The wives of Adam's sons.

[BibleGuy]

21 hours ago, OldCoot said:

One thing for certain, for such a wealth of fossils, sedimentary structures, petrified wood, etc, it was the result of some pretty tough cataclysmic events.  I became pretty aware of that from many Geology and Anthropology courses I had in college.  I never bought into the party line of uniformitarianism as espoused by Charles Lyell, et al that presupposes deposition happened over millions of years.  A carcass does not wait around for 100 feet of sediment to pile on.  deposition has to be fast and heavy.   Else predatory birds and animals ravage the carcass and is ends up distributed over and area.    Wood will rot if not quickly petrified and we see trees standing completely vertical thru dozens of feet to sedimentary rock involving multiple layers.  It had to be fast.

I also concur that Genesis 1:2 has in view that the earth became (hayah) Tohu Va Bohu... without form and void.  I find it tough to believe the Lord created it that way.  Something happened.  We can try and piece other pieces of scripture to see if the image emerges of what happened.  Like....

Jeremiah 4:23-26 (NKJV Strong's) I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void;
And the heavens, they had no light.
24 I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled,
And all the hills moved back and forth.
25 I beheld, and indeed there was no man,
And all the birds of the heavens had fled.
26 I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land was a wilderness,
And all its cities were broken down
At the presence of the Lord,
By His fierce anger.

Prophecy is pattern, not only prediction.  While the passage in general is a reference to Judah and Jerusalem, never was the nation brought to a point of being without form and void (tohu va bohu - same terminology as Genesis 1) and the heavens without light.  Only in Genesis 1 did that happen.   Doesn't make a definitive case for Genesis 1, but it adds another piece of the  puzzle.   One thing for certain, the heavens and earth were already in place before the "let there be light" of day one.

Could the reason for the "became without form and void" of Genesis 1 be the angelic rebellion?  Could be.  Maybe not. 

One day we will all know what happened. We can have friendly discussions on varying conclusions and make a feeble human attempt at figuring things out.   If the Lord would have thought it was important for us to know all the details, He would have given them.

" deposition has to be fast and heavy. "

And the randomness of physical processes (e.g., landslides, movement of material via flowing water or winds, etc.) is surely responsible for at least some of the fossil record.

"Else predatory birds and animals ravage the carcass and is ends up distributed over and area. "

Sure sometimes...but not always....

 

" Not enough deposition, and the carcass decomposes too quickly thus preventing since the oxygen is not forced away under the weight of too little deposition. "

Sure, sometimes...but not always!

 

" Wood will rot if not quickly petrified and we see trees standing completely vertical thru dozens of feet to sedimentary rock involving multiple layers.  It had to be fast."

Sometimes fast burials probably occurred....but doubtfully always.

 

"Could the reason for the "became without form and void" of Genesis 1 be the angelic rebellion?  Could be.  Maybe not. "

Plausible....or maybe rebellion of OTHER species/lifeforms which predated Adam.

 

" If the Lord would have thought it was important for us to know all the details, He would have given them."

true!

blessings...

 

 

 

[OldCoot]

Just now, BibleGuy said:

Wood will rot if not quickly petrified and we see trees standing completely vertical thru dozens of feet to sedimentary rock involving multiple layers.  It had to be fast."

Sometimes fast burials probably occurred....but doubtfully always.

 

Study the Mt. St. Helens volcano event.  In that instance, wood petrified in about 30 days. It also was buried in several layers of sediment.  After several rains and things had settled down, there was miniature example of the grand canyon.

[BibleGuy]

4 hours ago, Berean said:

Everything that's wrong with this statement can be summed up in three words: context, context, context. The context of Gen. 1:2 does not support your supposition or view. In fact, this is the first time I've encountered your interpretation and I'm sure such a view is in a decided minority. 

" I'm sure such a view is in a decided minority. "

Truth is not determined by vote...

 

"The context of Gen. 1:2 does not support your supposition or view."

The context of Gen.1:2 does not CONTRADICT my view.

