|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
What sentence in Genesis chapter one shows the initial creation of land? there are two acceptable readings. one is that land is created (formless and void) in verse 1, but it is buried under water. the second is that land already existed (formless and void) prior to creation, buried under water. have your pick -- neither indicates a prior creation that was destroyed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I gave plenty of reasons which I think are sufficient. you gave me a lot of out-of-context verses, misapplication of scripture, mistranslations, and intentional manglings of not only hebrew grammar, but logic as well. i do not think those are sufficient.
You don't like me to refer to the Bible as a whole. You don't like me to refer to other parts of the Bible to supply those reasons. because you take those references entirely out of context. for instance, you took a reference to the potential might of god, given by job (which even by most religious interpretation is a fictional allegory), interpretted it as something that had to have happened in the past, and misapplied it to genesis 1 where it did not fit. that's not "taking the bible as a whole." that's proof-texting: taking little bits you think support your point far out of their original context, distorting their meaning, and using them as justification for an already existing idea. take genesis 1 as a whole. it describes the creation of heaven and earth -- and it TELLS you so. take genesis as a whole. it describes the origins of how things came to be, both specific to the hebrew people, and somewhat universally as well. take the torah as a whole. it describes the traditional history of the judaism, the origin of their faith, and several major events that shaped their culture. take the tanakh as a whole -- it's a collection of the (mostly) religious writing for about 1,000 years of judaism. no, you can't just use any bit you please any way you please and disregard the intent and meaning of that text as a whole. Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
there are two acceptable readings. one is that land is created (formless and void) in verse 1, but it is buried under water. the second is that land already existed (formless and void) prior to creation, buried under water. have your pick -- neither indicates a prior creation that was destroyed. How many acceptable readings are there concerning the sun, moon, and stars being made on the fourth day? Do we also have a choice there? The land existing before the creation makes no sense and seems to violate everything you have been arguing about concerning the nature of the writing. The land being created waste and void under the water is more logical. But it is not the only choice left. And if we consult a Psalm concerning creation, Psalm 104, we see God establishing land and then covering it with water. And this is followed by Him causing the land to rise up from underneath the water. "He establishes the earth upon its foundation, So that it cannot be moved forever and ever. (v. 5)You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains. (v. 6) At Your rebuke they fled; At the voice of Your thunder they rushed away - (v.7) The mountains rose, the valleys sank - To the place that You established for them (v.8) You set a border that they may not pass over, That they may not turn back to cover the earth. (v.9) The following verses speak of His care for the feeding of various animals and man. The Psalm also has God stretching forth the heavens before laying the foundation of the earth: "Bless Jehovah, O my soul. O Jehovah my God, You are very great. You are clothed with majesty and splendour, (v.1)Wrapped with light as with a garment; You stretch out the heavens like a tent curtain. (v2) He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind. (v.3) He makes winds His messengers, Flames of fire His ministers. (v.4) He establishes the earth upon its foundation, So that it cannot be moved forever and ever. (v. 5) You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains. (v.6) So although details are not provided in Genesis 1 or in Psalm 104, elsewhere we learn of God's judgments against a powerful Anointed Cherub commited with great authority in some ancient Eden (Ezekiel 38). So a third understanding which you did not list is that the land was created when God created the heavens and the earth in verse 1. And then some time afterwards "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains." (Psa. 104:6) So we would understand this as refering to Genesis 1:9,10:
And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. (v.9) And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas; and God saw that it was good. (v.10)
And the following verses speak of the growth of vegetation which correspond well with Psalm 104 after verses 12 or 14.
have your pick -- neither indicates a prior creation that was destroyed. This is not necessarily true. Between the time God "stretched out the heavens like a curtain ... established the earth upon its foundations ... covered it with the deep as with a garment" something of a previous system of things gone bad may have been destroyed by divine judgment. This would have rendered the earth in the condition used by two words which are found together in two other places in the Hebrew Bible indicating divine overthrow. As Rotherham writes concerning "without form and void" in Gen. 1:2:
Heb: tohu wa-vohu. Evidently an idiomatic phrase, with a play on the sound ("assonance"). The two words occur together only in IS. xxxiv.11; Jer. iv.23; examples which favour the conclusion that here also they describe the result of a previous overthrow. Tohu by itself is found in several other texts (Deu. xxxii.10; Job xii.24; Ps. cvii.40; Is.xxiv.10; xxxiv.11; etc.). Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : spelling Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
one does not even need to believe in the bible to read it and understand what it says. i have found quite often that belief just gets in the way -- and makes you create crazy ideas like this one you keep talking about as a way to justify actually believing in the bible. But there are people who will say "Yes, I assure you of 100% objectivity in this understanding." But they are not 100% objective but opinionated subjectively also. And I challenge that you don't have to believe in order to understand the Bible. Can you explain what the prophet Daniel meant when he wrote this about the prophecy which he wrote? "And He said, Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. Many will be purified, cleansed, and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand." (Daniel 12:9,10) Here the Bible draws a distinction between the wicked and those who have insight. The wicked will not understand the words of the prophetic writing. So why don't they understand the prophetic writing then, if belief or non belief is irrelevant? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes: I challenge that you don't have to believe in order to understand the Bible. Is it possible to understand The Lord of the Rings without believing that it's true?
