Genesis 1:2

[Enoch2021]

 

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.

 

 

Well roll on over to:  OEC MUST have a Local vs. Global Flood, and all you'll have left for OEC is the StarLight "begging the question" Fallacy.  GOD deals directly with that issue in Day 4.

 

Or,

 

You believe in a Local Flood and maintain the status quo.

 

Go on now

 

Or would you like me to post it here? (all you need is the OP post...you seen it a little while ago)

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, do I need to pull up a list of logical fallicies and point out to you how many you are commiting in your argument?

 

 

Case in point:

 

The alternative is to actually believe God's word on the matter.  Why is so hard to simply take God at His word?

 

I take Gen. 1:2 at face value. Do you? How does it fit into the order of Creation?

I don't take it at face value. I take it literally and I have the Hebrew to back up my position.   You have basically nothing to go on.   Taking a passage a face value and taking God at His word are not interchangable concepts.

 

Face it, vs. 2 is a challenge to YEC, and your only solution is to tear down another theory? Really?

 

Verse 2 is NOT a challenge to YEC because it does not speak to any claims YEC makes  For that matter, it doesn't even speak to the claims OEC makes.

 

The only thing I said about this "Gap Theory" is that the book presented the only solution to answering the questions.

 

And I never said anything about OEC.

 

But the fact that you think it supports OEC is the logical conclusion.  That is where this line of thinking leads doesn't it?  I mean come on.   The theory presents NO answers because it is not based on any facts whatsoever.  It can't even be substantiated with the Bible.  

 

Really, if you put the claims of OEC in front of me, I'd probably find pieces I'd throw away too.

 

But OEC doesn't answer any of the questions you posed in the OP, but for some reason, that doesn't lead to you abandon OEC the way it led you to abandon YEC.  That's the glaring difference (and the doublestandard).

 

 

 

I am truly sick and tired of you how you keep implying faith and redemption hanging on the balance of mindlessly accepting YEC. This type of defense lacks grace. In fact, it acts more like a cult manipulation than rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

How is accepting YEC any more "mindless" that accepting OEC??  OEC is based on unproven assumptions and untested hypothesis that people are just supposed suck up and accept as fact or be labeled a crackpot.   There is nothing about any of the OEC claims that are grounded in actual fact, but they are expected to be accepted if one wants to remain respected in the scientific community and some sectors the Christian community. 

 

If anything the cult manipulation comes from the scientific community that demands fotal compliance to their views and those who don't are cast out and rejected by the scientific community.  That is were the resemblance of a cult mentality lies.  

 

 

The fact remains - vs. 2 presents things that do not fit the YEC model. So what do you do, pretend vs. 2 isn't there? Or do byou find a way to tackle the questions.

 

I dare a YEC to fit vs. 2 into the YEC model.

 

If you can't, then please stop trying to burn the questions.

 

 

That makes no sense.   Your questions have nothing to do with YEC claims. Verse 2 fits just fine with how a YEC person views the Bible.  Your questions are the problem, not Gen. 1:2.   You are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.    Your questions can't be answered by anyone OEC or YEC.   You are asking questions for which there isn't sufficient information from either the scientific community or the Bible to answer.

 

YEC is based on the view that the days of creation are six solar days.   That is why it is the YEC view.  OEC sees the days of creation as long epochs of time.  That is the debate between OEC and YEC.   Your questions are not material to that debate.   They don't address the heart of the differences between OEC and YEC.

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes, it does relate to YEC.

The fact that you are trying to negate the questions are evidence to this.

YEC acts like vs 2 never existed.

 

None of those comments are true at all.  None of them.   It doesn't even touch on the claims YEC makes.   I am not negating your questions, whatever that means.  I am simply pointing out the fact that we are not in possession of the answers to them.  Why is that so hard to accept??   We are acking like verse 2 never existed. That is absurd and unfair.  YOU are trying to use verse 2 to manufacture a problem that isn't there.

 

The waters, the deep, and eretz existing before God said, "Let there be light" serves as huge monkey wrench to the YEC model.

I have yet to hear a YEC make a reasonable explanation for what was going on in vs. 2.