And the broader context of Scripture (which includes Jer. 4) confirms my view.

 

" context, context, context."

Ok!  The CONTEXT of Biblical Scripture confirms that FORMLESS AND VOID occurs in conjunction with judgement against defiant rebellion (Jer.4).

Thus, I've used the broader context of Scripture to inform our interpretation of Ge. 1.

 

After all, since ALL Scripture is inspired, it's ok to use ALL Scripture to form a consistent theology.

 

"this is the first time I've encountered your interpretation"

Welcome to the day-and-age of increasing knowledge! (Da.12:4)

 

blessings...

 

[BibleGuy]

On 11/6/2018 at 8:59 PM, OldCoot said:

If some folks would just take a basic math class, they could figure out it wouldn't take very long to have quite a population of people to choose from.  It is easily conceivable that there would have been a substantial population by the time of Noah... 3 Billion easy with even more highly probable.  Based on the average ages of the Patriarchs (912 years), it is conceivable that the population at the time of the flood might have been equal in numbers as today.

The basic math equation is....

The average age of the 8 patriarchs from Adam to Noah was 912 years.  Even by the time of Cain getting his woman, it is likely that there was population in the hundreds, if Adam and Eve continued to have children, and those children started having children with each other.  We don't know the age of Cain's wife.  We know that Adam and Eve had Seth when they were 130 years old.  It would be highly likely that they had a batch of kids between Cain's birth and Seth's birth, and those kids would have already been kicking out kids of their own.  Cain's wife could have been a grand niece for all we know.

Abraham married his half sister (Genesis 20:12), so this sort of thing was not uncommon.

 

Yes, the planet would have been fully populated LONG AGO.....

BUT, the sin of murder is not entered into your formula.....

And murder was present ever since Cain and Abel.....

So, your formula must be modified to properly account for murder.

blessings....

 

[BibleGuy]

18 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

Study the Mt. St. Helens volcano event.  In that instance, wood petrified in about 30 days. It also was buried in several layers of sediment.  After several rains and things had settled down, there was miniature example of the grand canyon.

Yes...sometimes things happen fast!

[OldCoot]

This chart shows the world population estimates. throw in all the wars, genocides, etc that have gone on in the last 250 years. So even with the murders, disease, wars, abortions, and such, a population can still explode in a relatively short time.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by OldCoot

[BibleGuy]

6 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

This chart shows the world population estimates. throw in all the wars, genocides, etc that have gone on in the last 250 years. So even with the murders, disease, wars, abortions, and such, a population can still explode in a relatively short time.

 

 

Nice.

It's tough, though, to be sure how to factor in the sin of murder during the near 1000 years of Adam's life...because we aren't given hard numbers.

Needless to say, the population was probably still quite large by the time Adam died.

blessings...

 

 

[Berean]

21 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

"The context of Gen. 1:2 does not support your supposition or view."

The context of Gen.1:2 does not CONTRADICT my view.

 

 

It most certainly does. The passage in question is about the creation of the universe and allows for no other interpretation or thought. To imply otherwise does violence to the narrative of the passage wherein it’s contained. In order to achieve your interpretation the passage in question (Gen. 1.2) must be lifted from its context and another interpretation substituted in its place. An interpretation not supported by the creation narrative in which it’s placed. And that’s the problem with this interpretation. It’s not an interpretation but a reinterpretation.

If, however, it is as you say then let’s explore this a bit more. In no less than seven places in the first chapter of Genesis are the objects of His creation called “good”. Now if His work is called good then how can it also be judged and therefore condemned as well therefore implying that it wasn’t good? Certainly God wouldn’t create something good and then pronounce judgment on it or condemn it now, would He? After all, the fall didn’t occur until much later which is recorded in the third chapter which is where He then pronounces judgment and not before. The contradiction attendant on calling something good while it’s under judgment and/or condemnation is not possible. It must be one or the other, not both.

Mind if I ask from where did you get this novel interpretation?