... the Bible draws a distinction between the wicked and those who have insight. The Lord of the Rings claims that elves have greater insight than humans. Should we automatically believe that that is true? The words are the words. This topic is about the words. If you need a secret decoder ring to figure them out, there's no point in having a Bible Study forum. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Arach,
one does not even need to believe in the bible to read it and understand what it says. This seems to contradict the very Hebrew Scriptures themselves according to the prophet Isaiah. "Linger and be astounded, Blind yourselves and be blind. They are drunk, but not with wine; They stagger but not with liquor. For Jehovah has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep and has shut your eyes, the prophets; And heads, the seers, He has covered. And all the vision will be to you like the words of a book that has been sealed, which when they give to him who is literate, saying, Please read this, he will say, I am not able to, for it is sealed." (Isaiah 29:9,10) There is a link between the moral condition of the readers of God's word and their ability to understand in the prophetic writing . It is the case that the unbelievers in God's headship over the nation were effected by being unable to understand further His word. They chose their own wisdom to the wisdom of God. And in the chapter this is said concerning the consequences: "Because this people draws near with their mouth and with their lips they honor Me, Yet they remove their heart far from Me ... And the wisdom of the wise men will perish, and the understanding of those who understand will be hidden" (See Isaiah 29:13,14) The point here is only that the Hebrew Bible itself says that some obstinate and unbelieving will be impaired in their understanding of the words of the prophets " And all the vision will be to you like the words of a book that has been sealed, which when they give to him who is literate, saying, Please read this, he will say, I am not able to, for it is sealed." Your own Hebrew Scriptures contradict your saying -
one does not even need to believe in the bible to read it and understand what it says. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
that's not "taking the bible as a whole." that's proof-texting: taking little bits you think support your point far out of their original context, distorting their meaning, and using them as justification for an already existing idea. What then do you think of Simeon ben Jochai's comment on Genesis 1:2 and 2:4 written to represent some rabbinical opinions around the end of the first century and beginning of the second century AD:
"And these are the generations of the destruction which is signified in verse 2 of chapter 1. The earth was Tohu and Bohu. These indeed are the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them and destroyed them, and, on that account, the earth was desolate and empty." [Sefer Hazzohar (aka. Zohar) traditionally attributed to Akiba ben Joseph's (? - 135 A.D.) disciple Simoen ben Jochai] Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
One thing I will point out that that the Zohar, while attribued to a 1st century Rabbi, was actually written in the 12th century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4750 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Observe Psalm 148 (KJV) ... a direct reference to Genesis 1 (and possibly Genesis 2) ... as if its ALL CREATED and PRAISING (vs. secondarily 'made', 'formed', 'evolved', 'emerged', etc.):
Psa 148:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.Psa 148:2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. Psa 148:3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Psa 148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Psa 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created. Psa 148:6 He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass. Psa 148:7 Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps: Psa 148:8 Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word: Psa 148:9 Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars: Psa 148:10 Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl: Psa 148:11 Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth: Psa 148:12 Both young men, and maidens; old men, and children: Psa 148:13 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven. Psa 148:14 He also exalteth the horn of his people, the praise of all his saints; even of the children of Israel, a people near unto him. Praise ye the LORD. Again, vs. 5 states "they were created" (obviously, secondary causes are totally eschewed by the scriptural psalmist) ... You (all) might, likewise, be encouraged to view secondary causes like *dung in the wind*, thus. ... And the whole thing seems *present- and future-tense animated*, a penetrating cosmic praise by all *inanimate* creation(s), even. (Now granted: the plentiful oxymorons of these scriptures vs. the oxymorons of 'secondary-cause' of *geological science* are another hot topic ... please don't take me there ... yet) ... In sum words like 'form', 'made', 'evolve', 'emerge', etc. seem insignificant compared to this 'all-penetrating' creation-praise phenomenon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
How many acceptable readings are there concerning the sun, moon, and stars being made on the fourth day? just one. what it says in the text. compare the text of gen 1:9 to gen 1:14
quote: quote: the text of genesis 1:14 is literally god commanding the lights in the heavens to be. he's telling them to come into existance. so no, there is no way to read the text with them existing before this point. the dry land, on the other hand, has to previously exist. it is just being revealed (and dried out).
