Creation Etc.

[abcdef]

10 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Interesting thoughts and conversations, I enjoy discussing everything.

In many of my views I'm not dogmatic, but weigh the preponderance of the scriptural evidence to form an opinion. I lean toward the earth being more than 6,024 years old. Drawn from memory, I recall the young earth theory as being relatively new in history [circa 18th - 19th century]. 

 

10 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

One of many things pertaining to the creation account I've noticed, that after the creation or making of it; God said, "that is was good". Why is it not said in Gen. 1:2, "that is was good"? If it was the actual time of the spoken creation of Earth? To me it hints of needing refashioning as chaos reigned. God is not the author of chaos. 

Because nothing "material" had been created yet. Light was the first thing created in the material world. It was good.

 

The "waters" that are spoken of in v 2 are spiritual and existed before light was created.

See how it is the Spirit of God that moves the waters, the waters on the face of the deep, the void.

It represents the mixing of good and evil. I'm not so sure that it would be a good thing, but it had to be done. 

I don't think that Jesus dying in pain was such a good thing. But He did it for us.

Just think, with that first motion of the Spirit, all the pain and suffering that Jesus would go through for us, through all of peoples lives, sin.

So maybe Jesus saw what was going to happen, and it wasn't all good, a lot was going to be bitter.

Just thinking.

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, abcdef said:

Some were.

All were at one time.

6 minutes ago, abcdef said:

Well, if someone takes the position that the creation story is symbolic, then they should be able to explain it.

I take the creation account as literal truth, misunderstood and even occasionally mistranslated, but still truth.

6 minutes ago, abcdef said:

I can't always answer posts quickly or extensively as they deserve to be but I try.  That is why I only quoted the part of your post about the waters and what they were. 

Waters are waters, not the sky or anything else.  At times, the Bible is obviously to be interpreted in a manner less literal than I propose.  There's is a lot that's not said in the recreation account.  An example would be the dinosaurs.  Young Earth Creationists (YEC) would have you believe dinosaurs were around in Adam's day and Noah's Flood killed them off.  There's no scientific basis for this but that doesn't dissuade them.

6 minutes ago, abcdef said:

These things should be thought about, dwelt upon, reasoned out, and placed in the proper perspective.

You may see things differently, that is fine.

This is how we learn.

I'm sorry if I came across as dismissive.  That was not my intent.  I just don't want to go down paths that I see as non-productive.  You're welcome to prove me wrong.

6 minutes ago, abcdef said:

Tell me what you believe about the darkness on the face of the deep.

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.  [NASB]

You cannot separate the deep from the earth.  The earth at that time was under the judgment talked about in Enoch and in various scriptures through both the Old and New Testaments.  Formless and void indicates there was nothing living on the Earth at that time.  The deep has a surface because that's what the Bible says.  So if all earth (land) has water over it, the water has a surface with the deep earth in darkness from Lucifer's Flood. 

6 minutes ago, abcdef said:

I told you what I thought, that is what we call outer space.

No.  You are looking in the wrong direction.

6 minutes ago, abcdef said:

 The dark, endless, eternal, void, of space, what you see in the night sky.

Yes/No?

No.

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Once again this is only my opinion. Opinions are like noses, everyone has one, except me; my nose has it own zip code. It's shadow shades a multitude. With a nose like that, it's hard to keep it out of other people's business, because it slams into their business   

Heh.

Quote

 

Now on a serious note:

I recall Ussher to be the first to manually go through that tedious task of lifespans and genealogies to come to an accurate date, and I believe he was on the mark. But as I recall, his purpose was to establish the date of the creation of our planet? That I'm in limbo about.

 

I don't know his reason for it other than potentially: what does the Bible say? At the end of the day though, Genesis never internally dates itself. A matter a former pastor of mine brought up is how the period of Genesis 1-11 actually covers about a third of history recorded in the Bible (as per Ussher's timeline). That's a long period of history with very little detail. I'd chalk that up to the need for history-building for the nation of Israel as they were preparing to take over Canaan.

Quote

Early in my studies, and reading all the "begats" and genealogies; it was boring and I use to skip them over when reading the Bible from cover to cover. Along the way over time, I learned the importance of why they are accurately documented. Firstly; the Jews always require documentation and proof of their linage and tribe for priestly duties and other things. To prove they are not of mixed gentile blood and are pure. 

As long as they are in fact complete genealogies. The genealogies in Matthew skip some to get to the 14 generations. I think Luke also skips some as well, but I'm not sure on that.

