25 May 14
Originally posted by sonshipExactly, well said.
Exodus 20:11 does not use the word [b]created but made . I believe the difference is deliberate and made would not insist on no ancient world before Genesis 1:2 could have existed.
I have yet to see anything that adds up to billions of years concerning the creation. Can you show me where it is?
I can show you th ...[text shortened]... ause for reasons of them not being pertinent to God's plan or deviant from His will in some way.[/b]
25 May 14
Originally posted by SuzianneCertainly not, the seveth day is a normal day as God proved by the following command:
Six literal days?
So, answer me this: Do you think the seventh day (the day of God's rest) was somehow longer than the rest? What day are we in now?
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
(Exodus 20:8-11 NASB}
I don't believe we have enough knowledge to determine what the exact day we are in now from the beginning of the creation of the physical universe. However, we can approximate the number of years to be a little more than 6,000 from that creation week.
25 May 14
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipObviously, the writer of Hebrews had no intention of presenting a chronological history of the time in presenting that information, as you acknowledge. So gaps in time between those events are irrelevant because we have chronological history explained elswhere.
Exodus 20:11 does not use the word [b]created but made . I believe the difference is deliberate and made would not insist on no ancient world before Genesis 1:2 could have existed.
I have yet to see anything that adds up to billions of years concerning the creation. Can you show me where it is?
I can show you th ...[text shortened]... ause for reasons of them not being pertinent to God's plan or deviant from His will in some way.[/b]
However, the writer of Genesis chapter one does intend to present a chronological history of the time it took for the creation of the physical universe by numbering the days. So if a gap in that time existed, it should have been explained. The fact that there is no explanation testifies to the fact that there was no gap in time there.
Concerning the words for created or made, they are basically the same with the exception that created implies the bringing into existence of the substances necessary to make whatever is to be made.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 May 14
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Obviously, the writer of Hebrews had no intention of presenting a chronological history of the time in presenting that information, as you acknowledge. So gaps in time between those events are irrelevant because we have chronological history explained elswhere.
However, the writer of Genesis chapter one does intend to present a chronological history of th ...[text shortened]... ringing into existence of the substances necessary to [b]make whatever is to be made.[/b]
Obviously, the writer of Hebrews had no intention of presenting a chronological history of the time in presenting that information, as you acknowledge. So gaps in time between those events are irrelevant because we have chronological history explained elswhere.
Verse 3 - covers the creation.
Verse 4 - covers Abel.
Verse 5 - goes on to cover Enoch.
Verse 7 - continues to cover Noah.
Doesn't it seem to you that the writer is following a chronological scheme?
Verse 8 covers Abraham who of course follows Noah in Genesis.
Verse 9 covers Isaac and Jacob.
It is quite chronological so far. Even the covering of Sarah is rather in order.
Then there is some commentary.
We have Abraham discussed again in verse 17.
We have Isaac blessing his sons in verse 20.
We have the conclusion of Jacob's life in verse 21.
We have Joseph discussed after this in verse 22.
Immediately following is Moses in verse 23.
Verse 27 Moses alone escapes his home in Egypt.
Verse 28 is after he has returned and establishes the Passover.
Verse 29 speaks of the Red Sea crossing.
Verse 30 speaks of the walls of Jericho coming down. That was 40 years latter.
The chronology continues with Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David does come before Samuel in the sentence phrase " ... of David and Samuel and the prophets" (v.32) .
I think overwhelmingly, it reveals a chronological order.
And as you say the gaps in time between those events are explained elsewhere so I say the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is likewise explained somewhat elsewhere. The gap is explained in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 in the ancient fall of Satan.
He was then called the Anointed Cherub and/or Daystar (Lucifer).
However, the writer of Genesis chapter one does intend to present a chronological history of the time it took for the creation of the physical universe by numbering the days.
Sure he does. Just as the writer of Hebrews does. But there is an interval of time just as there was in the chronology in Hebrews 11.
The history of Satan and his judged world is not irrelevant to the whole plenary revelation of the Bible. In fact in the whole scheme of things is it vital that it be understood. That is the firmentation, rebellion and history of God's enemy, who is also the church's enemy.
While believing that God is the Creator is very important it is also very important that Christians understand why God created man in His image and committed to man His deputy authority - to deal with His ancient enemy.
