Young Earth/Old Earth

[TB2]

I agree, except for one thing: Genesis does not say that before God started creating, the Earth was formless and empty. Before God started creating, there was God, and that's all.

V.2 is chronologically before God's first act of creation in v3

 

[EarlyActs]

Oh, "varieties of angels." Do you have a BDB reference on that? It is a standard OT literary lexicon.

https://hebrewcollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/BDB.pdf

 

[EarlyActs]

V.2 is chronologically before God's first act of creation in v3

Yes, I think Waltke (DTS then Regent College Hebrew) rendered it: 'the earth was already...'

 

[GeneZ]

Your character is showing...

Once you start using insults, as you have done in these last two posts, you have lost the argument.

No... its my discernment showing....

You have been given an assignment. "Make it look this way."

I do not know why you guys choose that path. But, you like the challenge I suppose.

Wishing you wonderful evaluation when you stand before the Lord.

 

[GeneZ]

<sigh>

"Tohu wa-bohu" does not have to mean "ruination"; and, in context, in Gen. 1, it doesn't.

It does not have to mean anything actually.

Does it?

 

[GeneZ]

Your character is showing...

Once you start using insults, as you have done in these last two posts, you have lost the argument.

I am not here to have an argument. You are.

That's where I leave you.

 

[David1701]

The rule of hapax legomena favors it. Single-reference, single usage. Is the issue that you are concerned about piles of time? There is no necessary connection to lots of time. There is simply a dark, watery mass, and the Spirit hopes to make something useful from it. As you know from other Scripture a dark, watery mass is dreaded, a place of imprisonment, confinement. We may find that we live in a renovated prison!

This sounds like Liberalism. The Holy Spirit does not "hope" to make something useful from already existing material (who created it?)! He creates that material, knowing exactly what he is going to do with it.

Before light has been created, it is dark. It was not a place of confinement, since there is no mention of any such thing; and, anyway, on Day One, there was nothing to confine.

I favor Lewis' understanding that when the universe is barren and lifeless, it makes it more difficult to imagine and comprehend the simplicity with which the Bible regularly interacts with other realms, because we have allowed ourselves to be shaped by gradualism, naturalism. See "The Myth That Became Fact" in GOD IN THE DOCK among others.

I am neither a gradualist, nor a naturalist. I also don't see any connection between an initially barren, lifeless universe (on Day One) and imagining interaction with other realms; in fact, I know of only one other realm - heaven.

 

[David1701]

It doesn't say no, but the reference is only to human death. Plus we see references to God's creation of predators in Psalms 104 for example

The bottom line it doesn't say death came to ALL creatures and that there was no death of non-human kind. That is an assumption

The reference is to death. The specific application to humans is not said to be exclusive.

Humans and animals originally ate only plants. Animals (and man) only became predators some time after the Fall.

Rom. 8:18-23 (WEB)
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which will be revealed toward us.
19 For the creation waits with eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed.
20 For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
21 that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of decay into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.
23 Not only so, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for adoption, the redemption of our body.

This "groaning" and "bondage of decay" was obviously not part of the "very good", pre-Fall creation.

 

[David1701]

V.2 is chronologically before God's first act of creation in v3

Gen. 1:1-3 (WEB)
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
3 God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Yes, verse 2 is chronologically before verse 3; however, God created the earth in verse 1, before he created light.

 

[EarlyActs]

This sounds like Liberalism. The Holy Spirit does not "hope" to make something useful from already existing material (who created it?)! He creates that material, knowing exactly what he is going to do with it.

Before light has been created, it is dark. It was not a place of confinement, since there is no mention of any such thing; and, anyway, on Day One, there was nothing to confine.



I am neither a gradualist, nor a naturalist. I also don't see any connection between an initially barren, lifeless universe (on Day One) and imagining interaction with other realms; in fact, I know of only one other realm - heaven.

The Spirit was hovering over the waters. This is an expression before an action is carried out. He still knew what he was going to do, but it is a period before doing so.

There are some who believe there was a revolt in heaven before earth's creation week. Possibly this explains why Satan appears in the humble format we find in Gen 3; already reduced.

There are apparently 3 heavens in a sequential relation, in 2 Cor 11.

Goodrick my Greek instructor was no liberal. He had us compare 2 Peter 2 and Jude in our 2nd year of Greek, a rather steep assignment. But as you look through the references, you will see things going on behind the scenes. The Greek term 'tartarus' is borrowed by Peter from the Deucalion, the place where evil titans were imprisoned in Greek cosmology, for ex. It is a place that is 'blackest darkness.' Compare that to how we find earth to start with (The ancient world was aware of black holes, so to speak.) The reference to Enoch in Jude is there because of the number of other beings ('varieties of fallen angels' as a designation is fine; the question is when; some were called 'watchers.')