Quote

 

Secondly and most important; it accurately chronicles and records the lineage of the Messiah all the way back to the first Adam. It's needed to fulfil prophecy about his coming all the way from the first prophecy in the Bible:

Genesis 3:15 (KJV) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

 

 

Quote

Answers in Genesis and Creation ministries [and I might add gotquestions.org] are awesome ministries and are not leading anyone astray.

I would beg to differ on AiG and CMI. I feel both these organizations are doing a real disservice to outright harm of the Christian faith. I don't mean to say they are not Christians but I genuinely think they are greatly in error on this matter. Ken Ham in particular makes it pretty implicitly clear that if you don't believe his version of the Creation and Flood, then you are not a proper or true Christian. He will not say that outright but the language used is pretty unforgiving. When he goes after people like NT Wright, that seems bizarre. I understand that this deeply tied to his soteriology. Many times in their communication I get the sense that they are making Genesis their cornerstone of faith, not Christ, the actual cornerstone. A blogger I follow wrote a book on this called "The Heresy of Ham". I have not read it, but its premise is pretty much the same.

They have also been caught in some very unethical behaviour in the past and I really don't like that in any Christian organization. I don't have a problem with mistakes, but there have been deliberate omissions and misleading things put out. As a geologist I was interested in an article on gold on AiG's site. After reading it I was simply appalled that a Ph.D. geologist (Dr. Snelling) would write that. It was misleading and full of cherry-picked data. 

 

Quote

So what if we have a different view on a few secondary issues that don't involve the core tenets of our faith. If we all understood the Bible exactly the same way, what would I use my cyber ink on: LoL

Absolutely!

[abcdef]

On 10/19/2020 at 4:49 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Let's start at Genesis 1:1.  Creation takes place and was completed in Genesis 1:1.

Here is the problem, show me the waters.

---------

You say that the creation was completed (except for life), then "flooded", and then "recreated".

That means that light was created, then air and waters, the earth, then the heavens with stars, suns and moon.

You say that they were created and then destroyed, to be "recreated" again.

So how big was this flood of literal water?

It ended all created light, because light had to be recreated. So how big was the flood to end all light?

It ended all the heavens, the stars, galaxies, the sun and moon, because they had to be ended, in order to be recreated. 

No light and no heavens, wiped clean out of existence, in order to be recreated.

-------

So where is all this water that ended all light, galaxies, suns, planets, suns, and our sun and moon?

 

 

On 10/19/2020 at 4:49 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

  What was before is not stated.  If God had wanted us to know he would have told us.  Genesis 1:2 begins with the world in a state of ruin, some judgement on the Earth that we learn about in bits and pieces in the Bible and the book of Enoch.  The judgement occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  Genesis 1:2 shows the result of God's judgement.  This viewpoint existed before the New Testament.  It's called the Ruin-Reconstruction View of Genesis 1:1-1:3.  Genesis 1:3 starts the restoration of the Earth which culminates with God creating Adam and Eve.

The length of this restoration of creation began in Genesis 1:3 could be 6 literal Earth days or 6 periods of time.  The latter is referred to the Day-Age View of restoration.  The link below provides a detailed information.

The Bible, Genesis and Geology

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, abcdef said:

Here is the problem, show me the waters.

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.  [KJV]

The waters were part of creation account of Genesis 1:1.  They are already in existence in Genesis 1:2.  Prove they weren't!

5 hours ago, abcdef said:

You say that the creation was completed (except for life), then "flooded", and then "recreated".

That means that light was created, then air and waters, the earth, then the heavens with stars, suns and moon.

You say that they were created and then destroyed, to be "recreated" again.

So how big was this flood of literal water?

It ended all created light, because light had to be recreated. So how big was the flood to end all light?

It ended all the heavens, the stars, galaxies, the sun and moon, because they had to be ended, in order to be recreated. 

No light and no heavens, wiped clean out of existence, in order to be recreated.

-------

So where is all this water that ended all light, galaxies, suns, planets, suns, and our sun and moon?

That's not at all what I'm saying.

Source: The Bible's Mystery of the Void and the Darkness - The Overlooked Wisdom and Purpose!

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[abcdef]

34 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

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.  [KJV]

The waters were part of creation account of Genesis 1:1.  They are already in existence in Genesis 1:2.  Prove they weren't!

That's not at all what I'm saying.

Source: The Bible's Mystery of the Void and the Darkness - The Overlooked Wisdom and Purpose!