 

It doesn't throw wrench in it all.  YEC model only addresses the days of creation, as does the OEC model.  The OEC model doesn't offer any real answers to those questions either but for some reason that doesn't seem to matter to you.  

 

YEC = Young Earth Creation.  Emphasis on the word "Creation."   We are talking about the creation week in Genesis and not what happened before that week. 

 

Well, you are rejecting an intepretation based on mysteries and assumptions to mysteries

 

No I am not.   In the first place, the Gap Theory is not an interpretation. It is not rooted in Scripture at all and is not supported by any biblical text.  It has no theological value at all.   It is not an intepretation in any sense of the word.    I reject it not on the basis of mysteries, but onthe basis that it contradicts the known character of God and how He has revealed Himself.  But evidently that doesn't mean anything to you, based on the way you have brushed over any discussion of that.

 

There you go again. I am NOT giving up on the Bible. Argh!

 

 

And once again, I didn't say you are.   I am showing the inconsistency in your argument.   You dont give up on the Bible even though it creates questions for us that it doesn't answer.   Yet, the questions in OP caused you to abandon YEC because the model doesn't address those questions.  

[nebula]

I don't remember reading anything about a pre Adamite human race in the book.    Angels and things yes......  humans no.

 

Thank you, other one.

 

It would be nice to have the actual points presented challenged rather than continual strawman's thrown at me.

 

Sigh.

[nebula]

 

 

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.

 

 

Well roll on over to:  OEC MUST have a Local vs. Global Flood, and all you'll have left for OEC is the StarLight "begging the question" Fallacy.  GOD deals directly with that issue in Day 4.

 

Or,

 

You believe in a Local Flood and maintain the status quo.

 

Go on now

 

Or would you like me to post it here? (all you need is the OP post...you seen it a little while ago)

 

Goodness gravy. Will you lay off the strawman?

 

I'm asking for how people deal with Genesis 1:2, not with how I handle any conclusions I've come to from the questions or not.

 

Argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nebula]

 

Shiloh, do I need to pull up a list of logical fallicies and point out to you how many you are commiting in your argument?

 

 

Case in point:

 

The alternative is to actually believe God's word on the matter.  Why is so hard to simply take God at His word?

 

I take Gen. 1:2 at face value. Do you? How does it fit into the order of Creation?

 

I don't take it at face value. I take it literally and I have the Hebrew to back up my position.   You have basically nothing to go on.   Taking a passage a face value and taking God at His word are not interchangable concepts.

 

OK, how would you translate Genesis 1:2?

And please don't give me this-word-means-that. I asked for how the verse would read out.

 

 

Face it, vs. 2 is a challenge to YEC, and your only solution is to tear down another theory? Really?

Verse 2 is NOT a challenge to YEC because it does not speak to any claims YEC makes  For that matter, it doesn't even speak to the claims OEC makes.

 

OK, I'll bite.

According to YEC when is eretz created? When is water created? What is the deep and when was it created? If God is light, why was there darkness?

 

 

The only thing I said about this "Gap Theory" is that the book presented the only solution to answering the questions.

 

And I never said anything about OEC.

But the fact that you think it supports OEC is the logical conclusion.  That is where this line of thinking leads doesn't it?  I mean come on.   The theory presents NO answers because it is not based on any facts whatsoever.  It can't even be substantiated with the Bible.

 

Shiloh, I said where I came from, not where I went to. So would you lay off the OEC strawman?

  

 

[nebula]

 

Really, if you put the claims of OEC in front of me, I'd probably find pieces I'd throw away too.

But OEC doesn't answer any of the questions you posed in the OP, but for some reason, that doesn't lead to you abandon OEC the way it led you to abandon YEC. That's the glaring difference (and the doublestandard).

 

Shiloh, you are assuming that just because I accept an older earth as more likely than a young earth I follow OEC hook, line, and sinker.

OEC is a strawman.

It would be nice if you actually defended YEC in relation to this verse, and justify how it fits.

Example, where does the YEC place the creation of water in the 6 days of creation?

