Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible Study - Understanding Genesis 1 & 2
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 83 (371821)
12-23-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ringo
12-23-2006 10:35 AM


Re: The LIGHT was already there before the plant
quote:
Unquestionably known science fact: green plants require sunlight.
In Genesis, green plants were created on Day 3:
Dear Ringo,
The Light was already there before the first day. Perhaps you missed reading Genesis 1:3. The glory of the Lord God (Son) provided the light in the beginning -- even before the world was. We are speaking of the Physical likeness of the Lord God (Son) in the Old Testament.
In the NT -- on the road to Damascus, Saul was blinded by the Light of Jesus, at Noon. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is Brighter than the Noonday Sun.
I will suggest next time -- you should ask question first of the things you don't understand before jumping your gun and make conclusion based on your distorted assumption. JMHO. :-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 12-23-2006 10:35 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 12-23-2006 11:10 AM 4Pillars has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 32 of 83 (371822)
12-23-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Straggler
12-23-2006 10:21 AM


Re: Celestial Teapots
Especially given that your interpretation was formed with the benefit of science having already established the facts on which your interpretation is itself based.
Incorrect. The interpretation I briefly outlined predates the invention of geology.
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2006 10:21 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2006 7:13 PM jaywill has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 33 of 83 (371824)
12-23-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by 4Pillars
12-23-2006 10:59 AM


Re: The LIGHT was already there before the plant
4Pillars writes:
The glory of the Lord God (Son) provided the light in the beginning -- even before the world was.
That's cute - but you asked for a contradiction, not one that you couldn't squirm out of.
Now, if you claim that God was the light source, "even before the world was", why did He create light on Day 1?
quote:
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
I will suggest next time -- you should ask question first of the things you don't understand....
Please stop suggesting that. You should have learned by now, it ain't gonna happen. I'm gonna keep making a fool of myself (in your mind), so save the wear and tear on your keyboard.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by 4Pillars, posted 12-23-2006 10:59 AM 4Pillars has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by 4Pillars, posted 12-23-2006 11:46 AM ringo has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 34 of 83 (371829)
12-23-2006 11:23 AM


Some put forward the plant life needing sunlight before the sun was created on the fourth day.
I have of course been through that debate before.
I don't agree that the language supports that the sun was created on the fourth day. You had a source of light that was diffuse and non-distinct. It was hard to see where it was coming from. But with this light you had three days.
What we see made on the fourth day were light holders not lights. The diffuse light became more distinct so that its source, its holder could be clearly outlined.
If this interpretation of the language is true then that eliminates the necessity of some other non-solar light being there for the plants on days previous to day the fourth.
For three days, a indistinct and diffuse light for the plants. On the fourth day the forming, making of clearly outlined sources of light as light holders was established.
So still no science contradition of fact.

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ringo, posted 12-23-2006 11:52 AM jaywill has not replied

  
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 83 (371831)
12-23-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by jaywill
12-23-2006 9:13 AM


Re: Genesis 1:3 The True Light - The Lord God (Jesus)
quote:
I understand your metaphors. But the metaphors for Genesis which do occur in the New Testament concern real opposition against God rather than benigh nonexistence.
The light shines in the darkness in John's gospel regards real Satanic oppostion to God not benigh non-existence.
The light shining out of darkness and into our hearts in Second Corinthains is related to Satan's damage on fallen man's mind.
Dear jaywill,
The full context of the Scripture (John 1:1-18) says that Jesus WAS (past tense) the True Light (literal) that shineth in heaven in the beginning -- that lighted every man that cometh into this world.
Therefore, the True Light being spoken in the text is not spiritual but LITERAL -- unless of course, you're taking a position that the True Light WAS (past tense) spiritual OR metaphor, and no longer true spiritually at this present time.
quote:
So there is a gap and interval between God creating the heavens and the earth in 1:1 and the condition of the waste and voided earth in 1:2. The details are given scantly latter in the Bible. We are told what God deems important for us to know only. For instance, the ancient pre-history of the deputy authority which became the arch enemy of God. That is Satan, the Day Star, the Anointed Cherub that covers. The negative opposition was sourced in Satan's war against his Creator.
While I agree with you that there was spiritual warfare between Lucifer and his followers against God -- before our world was -- however, this event I believe took place way long before the creation of our heaven and earth in the beginning.
The word "Genesis" being spoken in the Bible -- means the BEGINNING or birth of our universe -- and has nothing to do with the ENDING or fall of Lucifer and his followers.
Main Entry: gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural gen·e·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: Latin, from Greek, from gignesthai to be born -- more at KIN
: the origin or coming into being of something
The Gap Theory just don't fit in the Book of Genesis and only based on man's imagination. JMHO
God Bless
Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2006 9:13 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2006 11:48 AM 4Pillars has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 36 of 83 (371833)
12-23-2006 11:36 AM


