Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

Hi CS, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE GAP THEORY.I believe there was a light period that began in the beginning and lasted until Genesis 1:2.During this light period God completed all the things necessary in Genesis 1:1 and its history of that light period (DAY) as recorded in Genesis 2:4-Genesis 4:24.There is no Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
There is no fall of Satan that destroyed the Heaven and the Earth.During that extended light period all the peat along with fossils was produced that was then covered with rock and dirt and under great pressure produced all out gas, oil, and coal, our fossil fuels we use every day.There is no limit as to what God could have created in this light period nor how many times He created something.A light just came on. That would cover all the extinction events that science tells us happened in the past. When most life forms went extinct and then all of a sudden we had life forms.But the only things we can know for sure is the things that Moses recorded for us as he had been told by God. If you can not believe Genesis 1:1 you can not believe Jesus came and died for the sins of the world.You don't have to believe what I have presented in this thread to believe in Jesus but if you do not believe God created the Heaven and the Earth.The same book that makes that statement is the book that tells us about Jesus.If Genesis 1:1 is a lie then John 1:1-3 is a lie. Nothing else in the book would mean anything.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi CS, "Once" would mean one event"upon a time" would mean somewhere in time as we know it."In the beginning" there was no time as we know it.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hey, you edited out the "Shut Up", I liked that part with the laugh.
(Since this new version of software sends the whole post to the person you're responding to, they receive the first version, no edits.)

quote:

---

I have a Christian friend who tells me every so often he "reboots". He says he throws away all his theology and reads the Bible as if for the first time.

---

I think that's a good habit.

quote:

---

And where is the greater weight of evidence.

---

I don't see the evidence supporting ICANT's hypothesis and I have a rather unorthodox way of looking at the Bible.I don't see the text or the theology of the time supporting two different creations of man. I think the A&E story was chosen by the Redactor to depict the making of the man created on the sixth day.I understand what ICANT is saying and the reasoning behind his hypothesis, but I don't feel his interpretation is what the original audience would have understood to the best of my knowledge.I feel his hypothesis would put a serious crimp in the common doctrines of Christianity and give atheists more ammunition to cry lunacy.Even ICANT knows that to understand any writing one must know:Who is speaking or writing?
Whom or about whom is he speaking or writing to?
What subject is he speaking or writing about?
When or about what time is he speaking or writing about?
Why, the reason or occasion for the speaking or writing?Unfortunately in this thread he has chosen to ignore those specifics. Message 154His hypothesis has been questioned by me and by you. His explanations have not convinced me his hypothesis is viable. There are too many holes. His explanations don't seem to be convincing you either. So what does that tell us.You, who are more prone to bringing unrelated text together for a purpose isn't buying it and me, who tries to stay within the reality behind the text isn't buying it. If our two extremes aren't buying it, will the those in the middle accept his hypothesis?You had the same questions about the Hebrew that I did. He should be able to find a Hebrew scholar somewhere that agrees with his translation if it is a credible translation. I haven't seen it yet, have you?When he starts flipping back and forth between Hebrew and English, his hypothesis loses credibility.This is historic! You and I are sorta somewhat in agreement and kinda sorta on the same side although from different angles.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Maybe not The Gap Theory, but you do believe in a gap theory.You treat Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 as seperate events (despite them being conjucted), between which a whole bunch of stuff happened. That is a gap theory. We can't even be sure that Moses wrote it. In fact, he most likely did not. Bullshit!We know for a fact that the Earth was formed much later than the heavens were and that they were not formed at the same time.Whether or not god did it is a whole 'nother thing. A lie? No, Gen 1:1 is simply unintentionally wrong in its specifics. Alothough, as I said, its just a phrase. It is not a statement of a fact of history. Regardless though, your consequent is still a non-sequitor. Yeah, you're one of those all or nothing literalists. Your faith is a house of cards... on a waterbed! No wonder you have to go through so much deception to maintain your positions. You simply cannot face the Bible having an error or else your whole philosophy comes crashing down all the way to not having faith in Jesus any more. That is pathetic. You're a theological child and you show it with your behavior here.

