In the beginning

Ha Ha! Some 'hard to understand' statements in the Bible are easier to grasp than that gobbledygook!

Of course, the young universe creationists offer no proof whatsoever for their bizarre denial of well-established scientific data. Therefore, their views are not widely accepted even by their fellow believers in the Bible's inerrancy. The undeniable achievements of modern science, and the wonders of modern technology which are based largely on the progress of science make it hard to defend the position of those extreme creationists. Some of the extreme creationists do not suggest any arguments in favor of their beliefs which could be subjected to critical discussion, adhering instead to blind faith. Although the views of these young earth creationists display extreme obscurantism, they are logically unassailable. Faith cannot be disputed, hence the views of this group of creationists are beyond discussion in rational terms.Since the stories told in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 seem to be consistent within each chapter viewed separately, but contradictory if one compares these two chapters to each other, it could be surmised that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were authored by two different writers, each telling his version of the tale. (The boundary between the parts written by the two writers does not necessarily coincide with the boundary between Genesis 1 and 2).That rendering of Geneis 1.2 possesses a problem, obviously. There is a question as to the precise meaning of the first word (B'reshith, ) which is not actually "in the beginning.... " but "In (the) beginning...." the definite article being absent in the original. Various attempts have been made to render this without the definite article by circumlocution, as will be noted.A second problem is the exact relationship between the first and second verses. This has been circumvented by various means as the translations show, in some cases using a disjunctive, or a connective "then", or ignoring the connective entirely.It is reasoned that "without form and void" have negative connotations of God's judgment. When verse 2 tells us that "the earth was without form and void," we can draw the conclusion that God has judged the earth because of a preceding fall into sin. However such a conclusion is unwarranted. The terms in question do not necessarily speak of God's wrath. The usage of these terms elsewhere makes that clear. The first word "without form" (Hebrew tohu), although sometimes also translated by "vanity" or vain things" (e.g., 1 Samuel 12:21), literally means "emptiness." It is thus used of "a pathless waste," not formed into hospitable territory (Job 12:24; Psalm 107:40). It pictures the loneliness and desolateness of a barren desert. This is clear from the parallelism in Job 26:7. The first part reads: "He stretches out the north over the void {tohu}"; the second corresponds to this: "and hangs the earth upon nothing." From the above it can be concluded "that the meaning in Genesis 1:2 is that the earth was still devoid of all the countless living creatures which now occupy it in all of their colorful multiplicity. It was still one expanse of emptiness."1The second expression in the pair "without form [tohu] and void [bohu]" only occurs with tohu in the Old Testament (Genesis 1:2; Isaiah 34:11; Jeremiah 4:23) and it is, therefore, difficult to evaluate it separately. The usage of the term bohu appears to indicate that it is used to strengthen the meaning of tohu. The sense is that the earth was as desolate and empty as could be. Good translations are therefore "without form and void" (RSV) or "formless and empty" (NIV).At the beginning of the LORD's creation work, the earth could not be inhabited. There is no mention of a fall of creation in the judgment of God or any implication that creation had to be remade. We can think here of Isaiah 45:18. "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 [tohu], but formed it to be inhabited - He says, I am the LORD, and there is no other" (NIV). The emptiness, the "without form and void," was but a first, initial phase in His creation work. The rest of Genesis 1 will show how God transformed this empty desolation to become an earth fully prepared to receive man.A fourth (and for our purposes final) argument for a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 that can be noted concerns the reference to darkness in verse 2. It is said that this implies the presence of evil and judgment since darkness symbolizes sin and judgment in Scripture. (See, e.g., John 3:19. "And this is the judgment that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.") It is, therefore, supposed that God originally created the world in light and that the darkness resulted from the fall into sin and God's subsequent judgment.However, just because darkness can symbolize evil does not make darkness itself a manifestation of evil or inherently bad. God's Word teaches otherwise. Darkness is part of the cycle of day and night as God created it (Genesis 1:5; cf. Psalm 104:20-24). Man needs the darkness to get his rest. It is beneficial to him.