The reason for assuming a certain degree of revolt before Gen 3 is that the Serpent speaks as though he has some experience with what he is saying; that this is not his first time misleading others. Notice also he approaches Eve rather than Adam, which lays ground for the ch 6 and Jude remark that these fallen creatures were enticed by women. Surely there can be a case for the Serpent seeking Eve not Adam because of that.

It is very possible to be influence by naturalism/gradualism unaware.

All the best,

 

[EarlyActs]

This sounds like Liberalism. The Holy Spirit does not "hope" to make something useful from already existing material (who created it?)! He creates that material, knowing exactly what he is going to do with it.

Before light has been created, it is dark. It was not a place of confinement, since there is no mention of any such thing; and, anyway, on Day One, there was nothing to confine.



I am neither a gradualist, nor a naturalist. I also don't see any connection between an initially barren, lifeless universe (on Day One) and imagining interaction with other realms; in fact, I know of only one other realm - heaven.

re Day 1:
the 1:2 is referring to things before Day 1...

 

[David1701]

The Spirit was hovering over the waters. This is an expression before an action is carried out. He still knew what he was going to do, but it is a period before doing so.

There are some who believe there was a revolt in heaven before earth's creation week. Possibly this explains why Satan appears in the humble format we find in Gen 3; already reduced.

There are apparently 3 heavens in a sequential relation, in 2 Cor 11.

Goodrick my Greek instructor was no liberal. He had us compare 2 Peter 2 and Jude in our 2nd year of Greek, a rather steep assignment. But as you look through the references, you will see things going on behind the scenes. The Greek term 'tartarus' is borrowed by Peter from the Deucalion, the place where evil titans were imprisoned in Greek cosmology, for ex. It is a place that is 'blackest darkness.' Compare that to how we find earth to start with (The ancient world was aware of black holes, so to speak.) The reference to Enoch in Jude is there because of the number of other beings ('varieties of fallen angels' as a designation is fine; the question is when; some were called 'watchers.')

The reason for assuming a certain degree of revolt before Gen 3 is that the Serpent speaks as though he has some experience with what he is saying; that this is not his first time misleading others. Notice also he approaches Eve rather than Adam, which lays ground for the ch 6 and Jude remark that these fallen creatures were enticed by women. Surely there can be a case for the Serpent seeking Eve not Adam because of that.

It is very possible to be influence by naturalism/gradualism unaware.

All the best,

Perhaps, maybe, possibly, assuming - there's so much surmise in this. A list of speculations is not going to lead to faith, only questions, without answers.

Edit: Yes, there are three heavens - the sky, space, and the realm where the angels are.

 

[EarlyActs]

The reference is to death. The specific application to humans is not said to be exclusive.

Humans and animals originally ate only plants. Animals (and man) only became predators some time after the Fall.

Rom. 8:18-23 (WEB)
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which will be revealed toward us.
19 For the creation waits with eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed.
20 For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
21 that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of decay into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.
23 Not only so, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for adoption, the redemption of our body.

This "groaning" and "bondage of decay" was obviously not part of the "very good", pre-Fall creation.

re the last line:
It couldn't be very good part because the forming hadn't been created yet. It is the confinement of evil that is referred to by the pre-creation lines of v2.

By connecting Jer 4:23 to Gen 1:2, Jeremiah was setting up a redemptive framework, whose happy ending to the tragedy of Jerusalem 586 BC was the new covenant and living temple that would come. The Gen 1:2 sets up a redemptive framework in its own chapter--that the mess that was there was to be redeemed/transformed by creation week.

As I recall from Persian and Hindi comparative accounts, in Waltke's study (Hebrew at DTS and then Regent College, Vancouver), there was a monster that needed to be defeated, and the material of that monster was used to make creation. I'm not sure about the Egyptian version (cp TB2 here), but do know that credit in Egypt went to Ra for this victory. Genesis 1 gave it back to Yahweh. Now, this would be quite strange to use as a counter to Egyptian cosmology (and the others) if they were not put forth by those cultures. It always helps to know who the writer was speaking to originally

(Slightly aside: I read a report that bone calcium was originally used to 'coat' the Giza structures, that there are still traces of this. It was in reference to piles of dinosaur bones nearby. Pha-Ra-oh had claimed to have defeated them and used it to decorate the Giza pyramids. The claim could be another perjurous claim by Pha-Ra-oh to steal Yahweh's credit. The finished product was very reflective white that ships on the Meditteranean could see.)

In Persian, 'sat' meant created and 'asat' was uncreated, and was the condition of the dead beast before the Creator created.

As far away as the Quileyute natives of the coast of WA, USA, there are carvings of the Creator defeating a lizard as the creation. (Most of the north Pacific coast has a raven as a native creator because they are cunning.) This marker was at the edge of the ocean, just barely above high tide. They believe that the high tide mark was a sign of the Creator's victory.