[BibleGuy]

21 hours ago, Berean said:

It most certainly does. The passage in question is about the creation of the universe and allows for no other interpretation or thought. To imply otherwise does violence to the narrative of the passage wherein it’s contained. In order to achieve your interpretation the passage in question (Gen. 1.2) must be lifted from its context and another interpretation substituted in its place. An interpretation not supported by the creation narrative in which it’s placed. And that’s the problem with this interpretation. It’s not an interpretation but a reinterpretation.

If, however, it is as you say then let’s explore this a bit more. In no less than seven places in the first chapter of Genesis are the objects of His creation called “good”. Now if His work is called good then how can it also be judged and therefore condemned as well therefore implying that it wasn’t good? Certainly God wouldn’t create something good and then pronounce judgment on it or condemn it now, would He? After all, the fall didn’t occur until much later which is recorded in the third chapter which is where He then pronounces judgment and not before. The contradiction attendant on calling something good while it’s under judgment and/or condemnation is not possible. It must be one or the other, not both.

Mind if I ask from where did you get this novel interpretation?

"It most certainly does. The passage in question is about the creation of the universe and allows for no other interpretation or thought. "

It most certainly does NOT.  The passage in question is expressed in HEBRAIC THOUGHT...and HEBRAIC THOUGHT is included in Jer. 4:23 which properly informs our understanding of the meaning of the Hebrew terms (i.e., "formeless and void") in Genesis.

"To imply otherwise does violence to the narrative of the passage wherein it’s contained. "

To imply otherwise does JUSTICE to proper hermeneutics, which allows for usage of a term in ONE context to be applicable to OTHER contexts. 

After all, that's how we know the meanings of Hebrew words!  We examine ALL the passages in which the words occur, and we infer meaning from contextual usage.

So, to ignore Jer. 4 when interpreting Ge. 1 is to NEGLECT an important element of proper hermeneutics.

 

"In order to achieve your interpretation the passage in question (Gen. 1.2) must be lifted from its context and another interpretation substituted in its place. "

Rather, my interpretation PROPERLY accounts for an acceptable usage and meaning of the Hebrew terms "formless and void", given those same Hebrew terms used in Jer.4.

 

"An interpretation not supported by the creation narrative in which it’s placed. "

An interpretation SUPPORTED by virtue of the fact that the SAME HEBREW TERMS are being used....thus informing us of ACCEPTABLE and PROPER interpretive options, given the Hebrew terms used.

 

"And that’s the problem with this interpretation. It’s not an interpretation but a reinterpretation."

And that's the BENEFIT of my interpretation.  It PROPERLY accounts for acceptable usage of the SAME HEBREW TERMS.

 

"In no less than seven places in the first chapter of Genesis are the objects of His creation called “good”. Now if His work is called good then how can it also be judged and therefore condemned as well therefore implying that it wasn’t good? "

Genesis 1 does NOT state that God CREATED the rebellion inferred from the usage of the terms "formless and void".

Moreover, you could just as well ask: "How could Adam be good, if Adam sinned?"

Thus, your question does nothing to disconfirm my interpretation.

 

"Certainly God wouldn’t create something good and then pronounce judgment on it or condemn it now, would He?"

According to that reasoning, God would never create a good Adam and then subsequently pronounce judgment upon Adam.

But God DID!

So again, your concern does not disconfirm my position.

 

"After all, the fall didn’t occur until much later which is recorded in the third chapter which is where He then pronounces judgment and not before. "

That doesn't help your position.  God still created a GOOD ADAM who SINNED and incurred JUDGMENT.

How could God do such a thing?  Answer:  The same way God created pre-Adamic (and/or angelic) good beings who subsequently rebelled and incurred judgment.

After all, NOTHING in Ge. 1 states that God did NOT create pre-Adamic (and/or angelic) good beings who subsequently rebelled and incurred judgment.

 

"The contradiction attendant on calling something good while it’s under judgment and/or condemnation is not possible."

