Misinterpreting Genesis 1:2

[Micaiah]

It is encouraging to read your posts.

 

[nephilimiyr]

EZRA I reject all of those theories you stated but I also reject the notion you put forward that if you don't believe in a young earth created by God in 6 days you have to believe in an old earth through evolution.

I believe in an old earth created by God that was destroyed by God and reformed and replenished in 6 days. This is not the Gap theory but just a belief in that an error of interpretation is being commited in the first two verses of the bible. This error leads many to believe that God had originally created the earth in chaotic form but even without believeing in a misinterpretation the period after the first verses says we don't have to believe God created the earth in chaotic form but that it had become chaotic, "without form and void". The period does suggest a prior time. A time existing between the creation of the beginning and the time when the earth was without form and void.

 

 

[Ezra]

Yesterday at 03:12 PM nephilimiyr said this in Post #22
I believe in an old earth created by God that was destroyed by God and reformed and replenished in 6 days. 
 

Would you be able to provide solid Scriptural support for an "old earth" reformed, refashioned and replenished?.  The "eye of reason" (rationalism) says it certainly looks that way, but the "eye of faith" says, "Did God reveal it in His Word?". Just stop and think for a minute.  Would God withhold from us such a critical piece of information?  It would have tremendous significance theologically!  If what you say is true, then there were in fact two plans of salvation, instead of just one. But Scripture says "the Lamb slain from the foundation [creation] of the world" (1 Pet.1:20; Rev. 13:8).The same world that Peter says stood in the water and out of the water, referring to the watery envelope surrounding the earth before the separation of land and sea.  Peter would certainly have cleared up the issue if there was a world before the one actually created.

You say "it became chaotic", but you don't say how.  Since God is not the author of chaos or confusion (1 Cor. 14:33), was it chance, was it Satan, what caused the chaos?  This is where the problem arises.  Even the book of Job, the oldest in the Bible, DOES NOT EVEN HINT at any such event -- some ancient catastrophe that came upon the earth. I know it is difficult to accept a young earth, but all chronological data - even Carbon-14 dating, points to ~6,000 years. If you carefully go through the genealogies and other strictly biblical data for dates, you arrive at the same figure.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Ezra I have studied the subject over and have read much on it. I believe that there is enough misinterpretation in the English translation from the Hebrew so that the true meaning of the passage is lost. Your under the impression, I believe, that I'm interpreting the english translation different then you where I am not.

With this line of thought I don't believe God has withheld any critical piece of information but that what Moses wanted to convey is hidden in the ancient Hebrew writting. Therefore there is still one plan of salvation.

Yes I said "it became chaotic" but the KJV says And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The one hebrew word 'tohuw' is translated as "without form" in english and the meaning is "ruin" or "desolation" in noun form. 'Bohuw'  is void in english and means "emptiness" or "that which is empty".  These two words in the hebrew are found together in only two other passages and are clearly used to express the ruin caused by the wrath of God. 

Isa 34:11 reads ; he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness. Now confusion and emptiness, in the hebrew, are the same words that the KJV translated "without form, and void". And the sense is, that just like the architect uses line and stone to carefully erect a building, so will God make it a ruin in like manner.

This next passage is describing the devastation of Judah and Jerusalem and Jeremiah likens it to the preadamite destruction. Jer: 4:23-27  "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger. For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end"

Let's start over from the top then, Gen 1:2 And the earth was...stop right there...'hayah' is the hebrew word for "was" in english.  'hayah' in hebrew  often times means "to become" or "it has come". Why this meaning? because it is in the ordinary type useage. The way it is explained to me is that the normal order for the Hebrew sentence is conjunction, verb, subject, object. This pattern in Gen 1:2 however has been altered to give more power to a fact or otherwise make a point to the reader. And this is what makes 'hayah' in Gen 1:2 mean "had become". It's called the pluperfect form for those who are into languages and it's used quite often.

 This shows that the earth wasn't created this way, without form, and void, but that the earth "had become without form, and void". In the sense that the words tohuw and bohuw are used I surmise that God had past judgement and had unleashed his wrath upon his original creation, the same creation in the first verse.