 

Sorry, but I'm not going to discuss this with a website or someone's book.

Answer yourself.

-----

Once I discussed baptism with a Catholic, he said, "Go into town and ask the priest, he will tell you what I believe."

I talked to a Baptist, she said, "They are voting on this at the convention in Atlanta, when they vote I'll let you know what I believe."

Then on this website, I talked with someone and they directed me to another website to say what they believe.

You see, they are not doing the work themselves. They are taking someone else's work and making it their own.

They are just saying, "Wait a minute, I'm going to the website to see what I believe."

Don't be that person.

--------

God created light.

Light was ended.

Light was "recreated", "Let their be light".

Where is the water that ended light?

Will you now say that it was only local and not universal?

It had to be universal, if light then had to be "recreated".

[Guest]

1 minute ago, abcdef said:

Sorry, but I'm not going to discuss this with a website or someone's book.

Answer yourself.

-----

Once I discussed baptism with a Catholic, he said, "Go into town and ask the priest, he will tell you what I believe."

I talked to a Baptist, she said, "They are voting on this at the convention in Atlanta, when they vote I'll let you know what I believe."

Then on this website, I talked with someone and they directed me to another website to say what they believe.

You see, they are not doing the work themselves. They are taking someone else's work and making it their own.

They are just saying, "Wait a minute, I'm going to the website to see what I believe."

Don't be that person.

--------

God created light.

Light was ended.

Light was "recreated", "Let their be light".

Where is the water that ended light?

Will you now say that it was only local and not universal?

It had to be universal, if light then had to be "recreated".

Bye

[abcdef]

53 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Bye

Sorry that you give up so quickly.

Is it because I disagree with you?

Is it because I made you question what you believe? What you accepted as truth?

 -------

As I said, it takes a lot of time to think about these concepts. 

I thought for days about your theory, only to find several possible reasons to reject it.

It is an antiquated theory that, just as the 6/24 hour day theory is proven wrong, the practical application and details of this "creation/recreation/gap" theory also shows it is not possible to be literal or real.

Maybe you won't get into the details involved in the concepts, such as the end of light and recreation, the concept of literal waters vs. the concept of what the waters represent.

----------

You see, the Genesis story is from the viewpoint of Moses' time. The 4 elements and light are created. 

Not in 6/24 hour days, not in order, not correct in scientific theories, 

But it is correct when seen as symbolic of the creation.

It's not science, it is about good and evil, reason and chaos, light and dark, spiritual and material, joy and sorrow.

The attempts to make it fit into some science based theory only distorts the real meaning.

In this case the theory of "creation/recreation/gap" is an attempt to put the material into the spiritual meaning.

It's the questions and details that bring out the truth.

---------

 

[abcdef]

The concept of the waters in Gen 1:2 is that they separate God from the darkness of the deep, the void of space, that you see at night.

The waters are the face of the deep. When we look up at the night sky, that is what we see, the deep, the void, the face of the deep.

Love and no love.

Fullness and emptiness.

Reason and no reasoning.

Where God is and where God is not. 

The waters represent the barrier between God and the deep.

Jude v.6 shows angels being kept there "in everlasting chains under darkness".

Also see Matt 8:22, 22:13, 25:30, these all refer to outer darkness.

So this barrier that is described as water on the face of the deep is not material water as we know it. (This is not science)

It is a concept that is symbolized as water that separates good (God, love) and evil (without God, without love), very simple and basic.

--------------------------

The Holy Spirit that moves on the sur"face" of the deep causes the area to mix where God is and where God is not. Like waves on an ocean where the wind causes the air and waters to mix together.

This is where the creation happened, in this area that was mixing together, where God is and where God is not.

This material, that is mixed together, symbolized as waters, is shown to be the material that the created things are made of, both where God is and where God is not.

The material world is made of good and evil.

Love and no love.

Reason and chaos.

Light and dark.

Joy and sorrow.

It is not science, it the spiritual concepts of God in the creation that are being shown.

The symbolized waters are shown becoming created air, water, earth and the heavens.

But it is not science, it is the basic concepts of good and evil,

And how our world is a place where there is good and evil,

Love and no love. 

 ----

[BeyondET]

On 10/19/2020 at 5:38 PM, abcdef said:

 Say Anything you want to about the creation, Adam and Eve, Noah, etc.

 

In the beginning God created the hydrogen and the helium.

kind of like it that way lol, two of the most abundant elements in the universe it’s everywhere