 

 

I am truly sick and tired of you how you keep implying faith and redemption hanging on the balance of mindlessly accepting YEC. This type of defense lacks grace. In fact, it acts more like a cult manipulation than rightly dividing the word of truth.

How is accepting YEC any more "mindless" that accepting OEC?? OEC is based on unproven assumptions and untested hypothesis that people are just supposed suck up and accept as fact or be labeled a crackpot.

 

The same thing can be said about YEC and you know it.

 

There is nothing about any of the OEC claims that are grounded in actual fact, but they are expected to be accepted if one wants to remain respected in the scientific community and some sectors the Christian community.

Isn't there a logical fallicy about attacking a person's reasons for asking questions rather than addresing the questions?

 

If anything the cult manipulation comes from the scientific community that demands fotal compliance to their views and those who don't are cast out and rejected by the scientific community. That is were the resemblance of a cult mentality lies.

You should be on the brunt end of your own debate sometime.

 

 

The fact remains - vs. 2 presents things that do not fit the YEC model. So what do you do, pretend vs. 2 isn't there? Or do byou find a way to tackle the questions.

I dare a YEC to fit vs. 2 into the YEC model.

If you can't, then please stop trying to burn the questions.

That makes no sense. Your questions have nothing to do with YEC claims.

 

You are correct, they don't. All I said was the questions led me to question YEC. OK, maybe I should state that it was my understanding of YEC. And I only said that because you asked me why I asked the questions.

So instead of dealing with my apparent conflict, you threw out all these strawman attacks against your presumed conclusions about what conclusions I came to.

 

Verse 2 fits just fine with how a YEC person views the Bible. Your questions are the problem, not Gen. 1:2. You are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist. Your questions can't be answered by anyone OEC or YEC. You are asking questions for which there isn't sufficient information from either the scientific community or the Bible to answer.

Then prove how they are not a problem.

Is that difficult?

 

YEC is based on the view that the days of creation are six solar days. That is why it is the YEC view. OEC sees the days of creation as long epochs of time. That is the debate between OEC and YEC. Your questions are not material to that debate. They don't address the heart of the differences between OEC and YEC.

Good. I claimed I believe the earth is old, or rather that the old earth is more likely. I have multiple reasons for this, not just the questions. I never said I was in the YEC camp. Nor did I say I am in the Gap camp.

Your strawman is ashes.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Well roll on over to:  OEC MUST have a Local vs. Global Flood, and all you'll have left for OEC is the StarLight "begging the question" Fallacy.  GOD deals directly with that issue in Day 4.

 

Or,

 

You believe in a Local Flood and maintain the status quo.

 

Go on now

 

Or would you like me to post it here? (all you need is the OP post...you seen it a little while ago)

 

Goodness gravy. Will you lay off the strawman?

 

I'm asking for how people deal with Genesis 1:2, not with how I handle any conclusions I've come to from the questions or not.

 

Argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

1st can you define a Strawman Arguument.....?

 

Then

 

Could you point out the Specific Strawman....?

 

 

The reason I'm asking is....I'm not seeing you present any Argument.  Maybe I'm missing something....how does Genesis 1:2 have anything to do with or lead you to "turn away" from YEC?

 

It's late maybe I missed it

 

Thanks

[Guest shiloh357]

 

I don't remember reading anything about a pre Adamite human race in the book.    Angels and things yes......  humans no.

 

Thank you, other one.

 

It would be nice to have the actual points presented challenged rather than continual strawman's thrown at me.

 

Sigh.

 

No strawman is being thrown at you.   There are some theologians, who, when faced with the some of the theological problems the Gap Theory proposes, modified it in order to exclude humanity from the original pre-adamite earth. 

 

The Gap Theory has been used to explain pre-historic man, the dinosaurs, the fall of satan from heaven, and to serve as a bridge between the Bible and Evolution.  According to the original version of the Gap theory, Neanderthals and other pre-historic human belong to the pre-adamite race that was destroyed by God.