Sure, everything God made at that time was good (Ge.1:31), but that doesn't prove nothing BAD had happened prior to that time.

So again, Genesis 1 does NOT say the rebellion (inferred from "formless and void" in Ge. 1) is GOOD.

 

Moreover, everything God made was NOT immediately good!  Remember?  Ge.2:18.

So again, you're eisegesis is disconfirmed.

 

"It must be one or the other, not both."

Then God was confused!  EVERYTHING God made was good....but it was also NOT GOOD (Ge.2:18) for awhile.

In other words, you've given me a false dichotomy which is disconfirmed by more careful analysis.

 

"Mind if I ask from where did you get this novel interpretation?"

The Bible!  

Simply account for "formless and void" as used elsewhere in Scripture, when interpreting that phrase in Scripture.

After all, that's what we do!  We use SCRIPTURE to interpret SCRIPTURE.....

 

blessings...

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by BibleGuy
typo

[Berean]

19 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

It most certainly does NOT.  The passage in question is expressed in HEBRAIC THOUGHT...and HEBRAIC THOUGHT is included in Jer. 4:23 which properly informs our understanding of the meaning of the Hebrew terms (i.e., "formeless and void") in Genesis.

So, you would expect the writer of Gen. 1:2 to expect his readers to interpret it according to Jer. 4:23 which had yet to be written and would not be written for quite some time?  Shouldn’t the passage containing the so-called "HEBRAIC THOUGHT" (whatever that is) in Jer. 4:23 be understood by the "HEBRAIC THOUGHT" given in Gen. 1:2 and not the other way around since Gen. 1:2 was written at a much earlier date than Jer. 4:23? For centuries the Jews understood that Gen. 1 referred to the creation of the universe and continue to do so and yet for some reason you persist in believing otherwise. Interesting that.

19 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

Genesis 1 does NOT state that God CREATED the rebellion inferred from the usage of the terms "formless and void".

You misunderstand. If I understood you correctly you implied or insisted that Jer. 4:23 referred to judgment. My contention is how could God place anything under judgment when He called it good? I rather doubt He would have done so. I don't know where or how you could have understood any of what I wrote referred to the angelic rebellion since I never made such an assertion.

19 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

Moreover, you could just as well ask: "How could Adam be good, if Adam sinned?"

Why would I ask that? Evidently after Adam sinned and the curse was pronounced he and everything else ceased to be "good".

 

19 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

According to that reasoning, God would never create a good Adam and then subsequently pronounce judgment upon Adam.

But God DID!

You misunderstand. Why would God create anything which would be and is good and pronounce judgment on it during the process or shortly thereafter?

19 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

Then God was confused!  EVERYTHING God made was good....but it was also NOT GOOD (Ge.2:18) for awhile.

In other words, you've given me a false dichotomy which is disconfirmed by more careful analysis.

I doubt you fully understand the import of that verse but then that's not surprising.

19 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

To imply otherwise does JUSTICE to proper hermeneutics, which allows for usage of a term in ONE context to be applicable to OTHER contexts. 

So, you are using proper hermeneutics because you say you are using proper hermeneutics. I’m convinced! Anyway, such is not the case here when the passage in question is clearly taken out of context as is evidently the case here. Proper hermeneutics is only of use when applied properly. Many a false teacher has, and no doubt would have claimed to be using proper hermeneutics. Merely stating that you are doing so proves nothing.

20 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

An interpretation SUPPORTED by virtue of the fact that the SAME HEBREW TERMS are being used....thus informing us of ACCEPTABLE and PROPER interpretive options, given the Hebrew terms used.

Not if they’re lifted out of context as is the case here.

20 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

The Bible!  

I’m sure you knew that’s not quite what I meant.

I’m finding this whole discussion tedious. It’s become quite clear that you intend to persist in your error no matter what. So be it. You injure no one but yourself. I shall leave you to your confusion. I just hope that no one has subscribed to your error. Blind leading the blind and all that. Goodbye.