believe in about how things were created and who these "gods" really were - nothing but created things. So going back to the question, it seems probable that God called the sun and the moon by descriptive terms rather than what they were called (which was the name of the god) so as to not even give credence to the false god.

I find Genesis 1 to come more alive when reading it through the lens of the time and culture of the age it was written in than through the lens of "science vs. creation" and debates over time frames.

4. What is more important, reading the Scriptures for bare knowledge of an historical record, or reading the Scriptures for their meaning?

 

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 reason is there not to?

 

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.

My point is that if YEC proponents want YEC to be taught at a viable alternative in the classroom, then it should be taught as science. This description is not that.

[Spock]

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.

 

You are correct as long as science does not point one away from scripture.  I personally believe that science was created to know God, but has since been used to try and show God does not exist.  The latter usage of science is what I refer to.

Points noted. Can't disagree with either. I'm sure there are some scoffing scientists who absolutely don't want to believe there is a God who will judge mankind someday.