 

Gap Theory proponents argue that Adam was commanded to "replenish" the earth.  One proponent argues that "replenish" means to fill again and so Adam is fill the earth again, with human life.    Please note the quote that comes from Dake's annotated reference Bible which makes a huge case for pre-adamite earth and human civilization:

 

The command for Adam to "replenish" the earth (fill it again, not plenish it) proves the earth had been filled before this (Genesis 1:28). God gave the same command to Noah, after the second universal flood (Genesis 9:1-2). Should we conclude that God meant for Noah to fill the earth for the first time, and not refill it? Substitute the word fill (meaning supply for the first time) in Genesis 9:1; Isaiah 2:6; Isaiah 23:2; Jeremiah 31:25; Ezekiel 26:2; Ezekiel 27:25, as some do in Genesis 1:28 and see if it makes better sense. Whatever we conclude in the other places where "replenish" is used, we should be consistent and give the same meaning to Genesis 1:28. http://dakereader.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sonsofgod&action=display&thread=35

 

Of course, Mr. Dake in his lack of understanding of the old Elizabethan English didn't understand that the "re" of replenish wasn't verbal prefix indicating the repeating of a previous act.   It simply means "fill."   It doesn't mean "re-fill."   Replenish isn't "re-plenish."   

 

Finis Jennings Dake is one of the proponents of the original Gap Theory and only in the most recent years when faced with the biblical and theological problems associated with it, have theologians tried to side-step those problems by simply eliminating human beings from the equation.  

 

As for Pember and wherther or not refers to pre-adamite human beings, contrary to other one's claims that Pember doesn't mention, I found mentioned in Pember's book an interesting explanation of where demons come from .and this followed by an explanation of why (at the time Pember lived) the fossil record didn't support the existence of pre-adamite men  (pp. 70-74).   

 

Pember posits the suggestion that demons are really the diembodied spirits of the pre-adamite race of humans and he quotes Hesiod to further bolster that assertion.  Pember further connects demons with the ancient gods of the Greeks and other polytheists.

 

It has only been very recently, within the last 20 years or so that more modern thoelogians who are embarrassed by the actual and original Gap Theory proposed by Dake and Pember have conveniently modified their version to side step the realy theological problems that the theory proposes.

 

So before writing me off as giving you a strawman, you ought to do a little research.   It seems like you are too eager to grasp at whatever comes down the pike.   I know what I am talking about, here.    I am not  erecting a strawman.   You need to listen to sound theology and not just whatever sounds good to you on the surface.

[ARGOSY]

These questions I ask keep getting lost in the debates of other issues, so I would like to see if anyone can actually produce an answer that makes sense. (My apologies if you feel I misrepresented anything you have said, but in the end I never perceived my questions to be given clear answers.)

 

Genesis 1:2

The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

 

(I posted  the NAB version; you are free to post another version if you prefer the wording.)

 

 

1.Why was the eretz (earth) "formless and void"?

 

2. How long did this eretz exist at this point?

 

3. Where did this "darkness" come from? Why was it there? How did it get there?

 

4. What is the "deep"? Where was it? Where did it come from? How long did it exist before this point?

 

5. What were "the waters"? Where did it/they come from? How long were they/it there?

 

6. Where were "the deep" and "the waters" in relation to the eretz?

 

7. Where was the darkness in relation to the eretz?

 

8. Is there or is there not a connection or correlation to the eretz and "the deep" and "the waters"? If so, what? If not, why not?

 

 

You never asked: what is the eretz?  0.5)  eretz is the ocean floor, the land beneath the waters.

1)  The land was possibly formless  (chaotic) because the planet was in its early stages of formation, and there was possibly a lot of tectonic activity under the ocean. It was empty (void) because creation week had not commenced.

2) The land had existed for an unknown period, the bible does not say

3) I believe the darkness was there because the misty atmosphere was so thick that no light filtered down to the ocean surface.

4) The deep is the ocean.  This water came from the universe just like meteors contain a lot of ice, the bible does not say for what period it existed.

5) The waters are also referring to the ocean.

6) The deep and the waters are the same thing, they are on top of the eretz

7) the darkness was above the ocean, the land was beneath the ocean (of course this means the land was also in darkness, it was even deeper)

8) refer to 6

 

Of course the wording does not have to be interpreted that way, I just think its pretty obvious, even if my view isn't conclusive.