The timeline of the Bible

No. The two words used in Genesis 1:2 are paired together elsewhere in Scripture and when so indicated a divine overthrow of something.The words used seprately do not always carry that meaning. But the play on words, something akin to topsy turvy is used to indicate an overthrow.That overthrow of some previous system is not covered in Genesis. It was after the beginning. Before the age of geology or Evolution theory some ancient Hebrew readers understood it so. Not only Christians saw that. Some Jewish rabbis used Genesis 1:2 to symbolize the destruction of the temple. At least they applied it in that way.The Concordant Version, the Recovery Version, and Emphasized Bible translate Genesis 1:2 with "the earth became ...".Hebrew translater August Dillman translated the passage as "But (then) the earth became waste..."The Targum of Onkelos in reflecting some rabbinical interpretations of Genesis at end of the first and early part of the second century AD, speaks of the "The earth was tohu and bohu.... the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them and destroyed them, and, on that account, the earth was desolate and empty."The book of Revelation speaks of some horrible creatures unleased upon the surface of the earth in the very last days before the second coming of Christ. Some of us ask "When were these things created? Or when did they come into being?"A pre-Adamic age which went terribly wrong in rebellion to God, and His subsequent judgment is the probable answer for these leftover mutations, if they be that. A pre-Adamic world would also account for the existence of a lying enemy of God's purpose lurking just outside of Adam's domain seeking to deceive man into joining him in revolt against God's eternal purpose. I see seven typical days of God's restoration and further creation.The unspecified time from the beginning and the unspecified destruction of whatever preceeded the recovered earth allows for any amount of time to be assumed from the initial creation of the universe.The first major hint in Genesis that some previous unrecorded events occured is the existence of an enemy and opposer to God in God's paradise.I think most readers of the Bible probably have this as a first question: "What in the world is this lying serpent doing in what is suppose to be a paradise of God?" Elsewhere in Scripture we learn of one created perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him. The ancient history of the enemy of God is not elaborated on in Genesis.You may not believe this because you under appreciate the unity the revelation of the 66 books of the Bible. You assume that each book stands alone perhaps. Theologians speak of the "plenary" revelation of God. Sometimes the lock is in one place and the key is in another place.It is tempting to want Genesis to tell us everything about the history of the universe. But the history is not all there. Something happened that caused a judgment which rendered the earth without form and void. These two words in the Hebrew used as a pair indicate judgment and overthrow. Maybe I will. Maybe I will find the Gap Theory discussions and bring them back up. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Then the entire point is wrong. Do we need another thread to argue that? Your initial point is wrong. Some expositors disagree that any gap or interval of time is indicated between verse 1 and 2 of Genesis. The language smoothly proceeds with no implied break in time, they would say. J. Pye Smith's comment is insightful: John Harris similarly writes: Concerning the words "passing by an indefinite interval" it is necessary that even a definite interval is sometimes passed by in one breath in God's way of accounting.I am called away for an errand. I am not finish this reply. I will continue latter. I will provide some examples relevant to the same idea in Genesis 1:1,2.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Some expositors argue that a necessary connection of short time is implied by the opening word of the second verse "And the earth was waste and voide" Like you they see no possibility of an unspecified interval of time between verse 1 and 2.However 1 Chronicles 11:1 opens in a similar grammatical way with a interval of seven years preceeding what follows after "[A]nd". The opening of Ezra 7:1 jumps over a time interval of 58 years: The Scripture moves seemlessly over a period of 58 years.
