Genesis 1:2

[nebula]

Then prove how they are not a problem.

Is that difficult?

They are not a problem because YEC isn't concerned with how long the conditions listed in Gen1:2 existed prior to the creation week. You are continually demanding YEC to answer questions that are not germane to the YEC model.

YEC is concerned with the age of the earth though, is it not?

How can YEC claim the earth is young if the earth already existed for an undisclosed period of time before "Day 1"?

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.

Yet you have put a significant degree of energy into defending the Gap theory for someone who doesn't claim to be in the Gap camp. I never claimed you said you were in the YEC camp. But you only have two options: YEC or OEC. Where do you stand, exactly?

[nebula]

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

 

You are arguing things I never stated as if I did. You are arguing things that avoid the question.

 

If Gen. 1:2 is such a perfect fit to YEC, what is your defense for this? How does it make sense to have created things existing before day 1 of Creation if nothing existed before God said, "Let there be light?" Unless you can show me that YEC allows for things to be created before the light of Day 1?

 

"If Gen. 1:2 is such a perfect fit to YEC, what is your defense for this?"

 

(Genesis 1:2) "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."

 

Your question is Non Sequitur.  I have no defense because there is no offense.

 

 

"How does it make sense to have created things existing before day 1 of Creation if nothing existed before God said, "Let there be light?"

 

What "created things" existed before Day 1?

 

(Genesis 1:1-5) "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. 

{4} And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 

{5} And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

 

So you're position is Genesis 1:1 is before Day 1,  And Genesis 1:2 is the start of Day 1.  Yes?

First I apologize, I thought I was addressing Shiloh, not you with my question.

The strawman I mentioned was the debate over the flood. Making sense out of the flood has nothing to do with making sense out of Genesis 1:2.

As for my position: Genesis 1:2 is the condition of things before Day 1 of Creation.

[nebula]

I need to get going, so I only have time to address this.

 

And I apologize if you addressed what I will state, but I did not have time to read the entire response.

 

Well, a little more context to what i said would be helpful.   I said that God did't create things to be chaotic and empty.  God is all about bringing things into order and fullness.  What we have in Gen. 1:2 is not a statement of God's act of creation.  It is simply a statement of the conditions of the earth and universe at that point.   It doesn't tell us how it got that way,  and for how long it was that way, and where the water came from, how God created the water that was there and  so on.  Any answers to those questions are pretty much an act of speculation.  It is best to be silent where the Bible is silent.

Right, the earth and universe were in this condition.

It could have been any amount of time for all we know.

 

YEC claims the universe is 6000 years old. Yet we have this introductory verse which indicates the universe was in existence for an undisclosed period of time.

 

Likewise, as you stated, "God didn't create things to be chaotic and empty.  God is all about bringing things into order and fullness." So, if God created these things, it stands to reason that the chaos and emptiness came about somehow post-creation of these things. Thus one can reasonably conceive a much extended period of time. In fact what we would call millions of years would make more sense than a few "days" or even  few "centuries" seems to make more sense in this regard.

 

Thus, the 6000 year old universe claim of YEC seems much less likely to me than other claims.

[Guest shiloh357]

Here are the things you have spoken Shiloh -

"Should we give up on the Bible..." Translation, since YEC is your view the only valid and true interpretation of Genesis 1, then you are accusing anyone who rejects YEC to be rejecting the Bible.

 

How is that not manipulation?

I was asking if we should give up on the Bible because it creates questions in our minds that it doesn't provide answers to.   That was not manipulation at all.  It was a rhetorical question.    The question answers itself.   My point is was, "what would happen if we just abandoned the Bible because it didn't provide us with satisfying ansewrs to every question we can come up with?"  

 

That is not manipulation.  You took my words out of context and added your "translation" of my words to fit how you want to couch my responses.  THAT is an exampel of a real strawman argument.

 

"Evidently you have not really thought this unbiblcial Gap Theory through very well." - First you insulted my intelligence, then you add a description to the GAP theory that manipulates the reader towards an opinion of the topic in question.

 

 

Well have you studied the Gap Theory in depth at all???    And secondly, I didn't add a description of the theory that manipulates the reader.   In post #29  I PROVED my claims.  I didn't manipulate anyone or anything.   I gave facts about the reality of the gap theory and you pretty much ignored that post.