 

[Micaiah]

Scripture teaches plainly that God created the world in six solar days. This contradicts your theory. Stick with the word of God.

 

[wblastyn]

Scripture teaches plainly that God created the world in six solar days. This contradicts your theory. Stick with the word of God.

Scripture also "teaches plainly" that the earth has corners, is a circle (huh?) that sits on pillars, bats are birds, etc.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Micaiah

Scripture teaches plainly that God created the world in six solar days. This contradicts your theory. Stick with the word of God.

What I have said is not a theory but a translation from the original Hebrew. It also is something I learned through reading many books that teach this aproach. some of the books don't even teach this as the main subject of the book. Such as Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse's book "The Invisible War" the main subject being the conflict between good and evil. So that you know that this isn't some new fangled type of teaching G.H. Pember wrote "Earth's Earliest Ages" in 1876 and devotes a few chapters on this. The Essens, the men who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls believed in an old earth that stretched far past the days of Adam. 

So are you telling me that the original Hebrew that Moses used to pen the words is not the word of God until it's translated into english so that you can understand it? I believe your being totally arogant to think this way.

 

 

[Micaiah]

What kind of hours do you work? What if you had a contract that said you had to work five days a week, and then the boss turned around and said that the days spoken of in the contract were not to be taken literally, but were intended as metaphorical references to long periods of time?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Micaiah I don't know why you would ask me that since I have not said anything about me believing that the days in Genesis 1 are long periods of time. I've said quite clearly that I believe the creation in verse 1 is different and separate than that of the six day scenario in the following verses. I believe this because I believe the ancient Hebrew has not been totally understood correctly. I am not a one man band here, this is something I've learned by people who are experts in the ancient Hebrew language. As I've said before I learned this by reading their books and not by my own knowledge of the text. If you argue me you are argueing them, I'm only trying to do my best in putting forward their teachings.

Futher more I didn't accept their beliefs on this because of any evidence of the earth being old. Before I learned about what they have to say I believed in an earth being only 6,000 years old. I changed my mind on the matter when they showed me evidence in the scripture, in the original ancient Hebrew, and not by any scientific prof to reconcile the bible with scientists. I have no belief or use for evolution, to me it's kind of like a red herring or more like a stumbling block to the person wanting to find the truth about our universes origin.

In the beginning God created and in the six days he created. There's no evidence in scripture that God used evolution to create so my thoughts about evolution is this I don't care about it. Scripture says God created by his word, this is what I accept and this is what I believe.

Now I have a question for you Micaiah. Since you seem to want to go strictly by what the english says in Gen. 1 how do you interpret Gen. 1:28?

 Gen. 1:28, And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subue it:

If Moses is talking about a six day creation with all things being created at this time why does he say God ordered Adam and Eve to replenish the earth? My Websters defines replenish as; 1- to make full or complete again 2- to supply again. These are the only two meanings this word has in the english. If the earth was created just several days before this the word replenish doesn't fit and that would mean Moses made a big mistake!

 

[nephilimiyr]

Well?

Am I going to get an answer?

 

[Follower of Christ]

"I would be interested in what science you've studied and what parts of it you feel are consistent a young earth interpretation of Geneis. If you are a scientist, then you understand how evidence is evaluated and how theories are derivded through falsification, repeatability....''



FOC:

I would LOVE to see this repeatabilty aspect.
They can even have one of my rabbits to do their study on. I am sure the rabbit will love the attention.

When they can get it to reproduce a non-rabbit, I will consider their evidence..

 

[wblastyn]

When they can get it to reproduce a non-rabbit, I will consider their evidence..

I thought you said you used to be an "evolutionist"? Clearly you didn't understand it then as you don't understand it now, a rabbit wouldn't just give birth to a non-rabbit and evolution doesn't say they would.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I did say I was.
And believe me, I understand completely.

The rabbit thing was meant to show how rediculous it is to bring up things such as ''repeatability'' in proving evolution.
They cant repeat it and they haven't observed ''Macro-Evolution''.
Everything is based on assumption / conjecture.
And you know what they say about assumption.