4Pillars,
I do want you to know that I completely agree with your basic understanding that the Son of God is being typified in the creation account.
I think the best example is that life is not spoken of until the dry land comes up out of the sea on the third day. The life which is really the eternal life does not come to man unless the Son of God resurrected from the dead on the third day.
I have no doubt that the Spirit of God includes hints in Genesis to the redemptive plan carried out in the Son of God.
Man is "begotten to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" according to the Apostle Peter.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 83 (371834)
12-23-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by ringo
12-23-2006 11:10 AM


Re: The LIGHT was already there before the plant
quote:
Now, if you claim that God was the light source, "even before the world was", why did He create light on Day 1?
Dear Ringo,
Now your learning since you're asking legitimate question. I am very happy for you. :-)
First of all, Genesis 1:3 is BEFORE the day 1 as I have illustrated in my previous post.
God did not create the "Light" but rather spoke the "Word" in the beginning -- "LET THERE BE LIGHT" -- and the Son was BROUGHT FORTH in to this physical world from the invisible realm of the Father.
He (Son) was at the bosom of his Father from the beginning from everlasting and was also God...
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word (Light), and the Word was with God (Father), and the Word was God (Son).
Note: Insertions are mine for clarity of thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 12-23-2006 11:10 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 12-23-2006 11:57 AM 4Pillars has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 83 (371835)
12-23-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by jaywill
12-23-2006 8:43 AM


Re: Why?
Can you name me a known scientific FACT that contradicts any passage of Genesis 1 & 2?
I said FACT, known FACT. Maybe there is one. I ask you to tell me of the science FACT and the biblical verse which it clearly contradicts.
I'm out here on a limb now. What unquestionably known science fact contradicts which verse in Genesis?
* The world and all the species, ahem, sorry, "kinds" in it were not created in six days.
* Trees did not preceed fish.
* Fish and birds didn't arise at the same time.
* Birds did not preceed land animals.
* The moon is not a "light".
* Not all stars are the same age as the sun.
* The first woman was not made out of the first man's rib.
* Snakes can't talk.
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2006 8:43 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2006 12:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 39 of 83 (371836)
12-23-2006 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by 4Pillars
12-23-2006 11:24 AM


Re: Genesis 1:3 The True Light - The Lord God (Jesus)
The full context of the Scripture (John 1:1-18) says that Jesus WAS (past tense) the True Light (literal) that shineth in heaven in the beginning -- that lighted every man that cometh into this world.
So you are saying that the light in Genesis day one was the shining of Jesus literally?
Then you have to deal with the idea of God taking the true, extinguishing it, and replacing it with the type.
Isn't that moving backwards?
Therefore, the True Light being spoken in the text is not spiritual but LITERAL -- unless of course, you're taking a position that the True Light WAS (past tense) spiritual OR metaphor, and no longer true spiritually at this present time.
That does not make too much sense to me. Light is spoken of quite a bit in John's gospel. Some where there in the light, with the light, and some were not. Now if this is actual physical light the gospel of John is speaking of then both disciple and opposer should be in the same light.
Clearly they were not. The Life was the Light of Men.
The life there is the ZOE divine life of God. Only those born again received the ZOE life of God. Therefore only they could benefit from the light of life.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by 4Pillars, posted 12-23-2006 11:24 AM 4Pillars has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 40 of 83 (371837)
12-23-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by jaywill
12-23-2006 11:23 AM


jaywill writes:
What we see made on the fourth day were light holders not lights.
  1. The science fact would be that the sun is a light source not a "light holder".
  2. I think arachnophilia has shown in other threads* that the Hebrew does not support the idea of the sun being a "light holder".
  3. The text does not support the notion of a change from a mysterious "diffuse" light to an obvious, observable source.
Weak apologetics notwithstanding, it is a contradiction.
-------------
* ABE: This is the specific post I was thinking of. The discussion begins several posts back.
Edited by Ringo, : Added link.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2006 11:23 AM jaywill has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 41 of 83 (371838)
12-23-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by 4Pillars
12-23-2006 11:46 AM