Genesis 1:1 is not a statement of a fact of history ?
It is unintentionally wrong in its specifics ?
I think not.I take it as a stated fact for sure.What evidence do you have that God did not create the heavens and the earth in the beginning ?This is a statement of fact to be believed by faith: "By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not come into being out of things which appear." (Heb 11:3)

Hey, you edited out the "Shut Up", I liked that part with the laugh.

Yes I did.

(Since this new version of software sends the whole post to the person you're responding to, they receive the first version, no edits.)

I understand that. You saw it. Chuckle.

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have a Christian friend who tells me every so often he "reboots". He says he throws away all his theology and reads the Bible as if for the first time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ​ I think that's a good habit. ​ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And where is the greater weight of evidence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ​ I don't see the evidence supporting ICANT's hypothesis and I have a rather unorthodox way of looking at the Bible. I don't see the text or the theology of the time supporting two different creations of man. I think the A&E story was chosen by the Redactor to depict the making of the man created on the sixth day.

I would like to review the Documentary Hypothesis in order to converse with you. I think there may be some things in it useful. But I probably could not go along with the entire hypotheses. Still there may be some true and useful insight in it.So when you talk about the Redactor, I don't know much about that.

I understand what ICANT is saying and the reasoning behind his hypothesis, but I don't feel his interpretation is what the original audience would have understood to the best of my knowledge. ​ I feel his hypothesis would put a serious crimp in the common doctrines of Christianity and give atheists more ammunition to cry lunacy.

Probably ...
But the atheist is going to cry lunacy no matter what.The athiest resists the proclamation of God's exsistence more on moral reasons rather than intellectual ones.

Even ICANT knows that to understand any writing one must know: ​ Who is speaking or writing? Whom or about whom is he speaking or writing to? What subject is he speaking or writing about? When or about what time is he speaking or writing about? Why, the reason or occasion for the speaking or writing? ​ Unfortunately in this thread he has chosen to ignore those specifics. Message 154 ​ His hypothesis has been questioned by me and by you. His explanations have not convinced me his hypothesis is viable. There are too many holes. His explanations don't seem to be convincing you either. So what does that tell us. ​ You, who are more prone to bringing unrelated text together for a purpose isn't buying it and me, who tries to stay within the reality behind the text isn't buying it. If our two extremes aren't buying it, will the those in the middle accept his hypothesis?

The texts I bring in are really and truely not unrelated.
In the scheme of the whole theme of Bible they are related texts.Perhaps, when you view some text I mention as unrelated, I should try to help you see why it is related.You cannot take the Bible as a scrape book and hodgepodge of isolated and fragmented religious segments. There is a plan, a purpose, a scheme from Genesis to Revelation.It stands together. The modern skeptical mind wants to rip the pieces from one another, divide and conquer, kill the beast by cutting it up into pieces.This is only at first. Then they want to put it back together relating the pieces to mean some other view.... some man centered philosophy.But this book is a revelation of God and His plan, His eternal purpose to dispense Himself into man for a union of the Divine and the human .... a mingling of God and man.This is why emphasize Jesus Christ as the center and circumference of the Bible. In Him we see the standard model of the mingling of God and man.It is a challenge though, to show how Genesis 1 and 2 relate to this mingling of God and man which is the eternal purpose in the Bible.

You had the same questions about the Hebrew that I did. He should be able to find a Hebrew scholar somewhere that agrees with his translation if it is a credible translation. I haven't seen it yet, have you? ​ When he starts flipping back and forth between Hebrew and English, his hypothesis loses credibility. ​ This is historic! You and I are sorta somewhat in agreement and kinda sorta on the same side although from different angles.

I am willing to lose every debate. EVERY debate on this forum I am willing to be utterly trounced by you, ICANT, or anyone else ... IF I might help one person to open up their heart to Jesus.If you miss Jesus, whatever else you get from the Bible is just ... it means nothing, REALLY. This is a book of LIFE. That is God's life, His Person coming into contact with us for a fellowship of God and man.To me "Bible Study" only means another angle to see Jesus Christ. I am sorry. One day maybe they'll send me away from here.I have not yet taken time to forward ICANT's views on yom to a translator.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Nope. Gen 1:2 starts with the conjuction "and". That conjuncts the first phrase with the second one making it one statement. In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth, and the Earth was formless and void. Then it goes on about how he formed the Earth. Its really pretty simple.