 

"We don't give up on the Bible simply because the Bible doesn't provide us answers" - Again making the claim that anyone who gives up on YEC is giving up on the Bible. This is manipulation.

 

 

Nope, you are wrong about that.   My point was not that giving up on YEC was giving up on the Bible.   I was making the point that there are myriads of unanswered questions about the Bible.  The Bible gives us information, but is silent on some things that we would like to know.   We don't discard the Bible on the grounds that it doesn't answer those questions because we know that in time, those questions will be answered.

 

You are trying to take my words to a place I didn't intend for them to be taken.   I was simply making the case that there was no reason to give up on YEC simply because it can't answer every possible question you have about the origin of the universe.   But you are reacting so causticly and so hyper-emotionally to everything I am saying that you are not really paying attention to what I am saying.   You are just responding to me through the filter of your emotions.

 

"Why are you so quick to jump on board to advance a theory" - I never stated my position on the matter, yet you charge me as if I had.

 

 

You were offering a vigrous defense of the Gap Theory.   So I think it is reasonable to think that you were on baord with it.  Why did you defend it over several posts if you weren't in agreement with it?

 

"Are you so desperate to have answers to unanswerable questions that you are willing to support a theory that challenges God and brings a reproach upon Him???" - I walked and wrestled with these and other questions for years, yet your response treats me as if I made a rash decision. That is insulting. (And then you wonder why I get emotional?)

 

But those words of mine were in response to your vigorous defense of the theory.  You have never in all of the discussions of the old earth ever put forth the Gap Theory as if you were at all familiar with it. In none of any discussions about an old earth since I have known you have you EVER promoted the Gap Theory as a plausible explanation.

 

 

Then you describe this theory in such a way that makes charges against the spirituality of anyone who even considers the matter. Again, this is manipulation.

 

 

I described the theory as it really is.  I didn't challenge the spirituality off anyone that considers it .   I think there are some very fine Christians and Christian leaders who support the Gap Theory in innocence and don' realize and have not thought through the theological implcations of what the theory leads to.

 

What's more, I was astonished that even after I explained the huge theological and Scriptural problems that it posed, you were still defending it.   I really didn't know what to think about that.

 

"The alternative is to actually believe God's word on the matter." - This accuses anyone who does not believe unequivocally does not believe God's word. This is manipulation.

 

 

No, that is not manipulation.  That really IS the only other alternative.   The OEC model isn't rooted in Scripture.  It has its origins with unbelievers who didn't believe the Bible, well over 200 years ago.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

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

 

You are arguing things I never stated as if I did. You are arguing things that avoid the question.

 

If Gen. 1:2 is such a perfect fit to YEC, what is your defense for this? How does it make sense to have created things existing before day 1 of Creation if nothing existed before God said, "Let there be light?" Unless you can show me that YEC allows for things to be created before the light of Day 1?

 

 

"If Gen. 1:2 is such a perfect fit to YEC, what is your defense for this?"

 

(Genesis 1:2) "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."

 

Your question is Non Sequitur.  I have no defense because there is no offense.

 

 

"How does it make sense to have created things existing before day 1 of Creation if nothing existed before God said, "Let there be light?"

 

What "created things" existed before Day 1?

 

(Genesis 1:1-5) "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. 

{4} And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 

{5} And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

 

So you're position is Genesis 1:1 is before Day 1,  And Genesis 1:2 is the start of Day 1.  Yes?

 

First I apologize, I thought I was addressing Shiloh, not you with my question.

The strawman I mentioned was the debate over the flood. Making sense out of the flood has nothing to do with making sense out of Genesis 1:2.

As for my position: Genesis 1:2 is the condition of things before Day 1 of Creation.

 

 

"First I apologize, I thought I was addressing Shiloh, not you with my question."

 

No problem....very easy to get confused on a format and medium such as this.

 

You said this....

 

"If Gen. 1:2 is such a perfect fit to YEC"

 

THIS is a Textbook Strawman Argument......"You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack" https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

 

YEC doesn't claim anything concerning Genesis 1:2.  Why?  Because there is not enough information in verse 1:1 or 1:2 to conclude anything whatsoever.  Every claim of AGE or TIME regarding these 2 verses, are extrapolating from an absolute conjecture.