It doesn't mean that nothing else happened in the intervening time.In these examples the word translated our English And or Now opens a sentence or paragraph or even a chapter with no connection what ever with what went before.The book of Ezekiel opens that way. "Now in the thirtieth year, ...".Verse 2 of Genesis cannot be insisted upon to, timewise imediately follow, the event of verse 1.Rrhain writes: I told you that we have records that some Jewish rabbis at the end of the first century and beginning of the second century AD understood a interval between Gen. 1:1 and 2. They wrote of the destruction of previous worlds by God. And on that account the earth was found tohu and bohu. The point here is that they were not Christian but Jewish rabbis. Paricularly these teachers were of the influence of Akba ben Joseph the president of the School of Bene Barek near Saffa. This man laid the basis of the Mishna. He was executed in 135 A.D. The quotation that I refered to is traditionally ascribed to one of his disciples, one Simeon ben Jochai.As you can see this rabbi understood from reading the Hebrew of Genesis that previous worlds were destroyed by God rendering the earth without form and void in verse 2. In his book The Legends of the Jews Louise Ginsberg put into continous narrative a compilation of Jewish traditions from ancient times, as far as possible in the original phrases and terms. In Volume 1 which covers the period from the Creation to Jacob, Ginsburg has this excerpt: I do not insinuate that these traditions and legends carry the authority of the Bible. I only point out that some Jews held to a tradition most based on thier reading of the Scriptures, that previous worlds were overthrown by God before Adam was created. That is the Day Age interpretation which I am not defending because I also understand 7 typical solar days in Genesis 1.But let us assume that you are correct. Let us assume the 6,000 years ago all the universe with all life was created. I have then some questions for your consideration:1.) Where did a being come from who was diametrically opposed to God, who lied, who slandered God to Eve, tempting human beings to act independently from God. And that in the Edenic paradise God prepared for Adam.Is the explanation of such a thing told you in Genesis before chapter 3?Do you think it is not important to know where and why such a being was there ?2.) If the prehistory of Abraham in Ur of the Chaldeas is not included in the chronology of Abraham's journeys by the writer of Genesis but if found elsewhere in the Scripture, is it possible that the pre-history a creature's rebellion against God is also found not in Genesis but elsewhere ?3.) If God created the earth before He created the stars then why is the sequenced reversed in Zechariah 12:1? Here we have the Creator stretching forth the heavens before laying the foundation of the earth. If there is nothing in the heavens it is difficult to imagine what it is that God "stretches forth". I cannot imagine Him stretching forth nothing against nothing. The dry earth appeared from underneath the water on the third day."And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so." (Gen. 1:9)Before the earth was discribed in the condition of without form and void in 1:2 it was created.Compare this with Psalm 104:5-9: In this Psalm we also see the land beneath the waters being made to rise from them at the command of God. (Psa. 104:5-9) That comment was firstly - not specifically about creation date but intervals because God did not account some years. It was showed that your style of time measurement is not always the biblcal way according to God's importance put on time.That comment was about span of 93 years and not 30. According to [b]Acts 7:2-3, God appeared to Abraham in Ur of the Chaldeans an called him to "come out from your land and frm your relatives, and come into the land which I will show you."This was God's first appearing and calling to Abraham. However, Abraham did not accept God's calling immediately but remained in Ur for some time. After the death of Haran (the brother, not the place of course Gen. 12:28 , God sovereign;u caused his father Terah, to bring the family from Ur to Haran (the place). Therefore it was not Abraham but Abraham's father, Terah, who took the initiativee to leave Ur.Now in Genesis 12:1 we see God adding in this call that Abraham should leave not only his land and relatives but "your father's house".This calling of Abraham was after the death of his father Terah in Haran and not in Ur - "And the days of Terah were two hundred five years, and Terah died in Haran."First calling is in Acts 7:1 - ... The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, BEFORE HE DWELT IN HARAN, [my emphasis] and said to him, "Come out from your land and from your relatives, and come into the land which I will show you."