Hebrew translators don't always agree on that matter, if I recall rightly.But aside from the linquistics, haven't you seen how much of scientific opinion is inching closer to some kind of past catastrophism ?Very often these days we hear of theories as to why the mass extinctions to previous life forms. I have heard of killer GAS, killer COMETS, killer ASTEROIDS.I think modern scientific thought is moving closer to a creation / destruction view of earth history. At least it is very frequent today that we hear of one or more earth catastrophies causing massive extinctions.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi CS, I believe in a light period in which Genesis 1:1 took place. All the things in Genesis 1:1 and it's history recorded in Genesis 2:4-4:24 took place sometime during that light period.That light period ended with the darkness of Genesis 1:2.Please explain to me where my gap is. So why can't the creation of the Earth take place anywhere in my light period and still be in the beginning? This verse nor Genesis 1:1 says the Heaven and the Earth was created at the same moment. It does say they were created in the same day.Genesis 1:5 tells us God said a light period was a DAY.You got any more real problems with my view?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

From Message 365: Why? Its just an old folklore. But its so blatantly incorrect!? The earth and the heavens did not come about at the same time, the earth formed later than the heavens. I don't have a problem with God being the one who did it.From Message 367: Don't forget that ICANT said to use the KJV... although, only when it helps him and never when it hurts him

quote:

---

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

​

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.

---

Yeah, but your looking at it from now-a-days.The earth was "formless and void", which is referring to Chaos, which the cultures of the time thought of as the default state of existence. The earth is not the planet as a whole, but what the people viewed as their land. The deep referred to the vast uninhabitable body of salt water that was non-earth. The water is the regular, non-salty, water that is the purifier, the allower of life.So we have the land in chaos, and the deep already being there, as well as fresh water, and god jiggering with them to make a habitable place for us.Its fairly straight-forward and fits with the culture of the time.On the other hand, we have the planet, a concept the culture of the time didn't have, going through some kind of catastrophe first. But that doesn't really fit with views of the culture that this story sprang from. Plus, its not as striaght-forward and the story is some kind of secret code, that the intended audience would not have received, that you have to unlock to get the real understanding.

Oh you. The explanation was the next sentence from the one you quoted:

quote:

---

You treat Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 as seperate events (despite them being conjucted), between which a whole bunch of stuff happened. That is a gap theory.

---

Gen 1:1-2 is one event all by itself. In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and void....The earth was in chaos when god created it in the beginning. But you're just making stuff up and not reading what the story is telling you. You know that the earth came about later than the heavens, so you have to change the Bible from saying that they came about at the same time. Nothing is preventing you from making up a story to fix this error that the Bible has. While your at it, you should throw in some spaceships and laser guns in there. That's be pretty sweet! No, that says that God called the light portion Day, as in the name of the light-time is called Day, notice the capitalization.A day, as in a whole day, is an evening and a morning, 24 hours.Don't you see how you're twisting the words in the Bible to fit with your pre-conceived apology!? You re-define a day to be just the light portion to iron out the wrinkle of all those events takeing place in the day it was created so you can shoehorn it all into gen 1 and before gen 2. Which is a gap if you want to call it that or not. Yeah, the ones you didn't address:

quote:

---

We can't even be sure that Moses wrote it. In fact, he most likely did not.

​

...

​

Yeah, you're one of those all or nothing literalists. Your faith is a house of cards... on a waterbed! No wonder you have to go through so much deception to maintain your positions. You simply cannot face the Bible having an error or else your whole philosophy comes crashing down all the way to not having faith in Jesus any more. That is pathetic. You're a theological child and you show it with your behavior here.