So if a gap in that time existed, it should have been explained. The fact that there is no explanation testifies to the fact that there was no gap in time there.
What happened in the pre-adamic world is explained in the Bible. You are just bothered that it is not explained in Genesis 1.
Concerning the words for created or made, they are basically the same with the exception that created implies the bringing into existence of the substances necessary to make whatever is to be made.
There is some overlap but not completely so. The Spirit of God is very precise in words used. If He wanted to say God CREATED the world in six days then He would have said that rather than God MADE the world in six days.
While you say the difference is negligible some brothers rather believe it is deliberate.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 May 14
7 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI realize that remain persuaded of recent creation.
For the sake of some readers present some other exegesis I think is better.
Concerning the words for created or made, they are basically the same with the exception that created implies the bringing into existence of the substances necessary to make whatever is to be made.
The verse on the universe being CREATED is Genesis 1:1.
The verse on the universe being MADE in six days is Exodus 20:11.
All we really know about the creating out of nothing is that it was in the beginning of time.
Now you put a great deal of emphasis on scientific speculations. I think that is risky. I think it is wise to go back and see what the Scripture says in a precise way.
Science is man's invention but God knows all the facts. How He has told us these facts is important. What He said and even what He did not actually say, is often important.
He did not say He created the universe in six days. He did say He made it in six days. And that word usually is mean to work with existing things.
It could be that because of our creaturely limitations we cannot even imagine a "beginning of time" apart from God telling us that such a thing happened.
When were the creatures created that are unleashed from the abyss in Revelation chapter 9 ? Did God create such monstrous demonic locusts in those six days?
Maybe they are something left over from a previous age, confined, jailed but unleashed in the end days.
26 May 14
4 edits
Originally posted by sonshipThe Writer of Hebrews does NOT present the chronological history of the time by listing the amount of time from one event to the next like Moses does in Genesis chapter one. All the Writer of Hebrews is doing is reminding the reader of these events in order to support his theology of Christ. Also Moses gives a better timeline than the Writer of Hebrews on that as well.Obviously, the writer of Hebrews had no intention of presenting a chronological history of the time in presenting that information, as you acknowledge. So gaps in time between those events are irrelevant because we have chronological history explained elswhere.
Verse 3 - covers the creation.
Verse 4 - covers Abel.
Verse 5 - goes on t ...[text shortened]...
While you say the difference is negligible some brothers rather believe it is deliberate.
Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 does not explain when this all happened and Satan isn't even mentioned until sometime after Adam and Eve were created or made. It is not logical to just make up an imaginary gap anywhere you want and stick stories about Satan in there.
There is certainly no gap in the creation week to fit billions of years. You could only fit that much time before the creation of the physical universe, but no one counts time before that except maybe God. Remember God did not make the sun, moon, and stars until the fourth day of creation so that we would be able to tell time.
26 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipOkay, I'll go along with the idea that God created the substance (or fabric) that the heavens were made of and the substance (or liquid) that the earth was made of and perhaps he had not yet made or formed these substances into the completed heavens and the earth at the time the earth is identified as without form and void.
I realize that remain persuaded of recent creation.
For the sake of some readers present some other exegesis I think is better.
Concerning the words for created or made, they are basically the same with the exception that created implies the bringing into existence of the substances necessary to make whatever is to be made.
The ...[text shortened]... hey are something left over from a previous age, confined, jailed but unleashed in the end days.
However, I will not go along with the idea the the heavens and earth were made and then destroyed by Satan or whoever after billions of years and then made again by God. There is simply no indication of any time gap there for it goes right in to God creating or making light, which is definitely on day 1 of the first evening and morning.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 May 14
7 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
The Writer of Hebrews does NOT present the chronological history of the time by listing the amount of time from one event to the next like Moses does in Genesis chapter one.
But the events are in order and there is a skipping over a period of time.
Are the events ordered or are they random ?
All the Writer of Hebrews is doing is reminding the reader of these events in order to support his theology of Christ. Also Moses gives a better timeline than the Writer of Hebrews on that as well.
And I think you do not appreciate that "theology of Christ" is being conveyed in early Genesis. You tend not to think this. Rather you tend to view it as a scientific document exhaustively detailing how God created everything.
It is too brief and concise and frankly poetic to be your mere science record.
