Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

Hi bro,Thanks for the invite to your thread. What exactly is it that you are wanting me to refute or agree with my brother?I can't see anything in your Origonal Post that I am particularly opposed to or alarmed by. Nor do I see how it ties in with the rediculousness that is going on in the g1 g2 thread.I'm not sure exactly what I said that you disagree with in that thread but I would like you to clarify what that is please if you are so inclined.I don't believe in the gap theory either. I dont believe in any theories quite frankly.The war that went on in heaven did not destroy heaven but there was definately a very distructive war that took place there. We are not told much other than thatI have been learning a lot about the depth of meaning in scriptures in Genesis lately, from great preachers and teachers like Oswald Chambers at Charles Spurgeon.Chambers makes mention that earth being "with out form and void" was as a result of the war in Heaven. In other words sin entered the creation a long time before Adam.Chambers goes onto to bring out the marvelous idea that Adam AKA mankind is Gods solution to defeat Satan, and that perhaps the world was without form and void until a suitable creation AKA man was created. A creation even more superior to the Angels, an entity through which the very creator of the universe could enter into in order to defeat death and hell and redeem all of creation. I find that breath taking. Also the heel that is to bruise the serpents head mentioned in Genisis 3:14 (which I also assumed to mean Jesus Christ and is Jesus Christ ) does not acrtually refutethe idea that its actually MANKIND that will bruise the serpents head not only Jesus Christ persay.I'm not sure I fully agree or fully grasp what Chambers is teaching as yet, but at the same time I'm not sure what is meant by the earth being "with out form and void", because this raises the question "Would God "create" anything that is without form and void?I would suggest that no, God would not do that, so it does open the door to the idea that the formless void was perhaps the result of some sort of calamity not of Gods doing. The theistic evolutionist uses this to open the door of the gap theory of up to billions of years which as I have said I don't accept either.There is one other point I would like to thorw into the mix regarding the "perceived age of the universe"When God created the stars and the moon and sun etc, according to modern science "we are told that it takes billions of light years for light to travel from the nearest star to earth right? Well Im not disputing that, but it does not erradicate the idea that during the beginning of creation that the light form all of the stars was here instantly IE that the "let there be Light and there was Light, means precisely that.Also something can be created with the APPEARANCE of age, but it can still be brand new. One can not assume that because it appears to be old that it neccessarily is old. Nor is it scientific do assume so.Any way. nice to talk to you.God bless you.