Waltke's book was CREATION AND CHAOS.
Compare GOD'S BATTLE WITH THE SEA MONSTER (Leviathan), Wakeman, pub by Brill (Netherlands) about the Job and Psalms references.
On geo-mythology (native accounts of creation and cataclysm) see Mayor.

 

[David1701]

re Day 1:
the 1:2 is referring to things before Day 1...

And you know this how, exactly? Or is this more assumption/speculation?

 

[David1701]

re the last line:
It couldn't be part of the very good pre-fall creation because it hadn't been created yet. It is the confinement of evil that is referred to by the pre-creation lines of v2.

By connecting Jer 4:23 to Gen 1:2, Jeremiah was setting up a redemptive framework, whose happy ending was the new covenant and living temple that would come. The Gen 1:2 sets up a redemptive framework in its own chapter--that the mess that was there was to be redeemed/transformed by creation week.

As I recall from Persian and Hindi comparative accounts, in Waltke's study (Hebrew at DTS and then Regent College, Vancouver), there was a monster that needed to be defeated, and the material of that monster was used to make creation. I'm not sure about the Egyptian version (cp TB2 here), but do know that credit in Egypt went to Ra for this victory. Genesis 1 gave it back to Yahweh. Now, this would be quite strange to use as a counter to Egyptian cosmology (and the others) if they were not put forth by those cultures.

In Persian, 'sat' meant created and 'asat' was uncreated, and was the condition of the dead beast before the Creator created.

As far away as the Quileyute natives of the coast of WA, USA, there are carvings of the Creator defeating a lizard as the creation. (Most of the north Pacific coast has a raven as a native creator because they are cunning.)

Waltke's book was CREATION AND CHAOS. Compare GOD'S BATTLE WITH THE MONSTER pub by Brill (Netherlands) about the Job and Psalms references. On geo-mythology (native accounts of creation and cataclysm) see Mayor.

Speculation...

 

[TB2]

Gen. 1:1-3 (WEB)
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
3 God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Yes, verse 2 is chronologically before verse 3; however, God created the earth in verse 1, before he created light.

That brings us full circle to the debate over whether Gen 1.1 is meant to be understood as a summary/title or initial act of creation. But difficulties are encountered either way, regardless. We're left with two basic options, neither of which is appealing.

Option 1: If Gen 1.1 is God's first act of creation ("created the heavens and the earth"), then why did God 'create' and formless and void state of chaos that is antithetical to everything He does during the six day creation week? Ex 20.18 also limits creation to the six days (which suggests Gen 1.1 is a title/summary, not a first act). We also have the problem that God doesn't create an inhabitable earth until Day 3, nor the sky/heavens until Day 2.

Option 2: However, if Gen 1.1 is a title/summary statement and not an initial act of creation, that solves some of the problems above, but then creates the problem of pre-existent matter prior to God's start of creation.

Either way, v.2 presents a problem. I don't claim to have a solution. I agree with you that the Gap Theory doesn't solve the problem, and requires reading a whole back story in between v1 and v2, which is completely conjectural.

 

[EarlyActs]

And you know this how, exactly? Or is this more assumption/speculation?

Waltke, Hebrew prof at DTS and Regent College Vancouver, and other translations.

Cassuto explains the form used in the oral narratives of Gen 1-39:
1, title line
2, pre-existing conditions
3, new narrative
4, summary.

In Gen 1, this makes v2 the pre-exisiting condition. He shows all the examples out to ch 39 when Joseph took over.

 

[EarlyActs]

That brings us full circle to the debate over whether Gen 1.1 is meant to be understood as a summary/title or initial act of creation. But difficulties are encountered either way, regardless. We're left with two basic options, neither of which is appealing.

Option 1: If Gen 1.1 is God's first act of creation ("created the heavens and the earth"), then why did God 'create' and formless and void state of chaos that is antithetical to everything He does during the six day creation week? Ex 20.18 also limits creation to the six days (which suggests Gen 1.1 is a title/summary, not a first act). We also have the problem that God doesn't create an inhabitable earth until Day 3, nor the sky/heavens until Day 2.

Option 2: However, if Gen 1.1 is a title/summary statement and not an initial act of creation, that solves some of the problems above, but then creates the problem of pre-existent matter prior to God's start of creation.

Either way, v.2 presents a problem. I don't claim to have a solution. I agree with you that the Gap Theory doesn't solve the problem, and requires reading a whole back story in between v1 and v2, which is completely conjectural.

Good elaboration.

 

[EarlyActs]

Speculation...

What is speculated about Jeremiah?

 

[TB2]

Humans and animals originally ate only plants.

Where does the Bible say that?