​

Then he came forth from the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran. An from there, after his father died (Gen. 11:31), He removed him into this land, in which you now dwell." (Acts 7:1-4)So we know that Genesis 12:1 is the subsequent call by God for Abraham to leave also father's house, who died there in Haran.Abraham was called before he dwelt in Haran in Ur and while he was in Haran after the death of his dad.In other words, Abraham apparently dragged his feet and God had to remove family members to get the procrastinating patriarch to obey. God also had to work sovereignly to remove him to get him to where he wanted him.The call of Abraham in Ur of the Chaldeans is not recorded in Genesis. I'll come back to this point latter. That directly contradicts the text. The earth was created in the beginning.Where does it say it was created on the third day? It appeared out from underneath the waters on the third day.And I previously refered to Psalm 104 which strongly implies the same thing. You can try 100 times. It is irrelevant to your erroneous assumption that the Bible allows us in ANY guise to pinpoint when the universe was created whether 6,000 years ago or 7,000 years ago or 10,000 or 100,000 or a many millions or billions of years ago.What you can insist on is that it all had a BEGINNING. And that was caused by an all powerful God.How old Adam was when Seth was born has no effect on this unspecified interval of time when the earth was rendered without form and void. And I might add that if the earth was not created until the third day how then could it exist in a state of without form and void ?Why would it be necessary for God to gather the waters if all He needed to do was create land in the waters as land masses?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

J.B. Rotherham's footnote to Genesis 1:1 in the Emphasized Bible: The relevance is that the expression is used elsewhere in Scripture to indicate violent overthrow.The evidence that God did not create the earth tohu in the beginning could also be derived from Isaiah 45:18. This word, whatever meaning is ascribed to it, cannot be descriptive of the earliest condition of the earth. God did not create the earth tohu. It became tohu wa-bohu. It became without form and void. The reason it became so is not elaborated in Genesis chapter one.It is not important to the Divine record at that point to dwell on it. I think we have been over this before. But the word pair indicative of overthrow. You are saying that Genesis indicating that the non-existent heaven and earth were discribed in verse 2. But somehing clearly exists there or there would be nothing for the Spirit of God to be hovering over - "the face of the deep".The heaven and the earth are not non-existent there. They are non-existent only before God created the heavens and the earth. And He did so out of nothing.The first meaning of chaos was a yawning void as a receptical for created matter, as the ancient poet Hesiod wrote around 900 BC. This was the earlier strictest meaning of the word chaos in Greek. Latter the word took on the meaning of a crude and shapeless mass of material out of which the heavens and the earth were supposed to be formed. Satan is the Devil. Satan is refered to in a book older than Genesis, Job. And there he obviously is an enemy of God. Why else would he want to induce Job to curse God to his face? That's because he would like to do so.No friend of God is Satan Rrhain, anywhere in the Bible period.The Pharisees as practitioners of Judaism accused Jesus of casting out demons by the prince of demons. When Jesus heard this He replied that Satan could not cast out Satan. He was speaking to the typical practitioners of the Jewish religion of His day. These Jewish teachers refered to Beelzebul the prince of demons and Jesus replied that Satan could not cast out Satan, then these adherents of Judaism apparently knew about Satan. It seems quite understood that by that time Judiasm had a concept then of:Satan having a kingdom, a "house", and that he was a ruler of the demons. The reply of Jesus apparently assumes that they understood His logic without further explanation.So I do not believe you when you say that there was no idea of Satan in Judaism.You may reason that Genesis was written by Jews for Jews. You should realize that the Gospels were also written by Jews. At least Matthew, Mark, and John were written by Jews.Lastly, 1000 years to God is only like one day. It makes no difference that Acts was written more than a millennia from the time of the writing of Genesis. God is the ultimate Author of the whole Bible.His revelation is progressive. His profoundness and the profoundness of His salvation call for a gradual and progressive unfolding of His revelation.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What are you, the site Moderator of your own thread ?Pretty convenient for you.Pretty convenient way to defend your erroneous concepts. Just declare the exposing of them as off topic and irrelevant.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Quite aside from the matter of whether the six days are typical 24 hour days (what I believe) or otherwise, the word created is only used in Genesis for a limited number of things:The heavens and the earth in the beginning, some sea animals, and the creation of Man. Mny more things are said to be formed, shaped or made as from pre-existing matter.And if Rrhain boasts so much that only the Jews understand Genesis, I would like to know how many orthodox Jewish readers of Genesis would agree with his insistence in a 6,000 year old universe from the text of Genesis.If there are exceptions and all do not follow Rrhain's concept, then he can't boast that his position is the defacto "Jewish" understanding.And apparently, the writer of the Targum of Onkelos was a Jew who did not agree with Rrhain's interpretation. And his writings reflected notions of a rabbinic school.I like these skeptics who try to hide behind a "For Jews Only" barrier around the Hebrew Bible who don't themselves agree with a portion of Jewish scholars on its proper understanding.