Many take Genesis 1:1 to be the subject of the first two chapters of Genesis. They believe that verse 1 is the subject. But something else is going on because verse 2 begins with the "And" in many good English translations. A couple start with the legitimate rendering "But".
If verse 1 is the subject, how can verse 2 start with the "and" ? "And" means that something is going on already, and then something else happens to follow it. "And" is a conjunction which combines two things: the first thing goes and the second thing comes.
So the grammar shows us that verse 1 is not the subject, but part of the description. It describes the first event in a series. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, AND ..." This means that after God created, something happened.
You are bothered because details about what happened are skipped over but are told us elsewhere in the revelation of the Bible.
In exactly the same manner details about the origin of the serpent in the garden are skipped over and provided elsewhere in the Bible. In the latter case you utilize the other data. In the former case some of us apply the same principle.
Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 does not explain when this all happened and Satan isn't even mentioned until sometime after Adam and Eve were created or made.
Ezekiel 28 says that this rebel Daystar was in Eden. But his appearance is glorious and he is full of wisdom, beauty, authority and not a sneaky serpent. It has to be another Eden at another time.
It is not logical to just make up an imaginary gap anywhere you want and stick stories about Satan in there.
When I examine many YECs they simply move the so-called imaginary gap elsewhere. I believe that gap should be left where it apparently is.
For example, Kent Hovind speaks of the 100 years in the garden before Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He is as strong a Young Earther as you could find. And he MOVES the gap to another place in order to make sense for himself of the account.
So I do not think it is an imaginary gap. I think it is an evidenced one. And instead of taking the need for some undescribed interval and placing it sometime AFTER Adam's creation and BEFORE his fall, I prefer to leave it where it appears to be - between verse 1 and verse 2.
There is certainly no gap in the creation week to fit billions of years.
I agree that no interruption in the flow of days is obvious from the first day to the seventh. This is not so between these two passages:
"In the beginning God created ... AND ... the earth was without form and void."
It is not against any unwritten rule you have that God cannot provide more detail about the ancient past elsewhere. If that IS an unwritten rule than you should apply it also to the serpent and argue that it was just an unusually talkative and subtle reptile.
Again, what am I doing which you are not doing, in considering other statements of the Bible?
You could only fit that much time before the creation of the physical universe, but no one counts time before that except maybe God. Remember God did not make the sun, moon, and stars until the fourth day of creation so that we would be able to tell time.
If you do not like my example in Hebrews, you should consider the example of the geneologies in Matthew.
The years in that geneology actually do not add up to the typical way of accounting time. They add up according to God's priorities and God's way of accounting time.
"Thus all the generations from Abraham until David are fourteen generations, and from David until the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, fourteen generations." (Matt. 1:17)
Now that is a chronology you cannot argue with. And the fact of the matter is that some people are dropped from the geneology. And the years of thier lives are SKIPPED. So the 14 + 14 + 14 generations are according to God's priorities and God's accounting.
If gaps (according to us) serve His purpose He will include those gaps.
26 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipAND is just a conjunction joining two words, phrases, or sentences. It does not mean anything happened after it. It appears to me that what comes after the AND is just providing more information about the condition of the earth and what God was doing. It seems obvious to me from the following verses that the heavens and the earth were not completed yet because work is still being done on them and there was no pronouncement that it is good until verse ten. I still do not see any gap there.The Writer of Hebrews does NOT present the chronological history of the time by listing the amount of time from one event to the next like Moses does in Genesis chapter one.
But the events are in order and there is a skipping over a period of time.
Are the events ordered or are they random ?
[quote]
All the Writer of Hebrews is d ...[text shortened]... d God's accounting.
If gaps (according to us) serve His purpose He will include those gaps.
If there was some other Garden of Eden other than the one on earth, then perhaps the one on earth was a type of one in the spirit world. However, we also know that this rebel Daystar was in the Garden of Eden on earth after the creation week.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 May 14
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsGenesis 1:5 does not say "the FIRST day". It says "ONE day."