Re: The LIGHT was already there before the plant
4pillars writes:
God did not create the "Light" but rather spoke the "Word" in the beginning -- "LET THERE BE LIGHT" -- and the Son was BROUGHT FORTH in to this physical world from the invisible realm of the Father.
So, when God said, "Let there be light," He wasn't talking about light at all?
quote:
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
It seems pretty clear that He was talking about light - i.e. electromagnetic radiation - in terms of Day and Night.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by 4Pillars, posted 12-23-2006 11:46 AM 4Pillars has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by 4Pillars, posted 12-23-2006 12:34 PM ringo has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 42 of 83 (371841)
12-23-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by 4Pillars
12-23-2006 8:01 AM


Genesis 1 tells us that God will Create a Perfect Heaven in 6 Days and then rest. God continues to work because Today is still the 6th Day. Tomorrow is Eternity for the 7th Day has No ending for God.
The first prophecy in the bible to Adam that in the day that he eats of that one tree he would surly die. genesis 2:17.
2 peter 3:8 warns us to not be ignorant of this one thing that one day is as a thousands years. Adam died within a thousand years that he ate. By the age of his death 930 years old is confirmation that one day in scripture is 1000 years.
If Adam was created on the 6th day in agreement with scripture (1 day is a thousand years)then he was created 5000-6000 years after the sun became a star on morning of the first creation day.
To make the sun moon and stars a light unto the earth it says he positioned them in the sky. They had already been created in the beginning when he created heaven and the earth. kgv genesis 1:1.
I believe were into the second week since the creation of the sun on day 1 because of the prophecies given to adam (it was quite clear on the day that he ate he would surely die) and 2 peter 3:8 (that one day is as a thousand years).
I'm leaning were around 12,000 years since the sun became a star on the morning of the first creation day, that the flood happened around 5,400 years ago. From Adams birth to now around 7000 years based on 2 peter 3:8 that one day to God is as a thousand years.
Were close in my opinion when the Lord God will blow his trumpet rapturing the church home and also heralding the coming of the tribulation, bowls of wrath judgements, etc... The Lord God scripture says will not again blow "his trumpet" after he raptures the church(the last trump of God). However the tribulation judgement we see the seven angels blowing their trumpets after the last trump of God in respect to the tribulation judgements.
The Lord Jesus testimony says surely I come Quickly. With one day to God being as a thousand years surely hes coming quickly but to us one God day is as a thousand years(our lives is like a mist) but to those that overcome will not experience the second death. kjv revelation 21:7
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by 4Pillars, posted 12-23-2006 8:01 AM 4Pillars has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 43 of 83 (371842)
12-23-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
12-23-2006 11:46 AM


Re: Why?
* The world and all the species, ahem, sorry, "kinds" in it were not created in six days.
You don't know that. Its a strong theory. You weren't there, so perhaps its a theory as well as a "faith".
Even a "Cambrian explosion" suggests something sudden and abrupt.
* Trees did not preceed fish.
I don't think you know that either. Its a theory that all life came up out of the sea.
I don't think I can take this as established fact at this point. Its a popular theory.
* Fish and birds didn't arise at the same time.
Maybe not. But you don't know the amount of intervening time.
Evolution theory says "millions of years". You didn't see it. You don't know that.
* Birds did not preceed land animals.
Assuming that the writer was being strictly chronological. Maybe he wasn't. Maybe he was speaking from the standpoint of how the vision was unfolded to him. "I saw birds. Then I saw land animals."
See Revelatory Interpretation of Genesis.
* The moon is not a "light".
The moon is as much of a light as the sun sets.
Poetic language. By the way in the Hebrew the word is not for lights but more like light holders on the fourth day.
No contradiction of known fact I see yet.
* Not all stars are the same age as the sun.
Again, I don't see that as a necessary conclusion of what the writer discribed.
If the Revelatory method of interpretation is right, it could be that as the vision unfolded the seer saw stars as related to the fourth day. I think ASAH and BARA are not always exactly equal terms in the Bible's Hebrew. "Make" and "Create" may overlap sometimes in the Hebrew. But ASAH, as for the fourth day lights, could be understood as "appointed."
* The first woman was not made out of the first man's rib.
YOu don't know that. You weren't there.
* Snakes can't talk.
Bingo. No snake has been seen talking. True. As far as I know there's no record of it.
But in the occult world some rather unusual and spiritually dark things can be associated with objects which we would not expect to have such properties. Some things consecrated to Satan worship, demon worship, occult, and the paranormal can have mysterious qualities.
Sometimes people have been released from occult bondage by riding themselves of objects such as idols from the house.
It is perculiar that the woman was not surprised by the speaking serpent. That is a puzzle. But I'm inclined to believe that there was something going on there like a Satanic miracle perhaps.
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2006 11:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2006 1:19 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2006 8:52 PM jaywill has not replied

