In the Beginning

[Arial]

Why does John introduce his gospel with these words?

Without going into all the nuances of the Greek logos translated "word" in what follows in that sentence, let's look the philosophical ponderings of the culture in which John lived. These philosophers were searching for the ultimate cause of all that is. The beginning.

It is no accident that John is making direct reference to the opening words of the OT. In the beginning, God--- so let's go there as this is the focus of the OP and its relationship to the question of old earth vs new earth.

Gen 1:1-3 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said "Let there be light," and there was light.

I think most of us, me included, read "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" as meaning that is when all that follows in the six day creation account as being the beginning that is spoken of. I have come to see that the two things, our created world and the use of the word beginning, are distinct in this passage.

In which case the "beginning" both here and as used in John is expressing God as being the ultimate cause of all things in answer to the philosophical question, "Where did it all come from?" The heavens and the earth were the beginning of creation. Earth was a part of that creation.

The account of creation that follows is God creating on the earth, that existed without form and was void, as the habitation for all that He created in it as to all that has the breath of life, and especially for mankind, who He would create in His very image and likeness, as well as all that would sustain this life, and procreate life, plant and animal alike, and be pleasant to mankind none of it subject to death. Perfectly good.

If age dating in our science has any validity, this scenario would then answer the question of whether the earth is old or young. The creation account does not show God creating any land mass that theoretically shows aging. It only shows Him separating land and water. And the creation of all that is in it could absolutely occur in six literal days. And the question would not be whether or not earth is old or young, but whether or not the earth as we know it, as it is presented in Gen 1, is old or young.

 

[Eleanor]

Why does John introduce his gospel with these words?

Without going into all the nuances of the Greek logos translated "word" in what follows in that sentence, let's look the philosophical ponderings of the culture in which John lived. These philosophers were searching for the ultimate cause of all that is. The beginning.

It is no accident that John is making direct reference to the opening words of the OT. In the beginning, God--- so let's go there as this is the focus of the OP and its relationship to the question of old earth vs new earth.

Gen 1:1-3 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said "Let there be light," and there was light.

I think most of us, me included, read "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" as meaning that is when all that follows in the six day creation account as being the beginning that is spoken of. I have come to see that the two things, our created world and the use of the word beginning, are distinct in this passage.

In which case the "beginning" both here and as used in John is expressing God as being the ultimate cause of all things in answer to the philosophical question, "Where did it all come from?" The heavens and the earth were the beginning of creation. Earth was a part of that creation.

The account of creation that follows is God creating on the earth, that existed without form and was void, as the habitation for all that He created in it as to all that has the breath of life, and especially for mankind, who He would create in His very image and likeness, as well as all that would sustain this life, and procreate life, plant and animal alike, and be pleasant to mankind none of it subject to death. Perfectly good.

If age dating in our science has any validity, this scenario would then answer the question of whether the earth is old or young. The creation account does not show God creating any land mass that theoretically shows aging. It only shows Him separating land and water. And the creation of all that is in it could absolutely occur in six literal days. And the question would not be whether or not earth is old or young, but whether or not the earth as we know it, as it is presented in Gen 1, is old or young.

Did he not create the formless (confusion) earth and then separate the water from the land, both of which he created in the formless earth?
Would that not make all of the earth as we know it of the same age?

 

[EarlyActs]

Did he not create the formless (confusion) earth and then separate the water from the land, both of which he created in the formless earth?
Would that not make all of the earth as we know it of the same age?

It does speak of the land mass being there but submerged. Notice how difficult it is to separate creation and cataclysm in Ps 104.

 

[Arial]

Did he not create the formless (confusion) earth and then separate the water from the land, both of which he created in the formless earth?
Would that not make all of the earth as we know it of the same age?

If I understand what you are asking, I don't know that it would make all of the earth measure by our standards of measurement the same age. We know nothing about what existed before the creation of our world concerning this planet, and are only able to surmise from what is written in Gen 1 only that something was there that became Earth to us and for us. (If it is looked at in the way that I put forth.)

 

[Arial]

It does speak of the land mass being there but submerged. Notice how difficult it is to separate creation and cataclysm in Ps 104.

Excellent.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Why does John introduce his gospel with these words?

Without going into all the nuances of the Greek logos translated "word" in what follows in that sentence, let's look the philosophical ponderings of the culture in which John lived. These philosophers were searching for the ultimate cause of all that is. The beginning.