I tire of this ''theory'' being passed off as ''fact'' when indeed there is NO way to prove it beyond the ridiculous evidence of variation (speciation), which very easily fits right into Gods 6 day creation.

The point was, they CANT prove evolution. There isnt any concrete evidence, only speculation.

Even much of the ''evidence'' they have (neanderthal, Archaeopteryx, hippocamus) has been shown to be either unproveable, or some in cases, outright fraud.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 12:26 AM chickenman said this in Post #35

if you think a rabbit should give birth to a non-rabbit according to evolutionary theory - then you're rejecting a theory you don't understand

EVERYONE LOOK


THIS IS THE POST THAT HAS CONVINCED ME THAT NO ONE READS POSTS BEFORE THEY COMMENT......

 

[notto]

Yesterday at 12:20 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #34



I did say I was.
And believe me, I understand completely.

The rabbit thing was meant to show how rediculous it is to bring up things such as ''repeatability'' in proving evolution.
They cant repeat it and they haven't observed ''Macro-Evolution''.
Everything is based on assumption / conjecture.
And you know what they say about assumption.

I tire of this ''theory'' being passed off as ''fact'' when indeed there is NO way to prove it beyond the ridiculous evidence of variation (speciation), which very easily fits right into Gods 6 day creation.

The point was, they CANT prove evolution. There isnt any concrete evidence, only speculation.

Even much of the ''evidence'' they have (neanderthal, Archaeopteryx, hippocamus) has been shown to be either unproveable, or some in cases, outright fraud.

Repeatability in science relates to the repeatability of the observations of evidence, not the repeatability of the physical process that leaves the evidence. You are using a strawman of science.

Frauds are found because the observations of the original claim cannot be repeated and there is no concensus on them through peer review or repeated observation by additional observers.

There is a difference between "accepted" and fact. Evolution is provisionally accepted as fact until something better comes along to explain the REPEATABLE observations of the evidence that supports it, or it is falsified. This has not occured.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 10:27 AM notto said this in Post #37




Repeatability in science relates to the repeatability of the observations of evidence, not the repeatability of the physical process that leaves the evidence. You are using a strawman of science.

Frauds are found because the observations of the original claim cannot be repeated and there is no concensus on them through peer review or repeated observation by additional observers.

There is a difference between "accepted" and fact. Evolution is provisionally accepted as fact until something better comes along to explain the REPEATABLE observations of the evidence that supports it, or it is falsified. This has not occured.

That ''strawman'' term aggitates me to no end.
The whole evolution ''theory'' is a ''strawman''.

None can absolutely prove their accounts either way.

 

[wblastyn]

That ''strawman'' term aggitates me to no end.
The whole evolution ''theory'' is a ''strawman''.

A strawman is when you make a false representation of the thing you're arguing against so it's easier to knock over. Evolution can't be a strawman since it doesn't falsely represent something, it is the thing that is falsely represented, by creationists.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 12:24 PM wblastyn said this in Post #39


A strawman is when you make a false representation of the thing you're arguing against so it's easier to knock over. Evolution can't be a strawman since it doesn't falsely represent something, it is the thing that is falsely represented, by creationists.

"Evolution can't be a strawman since it doesn't falsely represent something..."


FOC;

Now THATS a laugh.

I suggest you do some MORE research into some of the fraudulent evidence / claims of your evolutionist idols.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

FOC...

You have claimed to be a "deconverted" evolutionist but your statements seem to indicate otherwise.

Have you ever taken a college level biology or geology course?

Ever read a scientific journal?

I am begining to doubt that you ever bothered to try and understand the theory of evolution at all.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Your personal opinions of my understanding of evolution are completely unimportant to me.

Your doubts are equally unimportant.
My education/credentials are irrelevant.
What I have read is irrelevant.

The facts, OR lack thereof, are the issue.

You are free to point out some empirical evidence proving YOUR evolution and I would be MORE than happy to show how they fit into a young earth created in 6 days.

THAT is the issue, not me personally.

I do find it amusing how tactics change from presenting an issue and its relevant details to attacking my personal reading habits when you cannot come up with any REAL evidence to prove your arguement.