[b]AND is just a conjunction joining two words, phrases, or sentences. It does not mean anything happened after it. It appears to me that what comes after the AND is just providing more information about the condition of the earth and what God was doing. It seems obvious to me from the following verses that the heavens and the earth were not co ...[text shortened]... we also know that this rebel Daystar was in the Garden of Eden on earth after the creation week.[/b]
"God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." (v.5)
Though Exodus 20:11 says God made the heavens and earth and all that is in them in six days, Strictly Speaking and believing that the Holy Spirit is precise in what He had the prophets write, it does not say the FIRST day but "one day".
Verse 5 - " one day"
Verse 8 - " a second day"
Verse 13 - " a third day "
Verse 19 - " a fourth day "
Verse 23 - " a fifth day "
Verse 31 - " the sixth day "
It could be significant that the sequence of days starts with the phrase " one day " rather than "the first day"
On each of the days it WAS pronounced that something God saw was good EXCEPT the SECOND DAY.
I believe the withholding of the pronouncement probably concerns that in the atmosphere there were left over from a previous pre-adamic age the evil spirits hovering over this new world. Not all the angels were rejoicing.
Some were anxious and jealous at what had been taken away from them. And with conspiracy and destructive schemes they awaited instructions from their leader Satan. These were in the air.
I have told you this before. I guess it only has value to readers seeing it for the first time.
But anyway the hints of destruction / reconstruction are too many to ignore for me.
If there was some other Garden of Eden other than the one on earth, then perhaps the one on earth was a type of one in the spirit world. However, we also know that this rebel Daystar was in the Garden of Eden on earth after the creation week.
And you know that not because Genesis 1,2 says anything about it. You know that because of considering carefully other places in God's word.
I do the same thing concerning the ancient history of Satan. So we have Satan expelled from an Eden and showing up in an Eden. You hold that Satan came OUT of an Eden in Heaven the first week only to land in Eden on earth.
I think the better understanding is an Eden previous in time. He and his hosts were in the atmosphere surrounding the earth. But the new world was to be under the deputy authority of Adam (if he remain obedient). So the pronouncement of "God saw that it was good" is conspicuously withheld concerning the atmosphere on the second day.
27 May 14
Originally posted by sonshipYou just happen to be looking at a version that translates it "ONE day" instead of "the FIRST day", but most versions translate it like this:
[b]Genesis 1:5 does not say "the FIRST day". It says "ONE day."
"God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." (v.5)
Though Exodus 20:11 says God made the heavens and earth and all that is in them in six days, [i]Strictly Speak ...[text shortened]... saw that it was good"[/b] is conspicuously withheld concerning the atmosphere on the second day.[/b]
Genesis 1:5
New King James Version (NKJV)
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
The same Hebrew word is used for ONE and FIRST.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 May 14
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsWithout further checking on the Hebrew word there I would guess that it does not HAVE to be translated "first" as is seen in a number of English versions:
You just happen to be looking at a version that translates it [b]"ONE day" instead of "the FIRST day", but most versions translate it like this:
Genesis 1:5
New King James Version (NKJV)
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
The same Hebrew word is used for ONE and FIRST.[/b]
New American Standard Bible
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
American Standard Version
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.
English Revised Version
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
World English Bible
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." There was evening and there was morning, one day.
Young's Literal Translation
and God calleth to the light 'Day,' and to the darkness He hath called 'Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.
International Standard Version
calling the light "day," and the darkness "night." The twilight and the dawn were day one.
Granted, there are a number which do read "the first day" also.
28 May 14
3 edits
Originally posted by sonshipIt can be translated either way, but it depends on the context and how it sounds as to which should be used. For example,
Without further checking on the Hebrew word there I would guess that it does not HAVE to be translated [b]"first" as is seen in a number of English versions:
New American Standard Bible
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
American Standard Versi ...[text shortened]... one.
Granted, there are a number which do read [b]"the first day" also.[/b]
The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
(Genesis 8:5 NASB)
Compare the interlinear
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/8-5.htm
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-5.htm
In Genesis 8:5 the first day of the month sounds better than the one day of the month in that context.
28 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThe truly amazing part is people still believing all that utter crap as if it had been a real event. Billions of people totally and completely duped by fairy tales.
It can be translated either way, but it depends on the context and how it sounds as to which should be used. For example,
The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the [b]first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
(Genesis 8:5 NASB)
Compare the interlinear
http://biblehub.com/interlinea ...[text shortened]... e first day of the month[/b] sounds better than the one day of the month in that context.[/b]