It is no accident that John is making direct reference to the opening words of the OT. In the beginning, God--- so let's go there as this is the focus of the OP and its relationship to the question of old earth vs new earth.

Gen 1:1-3 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said "Let there be light," and there was light.

I think most of us, me included, read "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" as meaning that is when all that follows in the six day creation account as being the beginning that is spoken of. I have come to see that the two things, our created world and the use of the word beginning, are distinct in this passage.

In which case the "beginning" both here and as used in John is expressing God as being the ultimate cause of all things in answer to the philosophical question, "Where did it all come from?" The heavens and the earth were the beginning of creation. Earth was a part of that creation.

The account of creation that follows is God creating on the earth, that existed without form and was void, as the habitation for all that He created in it as to all that has the breath of life, and especially for mankind, who He would create in His very image and likeness, as well as all that would sustain this life, and procreate life, plant and animal alike, and be pleasant to mankind none of it subject to death. Perfectly good.

If age dating in our science has any validity, this scenario would then answer the question of whether the earth is old or young. The creation account does not show God creating any land mass that theoretically shows aging. It only shows Him separating land and water. And the creation of all that is in it could absolutely occur in six literal days. And the question would not be whether or not earth is old or young, but whether or not the earth as we know it, as it is presented in Gen 1, is old or young.

I agree with much of what you have said here, though perhaps not in the way you intended it.

John is very deliberate in his choice of phrasing. Jesus, the Son of God, the eternal Word is the One through whom all things were created and through whom we now have the new creation.

The creation week in Genesis 1 is not describing material creation as many understand it, but is God ordering His creation and assigning functions and roles. As such it is not making any comments about the age of the earth or the universe and we should not try to put such a view on the text. Therefore, as you have said, if age dating in our science has validity (and I believe that it does) then that is what can provide us with information about the age of the earth, whether it is young or old.

 

[Arial]

I agree with much of what you have said here, though perhaps not in the way you intended it.

John is very deliberate in his choice of phrasing. Jesus, the Son of God, the eternal Word is the One through whom all things were created and through whom we now have the new creation.

The creation week in Genesis 1 is not describing material creation as many understand it, but is God ordering His creation and assigning functions and roles. As such it is not making any comments about the age of the earth or the universe and we should not try to put such a view on the text. Therefore, as you have said, if age dating in our science has validity (and I believe that it does) then that is what can provide us with information about the age of the earth, whether it is young or old.

Interesting. But where do you get the idea/information that a material creation is not being described?

On another thought. I don't think we can through any means arrive at the age of the earth, whether it is young or old, as an absolute, nor do I actually think doing so or trying to do so has any real value. It will always be speculation and really has no bearing on anything. I just presented what I did as what could explain aging as we see it in the earth. And at the same time, not do damage to an approximate age of the creation of us and earth as we know it to be approx 6 -7 thousand years. And that the beginning of all things is God. Our creation and the creation of our world is not the beginning of all things.

It is what we are given---the beginning of our world and the playing out of our redemption that concerns us. It is who God is that is our concern, and our relationship to Him.

Anyway, that is how I look at it.

 

[TB2]

Why does John introduce his gospel with these words?

Without going into all the nuances of the Greek logos translated "word" in what follows in that sentence, let's look the philosophical ponderings of the culture in which John lived. These philosophers were searching for the ultimate cause of all that is. The beginning.

It is no accident that John is making direct reference to the opening words of the OT. In the beginning, God--- so let's go there as this is the focus of the OP and its relationship to the question of old earth vs new earth.

Gen 1:1-3 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said "Let there be light," and there was light.

I think most of us, me included, read "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" as meaning that is when all that follows in the six day creation account as being the beginning that is spoken of. I have come to see that the two things, our created world and the use of the word beginning, are distinct in this passage.

In which case the "beginning" both here and as used in John is expressing God as being the ultimate cause of all things in answer to the philosophical question, "Where did it all come from?" The heavens and the earth were the beginning of creation. Earth was a part of that creation.

The account of creation that follows is God creating on the earth, that existed without form and was void, as the habitation for all that He created in it as to all that has the breath of life, and especially for mankind, who He would create in His very image and likeness, as well as all that would sustain this life, and procreate life, plant and animal alike, and be pleasant to mankind none of it subject to death. Perfectly good.