---

Hi PD, Glad to see you agree the answers to these questions is necessary to understand any writings.Lets put them to use. Who is speaking or writing?
For the sake of argument lets say the writer.About whom is the writer writing?
GodWhat is the writer writing about?
The Heaven and The Earth.Why is the writer writing about the Heaven and the Earth?
To inform us of their beginning to exist. Who is speaking or writing?
For the sake of argument lets say the writer.Who or what is the writer writing about?
The Heaven and The Earth.What about the Heaven and the Earth is the writer writing?
The writer is writing about the history (generations) of the Heaven and the Earth.Why is the writer writing about the history of the Heaven and the Earth?
To inform us of what happened in the DAY The Heaven and The Earth was created.This is my examination of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4 as they are recorded in the KJV Bible.Now if I am wrong in my examination please present yours.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi CS, So what is the generations given in Genesis 2:4-4:24 the history of? Are you saying the light portion of a day is not called day and was not called day by God? Well God told Moses to write a lot of things in a book and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant which was to be rehershed to the people at least every seven years.And Yes I am a literalists. I believe in the literal inspired Word of God. I believe the original was perfect. What we have today has been tainted by those copying and translating the originals for the last 3500 years.That is the reason a person must be born again to understand the things of God. I do not expect a person who has not been born again of the Spirit of God to understand what is written in the Bible.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The hebrews just-so "comming of age" story. Something they told around the campfire as folklore explaining why things are the way they are for them.Its not a factual account of actual events. more deception...You should actually read the words I typed:

quote:

---

This verse nor Genesis 1:1 says the Heaven and the Earth was created at the same moment. It does say they were created in the same day.
Genesis 1:5 tells us God said a light period was a DAY.

​

No, that says that God called the light portion Day, as in the name of the light-time is called Day, notice the capitalization.

​

A day, as in a whole day, is an evening and a morning, 24 hours.

---

When you snip out that part and then act like I didn't say it, you are being dishonest. Funny that you should try it when anybody can just scroll up and see what I actually wrote Or are you stupid as well as dishonest? Of course. I can't possible be getting it because I don't have the magic powers that you do Odd though, that I'm right and you're wrong. That you're the one that has to employ deception. And that you're the one making stuff up and adding it to the story. That you have to do all the spinning and twisting.You're making the Bible worse.

quote:

---

Lets put them to use.

​

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

​

Who is speaking or writing?
For the sake of argument lets say the writer.

---

You know as well as I do that these specifics refer to the whole piece, not just a single sentence unless, of course, a single sentence is all that is written in the piece; but I will humor you.This is narration written by the Priestly writer or Moses if you prefer.You forgot a question: Who is the piece written for?If one considers Moses to be the author, then the piece was written for the Hebrews under his leadership. If one goes by the Documentary Hypothesis, the piece was written for the people of the Southern Kingdom and refugees from the North.

quote:

---

About whom is the writer writing?
God

---

I can agree for this sentence.

quote:

---

What is the writer writing about?
The Heaven and The Earth.

---

In just that sentence the writer is still writing about God. It's about what God did long ago, not about the heaven and earth.

quote:

---

Why is the writer writing about the Heaven and the Earth?
To inform us of their beginning to exist.

---

The reason for the sentence is a lead in to the story. By itself without the story, it just says that long ago God created everything.You forgot when.Per the Documentary Hypothesis sometime after the fall of the Northern Kingdom. I don't know the date for Moses.

quote:

---

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

​

Who is speaking or writing?
For the sake of argument lets say the writer.

---

Another narrative sentence. Moses if you feel he is the author, but per the Documentary Hypothesis the first portion is written by the Redactor (These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created) and the second half is by the older J writer (in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,).

quote:

---

Who or what is the writer writing about?
The Heaven and The Earth.

​

What about the Heaven and the Earth is the writer writing?
The writer is writing about the history (generations) of the Heaven and the Earth.

---

The writer isn't really writing about anything when we take the sentence by itself. The first half is referring forward or backwards depending on how one reads it and the second half is referring to the past.

quote:

---

Why is the writer writing about the history of the Heaven and the Earth?
To inform us of what happened in the DAY The Heaven and The Earth was created.

---

Wrong question. Why is he writing that sentence? What was the purpose?The sentence was written to combine to separate stories separated by time into one story.Who was it written for and when: The first half was probably written for the people at the time of Ezra. The second half for the people of the Kingdom of Juda about 950 BCE.

quote:

---

This is my examination of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4 as they are recorded in the KJV Bible.

​

Now if I am wrong in my examination please present yours.

---

Again, it is unreasonable to look at these sentences as existing alone from the rest of the piece.If you're a writer, you'd know better.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Hi CS, Actually if you only have evening and morning you have a dark period of about 12 hours.To have a full 24 hour day you must have a light period of about 12 hours and a dark portion of about 12 hours.The length of the light period and dark period is determined as to what time of year it is.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."