  
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 83 (371847)
12-23-2006 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ringo
12-23-2006 11:57 AM


Re: The LIGHT was already there before the plant
quote:
4pillars writes:
God did not create the "Light" but rather spoke the "Word" in the beginning -- "LET THERE BE LIGHT" -- and the Son was BROUGHT FORTH in to this physical world from the invisible realm of the Father.
So, when God said, "Let there be light," He wasn't talking about light at all?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems pretty clear that He was talking about light - i.e. electromagnetic radiation - in terms of Day and Night.
Dear Ringo,
You should review my previous post slowly so that you can base your question to my recorded stand and not your own assumption. :-) Here. I will quote it again for you...
quote:
Genesis 1:3 shows us the Light was brought forth into physical world from the invisible realm of the Father - to turn the condition of the deep (empty) from darkness (death) to light (life).
It was the brightness of the glory of the Lord God, the Son, that WAS brought forth -- when God spoke the "Word" in the beginning and said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT". John 1:1; Gen. 1:3
All things were made through/by him: and without the True Light (Son) was not anything made that was made. Because, in him (Jesus) is Life. John 1:3-4
Jesus/YWHW, the Son, provided the Light in heaven in the beginning (ALPHA) of creation as he would also be the one providing the Light at the end (OMEGA) - New Jerusalem - (Rev. 21:23).
"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb (Jesus) is the light thereof." Revelation 21:23
As I have posted before, God first created the 3 basic elements needed - Air, Dust and Water - for physical form.
Upon bringing forth of the Light ( which also consist of plasma )in the beginning causes the Big Bang to happen.
Simulation:
"By the interaction of their atoms, these 4 matters was fused together and this is the time the superdense core exploded due to the light. More like Nuclear fusion. Remember, this superdense core was extremely massive, therefore has extreme gravity force, many times stronger than the black hole.
With this force, explosion can never go straight but follows a spiral elliptical path. And, the Polarize Vacuum charge at this moment will be at 0.00000000000000000001 or even less. Light at this time could have been travelling at a much faster pace because it needs to escape the immense gravity at the core. It could be traveling at a million times more than today."
Genesis - Not scientific heh? You'll be surprise. :-)
Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.
Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 12-23-2006 11:57 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 12-23-2006 12:47 PM 4Pillars has replied
 Message 52 by iceage, posted 12-23-2006 4:05 PM 4Pillars has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 45 of 83 (371848)
12-23-2006 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by 4Pillars
12-23-2006 12:34 PM


Re: The LIGHT was already there before the plant
4Pillars writes:
As I have posted before, God first created the 3 basic elements needed - Air, Dust and Water - for physical form.
This is Bible Study, not Fairy Tale Theater. What you have posted before has no value unless you can back it up with what the bible says.
Now, the Bible says that:
First, God created light - and it clearly is physical light, not some mysterious "spiritual" light, because he called it "Day".
Second, He created plants, which require light.
Third, He created light sources, the sun and the stars.
You have not explained Biblically where the light came from before the source existed. Nor have you shown Biblically that there was a change from some other light source (e.g. Jesus) to the sun.
Not scientic heh? :-)
Not even close.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by 4Pillars, posted 12-23-2006 12:34 PM 4Pillars has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by 4Pillars, posted 12-23-2006 1:41 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024