abelcainsbrother wrote: Kurieuo wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:What would make you think God would created the earth in an empty and waste state like Genesis 1:2 says? This is one reason why I never liked the other translations that teach God did this. God did not create junk in the beginning and then decorate it in the six days?
You're kind of loading in "Gap" ideas with your thinking here.
God didn't create earth in an empty and waste state, rather earth passed through a "formless" state after which it was "empty" or "void".
abelcainsbrother wrote:No when God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning he spoke and they appeared perfectly brand new.
Perfectly "brand new" or do you actually mean perfectly "completed"?
What for you is wrapped up in "the heavens and the earth" (ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets
Where do you agree/disagree with what I wrote about such?
Yes I mean perfectly completed.
The thing is, "the E
arth" isn't really individually mentioned in Gen 1:1.
So if you say the Earth was completed here, there is nothing in Scripture that adamantly says such since ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets
is a phrase that simply represents the cosmos and all that is within them (no details are yet provided of the contents of the universe).
How far along the universe is, the text doesn't say, however we aren't left hanging long. For Gen 1:2 (which is really a continuation of the sentence in Gen 1:1) introduces us to Earth's existence in a state of being formless and void. So we're at a stage in Earth's past when there wasn't yet anything formed on it, it was empty and ready for God's further creative activity as sovereign Creator and Lord over all.
Now, my reading ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets
this way (as the entire universe) isn't just something I say, but it is very much accepted that this is the case by scholars and also YECs. Here is what Answers in Genesis
say of this "the heaven and the earth" phrase:
- The phrase “heaven(s) and earth” in Scripture is an example of a figure of speech called a merism, where two opposites are combined into an all-encompassing single concept, in this case the totality of creation. A linguistic analysis of the words “heaven(s) and earth” in Scripture shows that they refer to the totality of all creation (the Hebrews did not have a word for “universe”). For example, in Genesis 14:19 God is called “Creator of heaven and earth.” In Jeremiah 23:24 God speaks of Himself as filling “heaven and earth.” See also Genesis 14:22; 2 Kings 19:15; 2 Chronicles 2:12; Psalms 115:15, 121:2, 124:8, 134:3, 146:6; and Isaiah 37:16.
abelcainsbrother wrote:How long was it when the earth passed through a formless state after which it was empty or void?
Scripture doesn't say how long earth was empty and void for, does it? It merely passed through such a state.
What do you believe with your Gap theory, please include references?
As a side, where words aren't had it doesn't mean we can inject whatever makes us happy. We must simply stop with where we are dropped off. Christians have gotten themselves greatly entangled in this interpretation and that, largely because they just simply couldn't stop and began insinuating and telling their own story according to their fancy.
The YEC/OEC debate largely happens, or debates around eschatology and what-not, because people get understandably excited about beginnings and endings. It's not good enough that Scripture mentions stuff, we want all the details. I was once this way. Excited especially by RTB to see parallels in Scripture to science, take for example the order of things. But, then, I always felt uncomfortable when they upped the ante by saying correlations found in science and Scripture were perfectly described in Scripture itself.
For example, statements like, "Scripture taught the 'big bang' first
", well no, it simply says God stretched out the heavens in rather poetic form "as a tent.
" Tents can only be stretched so far, the universe unless stopped looks like it'll continually expand and burn out. Scripture was likely referring to the "circle", hemisphere above us that the Sun rises and travels through before setting. It's like the ceiling above Earth, like the tent has its own ceiling one can look up to. It needs to be taken a step further to say this is talking about an expanding universe as described in "big bang" theories.
Another example, at no time does Genesis at all seem concerned with time. Rather it is concerned with God's creating, that's the main thing I'd have anyone take away regardless of if they're Day-Age, Theistic Evolutionist, Young Earth, Gap Theory or what-have-you. That should be the main point we all come together on; God as Lord, not merely a god like in some Greek pantheon, or some far away uninvolved and disinterested God, but a God who delights in His Creation, saw it was good and who is Lord God over all.
ACB wrote:The heavens and the earth represents the entire universe and everything in it after God spoke and it was perfect and inhabited also from the beginning based on Isaiah 45:18.
Isaiah 45:18 in various translations:
- New International Version
"For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited-- he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other."
New American Standard Bible
"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else."
King James 2000 Bible
"For thus says the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he has established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."
You know, even though Earth passed through such a state, whether this was by physical processes of cosmic evolution, or some fallen angelic horde destroying "the heavens and the earth" (ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets
) that you believe perfectly completed in Gen 1:1, it is clear in Scripture that Earth passed through such a state.
Note, in Isaiah 45:18 that phrase ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets
used. Notice it says "God established it
", established what? Established the Earth, right? God established the Earth! Not the angels it seems. And God created Earth not with the purpose of leaving it empty and vain like the millions of planets in our galaxy, but formed it to be inhabited!
Is this not what happened no matter the interpretation one takes?
ACB wrote:I don't like this idea we must read Genesis as if it as we have not read the rest of the bible because when you say I'm loading the Gap idea into it,it is based on what the bible says in other places that allows me to load Gap thinking into it. It is not just made up,it has always been based on other scriptures throughout the bible why we load a gap into it. This is what so many who reject it don't understand.They assume we made it fir first and then tried to find other scripture to support it,etc.But it is based on what the rest of the bible reveals to us throughout both the old and new testaments.
Starting with Genesis 1:1 and working our way forward provides important structure to the discussion, rather then just skipping here and there and everywhere which is disorganised and hard to follow. Feel free to bring any Scripture to bare on your particular interpretation with any verse we're discussing in Genesis 1.
So far, what has been presented is thin and well, they too have the Gap idea loaded in. Forgive me for saying this, but it's like you are coming to Scripture already convinced of the Gap scenario, and so when you read this or that verse you're actually overlaying it on top of a particular narrative that you already accept.
This isn't, or shouldn't be, how Scriptural support works. Rather, we should let Scripture speak where is speaks, and equally let Scripture remain silent where it is silent. Isaiah 45:18 supports any interpretation, and there is nothing of significance in this verse that sets the Gap Theory above other stories of the Genesis creation.
ACB wrote:I probably seemed alittle rude maybe because I did'nt address all of your points but it was'nt meant in a bad way or anything but I was trying to address your overall point from your above post because some of it seemed like your opinion,so I tried to address the biblical points you were explaining. I will try to go back over it and reply to each of your points.
Not at all rude, and I wrote a lot so... as long as you're reading what I've said, so I hopefully won't have to repeat things over and over, you can address any points I've made as they arise in your own writing.
God bless ACB, though you know, I really hate that phrase...
Always seems trite, but that just means if I say it I mean it right?