"The Bible is already poetic and metaporical enough don't you think?"
--Wow Prozacman, I've got a whole rats nest of responses (usually they ignore me). Yours I'll respond to:
The Bible is enough in the poetic, surreal, metaphorical, metaphysical, and such. But methinks it takes much aim at historians like yourself, as per chronologies, etc."And if we are going to believe what the Bible says, as if our "eternal souls" depended on it, then we have to make more assumptions to back up the interpretations that we make when reading it, don't you think?"
--I fully agree, Proz. You've seen how loopy my own speculations go, trying to put other Christian's ideas in with my own, trying to give multiple possibilities, etc., that we might perchance fellowship together in the gospel.Fellowship in evangelical Christianity requires tolerance for opposing viewpoints. Myself, I can even fellowship with a mega-ToEist who demonstrates that his ToEism links to the Gospel at least.(By linking into the Gospel I crudely mean such evangelical concepts such as: "rebirth", "rapture", "redemption", "resurrection", "restoration", etc.)

How dogmatic are your speculations Jim?"Of course, the young universe creationists offer no proof whatsoever for their bizarre denial of well-established scientific data."--Jim, there is no evidence of an old earth. Only junk science makes that claim. You and I don't even know what time really is let alone appropriate inferences concerning cosmogeny and time.(I appreciate your indepth response and will try to get to you later)

Would you like to suggest what is wrong with the determination of the age of the earth then? There are thread already in place that you could add to?Do you know anything about the "junk science" that you are disparaging? I presume you think you do or you wouldn't make such statements. Since you know so much you will have no trouble pointing out our errors in accepting the so-called junk.That will be enlightening. Well, at least it will be a bit of fun.

What pathetic sophistry. See, e.g., Ruminations of a Reluctant OEC.

As I stated: Dogmatic speculations (AKA lies). Disquise your lies in meticulous observations, they still appear as lies to me.Anyone else on this forum want to lie about knowing what time really is?

Isn't it now, now?

crashfrogAhem. couldn't possibly be now because that was 4 minutes ago.Now it is now.Got it?!

The greatest, lewdest, and most profound junk science I've stumbled into is the Mega-ToE (with all its ridiculous variants).Specifically that spam includes:
1) Stellar mega-evolutionism,
2) Biological mega-evolutionism,
3) and mega-evolutionism of man's psycheFortunately, the scriptures refute these as vain geneologies, science-falsely so called, fables, foolishness, and the like. Mega-evolutionism is not science, there is no evidence for any of it.If you or I wish to battle ToEists, OECs or YECs on other threads, fine. At present I'm not going into that hedge.But this thread is about Genesis 1, "In the beginning". I gave a bunch of speculations (no dogmatic ones), many untenable ones, etc., because I simply am in love with the Genesis 1 model.Now Ned, speculations are akin to hypothesizing, perhaps almost the same thing. Doubtless, Einstein had his share of vain speculations, bad marriages, foolish and evil thoughts, and deadly inventions.Yet none of us derided his scientific method. Oh OK Ned; I confess, I just derided that dead genius/fool. Einstein's the one who should be taking your advice. Doubtless, hell is full of Einteins and little-Einsteins for having squandered their lives in foolish vanity, worshipping and serving the creature more than the creator. At least the scriptures tell me that in Romans 1.

quote:

---

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

​

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.

---

Examine verse 2. "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep" The earth (i.e. sphere) was without form, and void. The idea is that God went INTO a sphere and God was looking around and as God was flying inside(around) this sphere, you find that this planet, "planet earth" was without shape and and it was lifeless, Next "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Then you see a spirit of yourself floating over the waters (this ment that god was checking the earth for problems). This tells us inside the sphere it was nothing but water and it was safe place for life but their was no life in it currently. Just a sphere filled with water but then God shaped the moutains and seas and islands and land from out of the water and created life from this also. Did God create the earth then or did God just enter the sphere and create everything in it? Yes, he created the Earth and the Heavens, he stated this in vs 1. =)Quiz

Ok, Phillip this thread is about Genesis. I agree that it doesn't belong here.You seem very sure of yourself but haven't (here) offered any coherent argument for your position. I look forward to your reasoning and evidence in other threads then.How about this one:
How old is the earth?

What about the 5 (6) days that follow?What are they to you?

Philip I am curious as to the deadly invention part of this .Whatever do you mean?

I agree that everything I speculated concerning the Gen 1 gap is loopy, gappy, and/or incoherent to various extents.But the EX NIHILO event(s) in all its interpretations may appear incoherent from an empirical standpoint, no?