Hi PerceyThanks for the correction. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Hi I CANTI have come to your attention from my posts in the G1 and G2 thread. There I have stated and will continue to state here that Genesis 1 and 2 are not two different/separate creation accounts, nor is G1 an G2 separated by billions of years. This would be a different kind of gap theory, but a gap theory all the same, and you say you dont believe in the gap theory and yet seem to have invented a Gap theory I've never heard of before?Your suggestion that this view is accepted by literal fundmentalist is completelty false. (IE that the Genesis 1 and 2 are two different creation accounts)The following is a list of at least 22 recognised literal fundamentalist scholars who would laugh that statement to scorn. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a list of at least 22 recognised literal fundamentailist scholars who support (in writting) the claim you suggest they support.James A. Borland Th. D
Benjamin C Chapman Ph. D
Edward G. Dobson D.D
Jerry Falwell D.D, D. Litt
Paul R. Fink Th. D
Harvey D. Hartman Th. M.
Ronald E. Hawkins D. Min
Edward E. Hinsdon, Th. D D. Min
Elmer A. Jantz. Th. M
F.Gerald Kroll, D. Min
Woodrow Michael Kroll Th. D.
William E. Matheny Ph. D
Stephen R. Schrader Th. D
Elmer L Towns Ph. D D.D
Harold L Wilmington
Charles L. Fineberg Th. D Ph. D
Daniel R Mitchell Th. D
C Summer Wemp D.D
Edward R Roustio Th. D
James D. Stevens D. Min
James Freerkson Th. DMay inquire as to what bible college you attended?I have been, what some would refer to me as, a "Fundie" for 20 years and this is the first time I have seen any one, let alone an illedged Christian, put forward theories like yours.But for now you will need to first PROVE that G1 and G2 are two separate accounts in order for your wild flights of fancy to hold water.Within the bonofide literal fundamentalist circle of recognised theoligians no one has even brought this to the table, especially whilst claiming to be reading Genesis one and two with a literal and fundamental understanding of English.You do raise some very valid points about the illedged "war in heaven" and Job though. And I will be sure to read your whole thread to fully inform myself on your very interesting views.Kind regardsNOMAEdited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Hi Bro, well you got the correct and only valid answer from the person on the list that you asked, because it's the plain and simple literal fundamental answer AS IT IS WRTTEN DOWN N PLAIN ENGLISH AND IN BLACK AND WHITE.I will say one thing, you haven't supplied evidence of anything duder. I'm really not sure what you have in your wheaties but if its legal I want some.God bless you brother, Im not really into another complete mind bender, Ive got enough going on in another thread at the moment dealing with a tag team of disinformation thought terrorists experts.This story of yours takes the cake bro. I think you should write a science fiction novel using this concept as your plot. You'll make a fortune out if it and most probably end up the leader in your own brand new Bible Cult religion which is a growing trend today.What comes to mind when I think of this theory is, "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"All the best with it. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Never assume, it makes an ass out of you and me which is happeneing way too much for my liking, but who am I right? Just another internet forum junkie with a $500 a day habit. IE the amount of money I could be making if I wasn't traped in disinformation land arguing the toss with disinformation specialists who care as much about truth as a one man band cares about his base player.Give peas a chance! Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : WarningEdited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Hi I CANTI guess in essence I must take responsibilty for how I am perceived by others in the forum however I fail to see how pointing out something to be "the literal biblical reality" when you are the one who has concocoted a theory albeit when you where 10 and you admit your theory has no support from anyone but yourself. Would that not mean that it's you waving both hands trying to get us to engage in a debate with a theory that has zero evidence to support it? Well yes it would. Some may even call that antagonistic towards all genuine bible fundamentalist/literalists, no? Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Hi ICANT, glad to hear you are writing that book and passionate about your theories, dont let me put you off (I know you won't) but you still have to clarify your point or show me what the point is brother. Please read what I have said here...I have had a read of your last post and you appear to be stating the obvious(which is progress for me) but I'm not grasping your point.Man was created/made out of the ground, IE existing material as where all the animals and all the plants yes (which is what Genesis chapter two clarifies, but this does not contradict G1 and simply explains more as to how God did what is stated in G1. This is mans Glory his crown if you will that he was created out of the Earth, what is your point?It's like Boewing did a press release showing the new Airbus and then revealed the engineers manual that showed how they built it. Is that two different/separate events that happened billions of years apart? Not unless the engineering process can be proven to have taken billions of years. On a literal face value read no it doesn't prove that at all.What you appear to be are saying is the engineering plans in G2 are for a different press realeas of the AIrbus in G1, IE a concord or something like that, is that correct?Are you saying there are two separate creations of man? That's right isnt it? IE G1 is not Adam and Eve and G2 is Adam and Eve?I need you to prove that to me, if you would be so kind, or show me how you are getting that from a literal read through please.I'm happy for you to use the Hebrew as well of course and don't mind a looking closely at that.Im sorry I haven't read through the whole thread, if you dont mind repeating the important points again for me I would be grateful.To be fare I dont need to (nor can I) refute or agree with something that in my humble, dark ages, peasant like, opinion doesn't exist to me yet.Kind regards and God blessI am assuming you are born again regenerated being through the blood of our precious Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? The following statement may give you an idea of the horrifying conclusion your theories are allowing the heathen to jump too. This is very serious stuff you are dealing with here brother and I ain't taking it lightly.QUOTE:This does mean, however, that there are plenty of humans not burdened by original sin, not destined for hell by default and do not need to revere nor worship this god or any other. UNQUOTEPS. Im sorry to say I am now recalling that pre adamic man is not a new theory. I stand corrected it is not an original idea. Pre adamic man is the argumnet that was bron out of the search to find a wife for Cain and AbleEdited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

made/formed/created/, dude I'm not having a semantic talk fest here.All the best with your science fiction carreer. I politely decline, due to my already shakey sanity, to entertain further discussion with you. Make of that what you will but I'm past being bothered what other people think about me, it's none of my business.You may wish to re-join the other thread where you first met me where I finally may be getting somewhere in my demands to get people to "prove" the insane claims your are making in this last post of yours re contradictions between G1 and G2 that dont exist. That said, Im not having the same rediculous argument in two threads at the same timeGod bless.PS: Im glad you have received the Lord, but the stuff your foisting on to people here is a potential stumbling block to the unsaved, you may wish to take some time out to pray about that.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.