Genesis 1:1-2

Originally posted by divegeester
In order for the biblical account of creation to be chronologically accurate and time-bound, time itself would have had to have been created first. Clearly this could not have been the case as space-time as we recognise and experience it did not exist until all the universe was in place, stretched out and moving dynamically as it is now (relatively speak ...[text shortened]... s incomprehensible as early Big Bang time.

Edit: the two things are probably the same events.

There was no man to tell time till some time on the sixth day of creation. However, it should be obvious that God began telling time for us from the beginning of His creation of the physical heavens and the earth.

Originally posted by C Hess
Funny that of all the posters here, the one that should make most sense to me is you, RJHinds.

Thanks. 🙂

Allthough, if the second verse is not meant to be chronologically following the first, then why does it begin with: "And..."? Is this common use of "and" in the bible?

You can find different translation of this verse here:

http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-2.htm

The following are two examples:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

(Genesis 1:2 NIV)

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.

(Genesis 1:2 NASB)

While you are there on the biblehub, look up at the heading and click on "Interlinear" and then you will see the Hebrew written from right to left with a translation in English under each Hebrew word. You should notice that the first Hebrew word on the right consists of five letters and is translated in English as "And the Earth" and the first letter on the right of that Hebrew word looks something like a walking cane. That prefix letter is called a vav and is used as a copulative conjunction to connect words, sentences, or related ideas. But it does not always have to be translated as "and" as is shown in the KJV.

Now click on the left blue arrow beside Genesis 1:2. This will take you back to the interlinear of Genesis 1:1. Notice the three letter Hebrew word that is tranlated "and" there. It is the Hebrew word that begins on the right with the vav letter that looks like a walking cane. That three letter Hebrew word translated "and" is not in Genesis 1:2.

Do you get my point that just because the King James translator translated the vav as "and" instead of using a different conjunctive word, it does not mean that it is describing something in chronological order, but only that there is some relationship with something written before.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you get my point that just because the King James translator translated the vav as "and" instead of using a different conjunctive word, it does not mean that it is describing something in chronological order, but only that there is some relationship with something written before.

I do, and I thank you for a clear and concise response.

From now on I will use biblehub instead of kingjamesbibleonline.

Again, thanks.

Originally posted by C Hess
I do, and I thank you for a clear and concise response.

From now on I will use biblehub instead of kingjamesbibleonline.

Again, thanks.

Biblehub is the best, you can look tat the Bible in its original language and look at similar occurrences of words.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Biblehub is the best, you can look tat the Bible in its original language and look at similar occurrences of words.

Thumbs UP, robbie.

Originally posted by C Hess

Yes, exactly.

Finally you are understanding.

Originally posted by C Hess
How do you know that? Is there a clue in the bible, other than that it's logically impossible to create heaven and earth and end up with a formless void?

how could you use a book to understand the same book.

you use outside knowledge, you use science.

science proves undoubtedly that the genesis account is illogical. you can't equate "days" with eras, the order of the events is 100% wrong. there is no debate on that one.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
how could you use a book to understand the same book.

you use outside knowledge, you use science.

science proves undoubtedly that the genesis account is illogical. you can't equate "days" with eras, the order of the events is 100% wrong. there is no debate on that one.

Watch my video spanky.

You might get learned a bit.

Originally posted by whodey
Watch my video spanky.

You might get learned a bit.

he has been peddling the same line for years, his problem is that he doesn't actually understand the genesis account, or not well enough to make a comparison, He doesn't even understand from which perspective the Bible writer is talking e.g. of seeing diffused light from the perspective of being on the earth or from outside the earth vicinity from the perspective of God. I have explained it numerous times but he prefers to believe his own propaganda.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes, exactly.

Finally you are understanding.

😛

Originally posted by C Hess
Are you saying that these first verses are about what happened before the inflationary epoch?

I'm saying I don't know; but probably, yes they are.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There was no man to tell time till some time on the sixth day of creation. However, it should be obvious that God began telling time for us from the beginning of His creation of the physical heavens and the earth.

How can there have been a day (24hrs) when space-time itself still did not exist and indeed neither did the earth?

Originally posted by divegeester
How can there have been a day (24hrs) when space-time itself still did not exist and indeed neither did the earth?

I don't know since I was not there. I have decided to take God's word for it since He was there.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know since I was not there. I have decided to take God's word for it since He was there.

RJ do you believe Genesis 1:31 spoken concerning God on the sixth day ?

"And God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. And there was evening there was morning the sixth day."

Originally posted by divegeester
In order for the biblical account of creation to be chronologically accurate and time-bound, time itself would have had to have been created first. Clearly this could not have been the case as space-time as we recognise and experience it did not exist until all the universe was in place, stretched out and moving dynamically as it is now (relatively speak ...[text shortened]... s incomprehensible as early Big Bang time.

Edit: the two things are probably the same events.

Well it does say "In the beginning".