If age dating in our science has any validity, this scenario would then answer the question of whether the earth is old or young. The creation account does not show God creating any land mass that theoretically shows aging. It only shows Him separating land and water. And the creation of all that is in it could absolutely occur in six literal days. And the question would not be whether or not earth is old or young, but whether or not the earth as we know it, as it is presented in Gen 1, is old or young.

The prologue of John is teaching Christ's pre-existence. By alluding to Genesis, it makes clear the deity of Christ, and that the Word (Jesus) has preexisted from the beginning.

 

[TibiasDad]

It is no accident that John is making direct reference to the opening words of the OT. In the beginning, God---

If the premise is wrong, then the proceeding arguments are fruitless!

John’s “In the beginning” predates the same phrase that is used in Gen 1:1. John’s meaning is in eternity past “was the Word…”, it is not about the time of creation, but the timelessness of the Creator!

Doug

 

[EarlyActs]

2 Cor 5:17 refers to Christ as the new creation (not the individual believer). John is saying the new creation began as he hit the ground. The Law was not the beginning for Judaism, as the Judaizers supposed, but rather Christ was. Now that he was here, they could get on to what they were really meant to do.

 

[TibiasDad]

2 Cor 5:17 refers to Christ as the new creation (not the individual believer). John is saying the new creation began as he hit the ground. The Law was not the beginning for Judaism, as the Judaizers supposed, but rather Christ was. Now that he was here, they could get on to what they were really meant to do.

The subject/nominative is τις, a masculine, singular pronoun meaning “anyone” or any particular individual. This person is what the unwritten but assumed “he is” is predicated on, not Christ, which is in the dative.

Your assessment is grammatically impossible, and thus incorrect.


Doug

 

[EarlyActs]

I understand, but believe the objective sense of what is in Christ is better carried. The line follows Paul explaining, not change in himself, but the shedding of ordinary knowledge of Christ compared to what is now known (below):
*God was in Christ,
*a ministry has been given in Christ (that the Judaizers would not know),
*God appeals to humanity through Christians who are in this knowledge, and
*the righteousness of God is gained in him.

Those are the 'ta panta.' Each of them counters what the Judaizer was doing, the old things from 2:14 to 5:12 (too many to list!). So there is no new creation without all the ta panta list in Christ, even if you are technically right. As you can see, they are not a list of new qualities internal to a person; they are a new way of thinking and doing vs the old covenant Judaizers.

It was not a verse to be taken off in an individualized direction (for ex., overcoming a drug addiction, as important as that is), not in a section speaking continuously to the Judaizer problem, since 2:14; the Judaizers charged money to teach mistaken things!

In Gal 4:8 you can see Paul having child-birth pains to get previous followers away from the Judaizers and back to the Gospel. The same here. That is the sense of 'be reconciled to God' in v20; a re-following.

Notice that Ktisis is the subject. 'The new creation is someone in this knowledge of Christ's things' (listed above), who brought those things into being.

Bringing it back to Jn 1, 'the law came through Moses but grace and truth through Christ.'

It helps to remember how much of the NT letters are about detangling from the Judaizers, who were busy since Acts 10:1, as I recall. It is a bit reckless to use those lines twenty other ways.

 

[EarlyActs]

Try this: "The new creation is anyone who is doing these things (ministry of life, ambassadors) in Christ, not the old things which those in the old covenant do."

 

[TibiasDad]

I understand, but believe the objective sense of what is in Christ is better carried. The line follows Paul explaining, not change in himself, but the shedding of ordinary knowledge of Christ compared to what is now known (below):
*God was in Christ,
*a ministry has been given in Christ (that the Judaizers would not know),
*God appeals to humanity through Christians who are in this knowledge, and
*the righteousness of God is gained in him.

Those are the 'ta panta.' Each of them counters what the Judaizer was doing, the old things from 2:14 to 5:12 (too many to list!). So there is no new creation without all the ta panta list in Christ, even if you are technically right. As you can see, they are not a list of new qualities internal to a person; they are a new way of thinking and doing vs the old covenant Judaizers.

It was not a verse to be taken off in an individualized direction (for ex., overcoming a drug addiction, as important as that is), not in a section speaking continuously to the Judaizer problem, since 2:14; the Judaizers charged money to teach mistaken things!

In Gal 4:8 you can see Paul having child-birth pains to get previous followers away from the Judaizers and back to the Gospel. The same here. That is the sense of 'be reconciled to God' in v20; a re-following.