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am not saying anything about the age of Adam whatsoever. Don't confuse me with someone else.However I will say this. Even Jewish thought includes a concept that inspite of 24 hour solar days in Genesis, the creation event could have taken place billions of years before the six days.And here is how some Jewish expositors reason it: They say that the sun was not [created] until the fourth day. So there is no way to assume the length of the previous days. Therefore, the creation of the universe could conceivably be millions or billions of years prior to the "creation" of the sun.This information came to me in a lecture entitled Introduction to Judaism given by Professor Shai Cherry, the Mellon Assistant Professor of Jewish Thought at Vanderbilt University. His Ph.D in Jewish Thought was received at Brandies University.His area of expertise is in "the nexus between science and Judaism." according to the lecture notes.My point here is not whether I agree with the above interpretation or not. My point is that if you are going to attempt to make Genesis "off limits" to non-Jews to interpret, be aware that there are Jewish scholars of Judaism who would not agree that Genesis insists on a 6,000 year old universe.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I promised to return to this point. I said that all of the calling events of Abraham are not recorded in Genesis. Rrhain pointed out that Genesis 12 is the calling and covenant of which the Exodus followed by 430 years. He refers to Galatians chapter 3. Does the 430 years from God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 to the Exodus prove that God did not previously call Abraham while in Ur of the Chaldeans ? No it does not.I pointed out that all of the details of Abraham's calling is not recorded in Genesis. Therefore, it should be no surprise that other main subjects of creation in Genesis may be found elsewhere in the Bible. I still stand by that.Rrhain disagrees and argues that the first calling of Abraham occurs in Genesis 12. Rrhain regards the details of Acts 7:2 as some kind of error. But I stand by the fact that Acts 7:2 speaks of Abraham's calling before he left Ur of the Chaldeans and Genesis 12 occurs afterwards. Rrhain responds that Genesis 12 contains the covenant that Paul speaks of preceeding the Exodus by 430 years (Gal. 3:17)In the sense that the promise of God was latter stengthened into a covenant, that could be stated. However, the covenant that God made occured not in chapter 12 but in chapter 15.First Galatians 3:17 says: And Genesis 15 (not 12) says: This was the actual event of God making a covenant with Abraham out of what was previously a promuise - "On that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram ..."God strengthened the promise of chapter 12 with a covenant in chapter 15 because of Abraham's weakness in faith. Notice in chapter 15 Abram expressed his doubts about the previous promise. That day in Genesis 15 rather than in Genesis 12, that "Jehovah made a covenant with Abram ..." The promise in Genesis 12 was strengthened into a contract, a covenant in Genesis 15 due mainly to Abraham's request for assurance.God did promise the seed and the land in Genesis 12: God made the covenant proper in Genesis 15. So is Paul speaking of 430 after Genesis 12 or after Genesis 15? I will have to look into that. However, for my larger point it doesn't matter.Either way it does not prove that there was no previous calling of Abraham while he was in Ur of the Chaldeans. And Acts 7 certainly indicates that God appeared to him before he dwelt in Haran in Genesis 12. Details were scant and to come latter. But the calling of Abraham was clear.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't have to do that. As a matter of fact I think I will continue with just the thought I have been pressing from the beginning.It makes no difference to the age of the universe in Genesis.In other words, if anyone wants to know what the Bible says about how long ago the creation came into being out of nothing, geneologies one way or another are irrelevant.

There may be some overlap in the usage of two words. That does not mean that they are absolutely indentical in every respect. One Rabbi Nachman declares that there is no other word to express production out of nothing besides bara, the word used in Genesis 1:1 and not in ie. Exodus 20:11 where we are told that "in six days God made heaven and earth."It is not difficult to understand that a human language would not have a verb originally confined to such a meaning as to cause to exist out of nothing. The idea of doing so would not scarcely be conceived by mankind without the assistance of revelation.For centries philosophers have stated the human thought that nothing is ever gotten out of nothing. It is understood by some that the Holy Spirit of God would select a word for creation out of nothing which had some overlapping use with other words. You do not have a verse which says that God created [bara] the earth in six days. Firstly, concerning what is not mystical you should also have considered that it is exceedingly practical that the sun and moon were needed to be created [bara] before green vegetation existed. The sun was [asah] made on the fourth day. Green plants were made before that.So appoint or made is the far less mystical word to apply to the sun on day four rather than create. And it does not say that the sun was created [bara] after the green plants, but that it was made [asah] (Gen. 1:16).One of the words used to define asah is appoint.Now Gen 1:26 and 27 has been used to prove exact equivalance in asah and bara. But it is not strong enough for me because God could "appoint" man in His own image when He "created" man.In other words the two verses could be understood as God desiring to appoint a creature in His own image. So He created man to be the object of that appointment.In the Old Testament asah is sometimes a part of a personal name. It is rendered appropritely by the English "appointed." In 2 Samuel 2:18 the name Asasel means "God has appointed." In Second Kings 12:14 Asahiah means "Jah has appointed." In First Chronicles 4:35 we have Asihel or "appointed of God."Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible gives a number of meanings of the word "asah", including "appoint", but never the meaning "to create".So God could accomplish to matters at one time - the creation of man and the appointing of man in His image. That is all Gen. 1:26 and 1:27 reveals in the overlap of asah and bara in relation to man's existence. No it does not immediately fall. Though I give some relevance to it being written in Hebrew and used before the advent of the New Testament.Genesis is about the creation of MAN and not simply the creation of Jews. And it may have been written by a Jewish prophet but it is for mankind.Melchesidek is a non-Hebrew priest of God in the book of Genesis. and Jethro is a non-Jewish priest of God in the book of Exodus. So the books of Moses indicate that God was interested in His relationship with the man that He created in general. So we non-Hebrews have a stake in knowing what God the Creator did and said. Firstly, I did not intend to mean only Orthodox Jews. That was a mistake.The professor stated what he did in "Introduction to Judaism". How that relates to different denominations of Judaism I am not aware. But that some Hebrew readers do not interpret the time as you do still stands.And the Jew Verses Christian concept, I do not like at all. The "One New Man" that the Apostle Paul spoke of as being in Christ has neither Jew nor Greek nor Barbarian, Scythian, slave, freeman, etc. In Christ the cultural barriers have been broken down. But that is another discussion. They are not the sole arbitrator. And my reference to Orthodox Judaism solely was a mistake I acknowledge. And are you the sole arbitrator of Judaism? Do you claim to speak for the only Jewish way to interpret Genesis chapter one ? Far from it Rrhain.I don't know what you mean by making it personal. Maybe you mean you are taking it personal.You have asked me to leave this discussion a few times. I have almost been obligued to do so. But I am reluctant to allow you to shew me off with some erroneous posts of yours. It is not personal. It is a matter of the truth of the Bible.I think it is a matter of superior or inferior interpretations of Scripture in Genesis. Counting years of the first generations of humans to calculate when the creation came about out of nothing, I think, is the inferior way. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I would like to add helpful couple of paragraphs about interpreting the Bible with other parts of the Bible. The purpose of the post is to emphasize that all matters of the subject of time and creation may not be in one place in Scripture, ie. in Genesis. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If anyone wants to know what the Bible says about how long ago the creation came into being out of nothing, geneologies one way or another are irrelevant.There is an unspecified amount of time between what occured Gen.1:1 and 1:2. The earth created became without form and void. Judgment of God fell upon the original creation. How long ago before the Genesis six days, we do not know.Now I fractured my wrist. So I am very limited here writing with one hand.As for going around in circles, there is no need to repeat this. How old Adam was at ANY point will not yield the age of the universe in the Bible.

In other words you are saying that the ONLY biblical arguments you will acknowledge about the earth's age are geneological arguments.I think I already exposed the weakness in that prejudiced concept of yours.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Are we back on the time of creation again? Or are we only talking about Adam being 130 years old when someone was born, and so forth ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If "without form and void" in verse 2 means nonexistence, then what did the Spirit of God hover over? Even more what was the darkness on the surface of?"But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep." (Recovery Version)Or from the 1901 American Standard if you don't care for my favorite English translation ."And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the surface of the deep"Nonexistence would probably mean no darkness. For sure it mean no "surface" of ANYTHING. And it should means no abyss or deep. How does anything hover over the surface of something that does not exist?We next have "and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters ..."It should be clear now, if not before, that "the deep" consists of water. Water is not the substance of nonexistence which has no substance."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (v.1) is the only verse in chapter one which speaks of something coming into existence preceeded by nothing or non-existence.The early Greek meaning of chaos was a empty yawning void as a recepticle of all matter. It latter meant a unformed confusion or mess.At anyrate the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The waters is something. And underneath that something something else was made to appear in verse 9 - "And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, AND LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR: and it was so ..." (v.9 my emphasis)Darkness, the deep (waters) with its surface, and the land hidden under its surface which was made to APPEAR, are things. They are not non-existence. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.