 

 

"It could have been any amount of time for all we know"

 

Exactly my point... SEE: Extrapolating from an Absolute Conjecture above.

 

So....I figured, lets move to something that rises above Absolute Conjecture and is Quite Relevant.  What is that??....well the BEDROCK of the OEC position (and secular science) is the Geologic Column and the Fossil Record; Theretofore.... OEC MUST have a Local vs. Global Flood.

 

It wasn't my intent to derail the OP and if you perceived it that way I am truly sorry.

 

 

Moreover, I responded to your statement ....."If Gen. 1:2 is such a perfect fit to YEC".... which is a Textbook Strawman Argument.  You then cannot claim my rebuttal is a Strawman because your Statement was first and takes Precedence! 

 

You can't have a Strawman on a Strawman....it's logically incoherent.  I can't misrepresent your argument...it's already misrepresented to begin with.  Follow?  It's tantamount to me shooting a dead horse then you charging me with killing him.

[alphaparticle]

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?

I have some initial ideas about this that hit me last night in terms of how this may be related to modern theories. Does 'waters' relate to seas of H2O, or could it be a reference to primordial stuff as understood by people in that time and place? Because if the latter is possible, our version of it is 'energy', and the structures of the universe are thought to have 'frozen out'. So, formless and void until 'organized' by God.

[ARGOSY]

 

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.

 

That makes sense, too.

 

But it also means this planet existed before Day 1 of Creation.

 

Exactly, I believe the planet did exist before day 1.  For how long....the bible does not say. 

[nebula]

"If Gen. 1:2 is such a perfect fit to YEC"

 

THIS is a Textbook Strawman Argument......"You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack" https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

 

YEC doesn't claim anything concerning Genesis 1:2.  Why?  Because there is not enough information in verse 1:1 or 1:2 to conclude anything whatsoever.  Every claim of AGE or TIME regarding these 2 verses, are extrapolating from an absolute conjecture.

OK, Enoch, if this is the case, then would you mind explaining to me how Genesis 1:2 is in synch with the YEC theory which claims a 6000 year-old universe?

No one else is.

 

 

"It could have been any amount of time for all we know"

 

Exactly my point... SEE: Extrapolating from an Absolute Conjecture above.

 

So....I figured, lets move to something that rises above Absolute Conjecture and is Quite Relevant.  What is that??....well the BEDROCK of the OEC . . .

 

If you can explain to me what the Great Flood has to to with Genesis 1:2, I might be inclined to try to answer your question.

[nebula]

I have some initial ideas about this that hit me last night in terms of how this may be related to modern theories. Does 'waters' relate to seas of H2O, or could it be a reference to primordial stuff as understood by people in that time and place? Because if the latter is possible, our version of it is 'energy', and the structures of the universe are thought to have 'frozen out'. So, formless and void until 'organized' by God.

 

Interesting questions.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

"If Gen. 1:2 is such a perfect fit to YEC"

 

THIS is a Textbook Strawman Argument......"You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack" https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

 

YEC doesn't claim anything concerning Genesis 1:2.  Why?  Because there is not enough information in verse 1:1 or 1:2 to conclude anything whatsoever.  Every claim of AGE or TIME regarding these 2 verses, are extrapolating from an absolute conjecture.

OK, Enoch, if this is the case, then would you mind explaining to me how Genesis 1:2 is in synch with the YEC theory which claims a 6000 year-old universe?

No one else is.

 

 

 

You're asking a question that doesn't need to be asked.  Since the YEC model doesn't address the issues surrounding Gen. 1:2, there is no need to synchronize it with YEC claims.  

 

I think part of the hang up might be that you are simply, according to you, arguing for an old earth, not necessarily the OEC model.  The problem here, as I see it at this point is that we are viewing this from the standpoint of OEC vs.YEC and you are viewing this from "old earth" vs. the YEC model.   

 

You are challenging the YEC model on the basis of a model that is unique to you and which the YEC model is not equipped to address.   You look at this as a refusal on our part to addres your questions.   We, or at least I see this as you asking questions that are simply not germane to the either the OEC or YEC models.   You are asking questions that neither model is equipped to answer and I really think that is the hang up.