Notice that Ktisis is the subject. 'The new creation is someone in this knowledge of Christ's things' (listed above), who brought those things into being.

Bringing it back to Jn 1, 'the law came through Moses but grace and truth through Christ.'

It helps to remember how much of the NT letters are about detangling from the Judaizers, who were busy since Acts 10:1, as I recall. It is a bit reckless to use those lines twenty other ways.

You are ignoring the immediate context and grammar of the passage. You cannot have a meaning/interpretation that is contrary to the grammar and syntax used by the author.
κτίσις is a noun, but not the subject. It is part of the adjectival clause, which refers back to the subject of the sentence, namely, τις, ‘anyone’.

You are doing yourself no favor by taking this tact.

Doug

 

[EarlyActs]

You are ignoring the immediate context and grammar of the passage. You cannot have a meaning/interpretation that is contrary to the grammar and syntax used by the author.
κτίσις is a noun, but not the subject. It is part of the adjectival clause, which refers back to the subject of the sentence, namely, τις, ‘anyone’.

You are doing yourself no favor by taking this tact.

Doug

I disagree on the 'context', sheesh. How can you not see the personal contrast to being a Judaizer (what Paul used to think Christ was)? The letter is one of the most important for lowering those guys down to the bottom where they belonged.

In many instances, that opposing party defined all of life by the torah, including making it as essential as creation. So yes, the new creation is all the things that believers were doing which the Judaizers missed by their obsession with the torah, as Paul used to be (Acts 22:3; he also uses the word obsessed elsewhere).

As I said you may right technically, but we must always pay attention to subtext. 2:14 to 5:12 is tons of context.

The phrase in no way is an ear-candy one-line sound-byte for today's 'market.' He was connecting to something that specfically spoke against the old covenant, pulling back as many Corinthians from them as possible by direct appeal to the previous followers. (He's not asking them to be saved a 2nd time...)

 

[EarlyActs]

btw, the difficulty of people expecting a substantial individual change is overcome. It is objective-- about doing things that the Judaizers refuse to do. Those things (and tis doing them) are the new creation.

 

[TB2]

In your view what is a "Judaizer" and how do you square with Paul's positive statements about the law (he seems to have both positive and negative things to say about the Law)

(Btw, great links to Bretz, Missoula Floods on the other thread. Those were good sources)

 

[EarlyActs]

Why does John introduce his gospel with these words?

Without going into all the nuances of the Greek logos translated "word" in what follows in that sentence, let's look the philosophical ponderings of the culture in which John lived. These philosophers were searching for the ultimate cause of all that is. The beginning.

It is no accident that John is making direct reference to the opening words of the OT. In the beginning, God--- so let's go there as this is the focus of the OP and its relationship to the question of old earth vs new earth.

Gen 1:1-3 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said "Let there be light," and there was light.

I think most of us, me included, read "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" as meaning that is when all that follows in the six day creation account as being the beginning that is spoken of. I have come to see that the two things, our created world and the use of the word beginning, are distinct in this passage.

In which case the "beginning" both here and as used in John is expressing God as being the ultimate cause of all things in answer to the philosophical question, "Where did it all come from?" The heavens and the earth were the beginning of creation. Earth was a part of that creation.

The account of creation that follows is God creating on the earth, that existed without form and was void, as the habitation for all that He created in it as to all that has the breath of life, and especially for mankind, who He would create in His very image and likeness, as well as all that would sustain this life, and procreate life, plant and animal alike, and be pleasant to mankind none of it subject to death. Perfectly good.

If age dating in our science has any validity, this scenario would then answer the question of whether the earth is old or young. The creation account does not show God creating any land mass that theoretically shows aging. It only shows Him separating land and water. And the creation of all that is in it could absolutely occur in six literal days. And the question would not be whether or not earth is old or young, but whether or not the earth as we know it, as it is presented in Gen 1, is old or young.

Like the term 'anothen' it was meant to reach back before Judaism, to whose followers most of the NT is speaking.

 

[A branch]

If the premise is wrong, then the proceeding arguments are fruitless!

John’s “In the beginning” predates the same phrase that is used in Gen 1:1. John’s meaning is in eternity past “was the Word…”, it is not about the time of creation, but the timelessness of the Creator!

Doug

"In the beginning" could have been stated like this; "In the beginning of man kinds creation" imo God the Father and Jesus the Son existed long before man kind was created.