The land existing before the creation makes no sense and seems to violate everything you have been arguing about concerning the nature of the writing. i said that there are two acceptable ways of interpretting when land is created -- because it doesn't specifically say, like it does for many other things. you can interpret it to mean that the land (and water, btw) existed prior to god's actions, and was simply the null, blank state of the universe. or you can read it to mean that god created these at the beginning. you might also read the division of waters under the heavens as the gathering of land, similar to god dividing light and dark, waters above from waters below, etc. the land may not have existed until this point, and simply collected upon the division. i'm not sure how valid this argument, but it seems weeker than the others.
And if we consult a Psalm concerning creation, Psalm 104, we see God establishing land and then covering it with water. And this is followed by Him causing the land to rise up from underneath the water. "He establishes the earth upon its foundation, So that it cannot be moved forever and ever. (v. 5) verses 1-5 are general praises of god. but THIS language should sound very familiar:
You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains. (v. 6) quote: At Your rebuke they fled; At the voice of Your thunder they rushed away - (v.7) quote: The mountains rose, the valleys sank - To the place that You established for them (v.8) quote: You set a border that they may not pass over, That they may not turn back to cover the earth. (v.9) quote: wrong chapter of genesis.
The Psalm also has God stretching forth the heavens before laying the foundation of the earth: quote: quote: yes. what's your point?
So although details are not provided in Genesis 1 or in Psalm 104, elsewhere we learn of God's judgments against a powerful Anointed Cherub commited with great authority in some ancient Eden (Ezekiel 38). no, no, no. i've explained this to you a dozen times already. i really don't want to go over it again. it's simply another example of you reading whatever you please into the text, while disregarding its purpose and intent and meaning.
So a third understanding which you did not list is that the land was created when God created the heavens and the earth in verse 1. no.
And then some time afterwards "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains." (Psa. 104:6) yes, some 6 chapters later. really, have you read the rest of genesis?
This is not necessarily true. Between the time God "stretched out the heavens like a curtain ... established the earth upon its foundations ... covered it with the deep as with a garment" something of a previous system of things gone bad may have been destroyed by divine judgment. you're really struggling with this, aren't you? there was, in fact, a previous system of things before god covered the earth with the deep, in an act of divine judgement:
quote: This would have rendered the earth in the condition used by two words which are found together in two other places in the Hebrew Bible indicating divine overthrow. yes, in fact, the flood did -- because it was un-creation.
As Rotherham writes concerning "without form and void" in Gen. 1:2:
Heb: tohu wa-vohu. *sigh* more lectures from people who don't know basic hebrew? "tohu" is right. but "and" is pronounced "va" and the other word is pronounced "bohu" with a hard "b" sound. bet's sound like b's at the beginning of words. are you really gonna listen to someone speak about hebrew idioms when they can't read hebrew?
Evidently an idiomatic phrase, with a play on the sound ("assonance"). The two words occur together only in IS. xxxiv.11; Jer. iv.23; examples which favour the conclusion that here also they describe the result of a previous overthrow. Tohu by itself is found in several other texts (Deu. xxxii.10; Job xii.24; Ps. cvii.40; Is.xxiv.10; xxxiv.11; etc.). regardless of your concordance and its dictionary probably say, the two are actually very nearly synonymous. the "assonance" is frankly mostly irrelevent. standard hebrew grammar results in a high degree of assonance of a regular basis. "-im"s and "-ot"s tend to appear on nouns and verbs and adjectives and adverbs. it's a standard hebrew stylistic point -- and the appearance of a phrase with a higher degree of assonance generally just means the author wanted something more poetic, especially if the phrase is nearly synonymous, because this reinforces the idea parallelism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
But there are people who will say "Yes, I assure you of 100% objectivity in this understanding." But they are not 100% objective but opinionated subjectively also. yes, i subjectively believe that authors of the bible meant what they wrote.
And I challenge that you don't have to believe in order to understand the Bible. of course you do. but ringo already addressed this point in a very witty manner, so i'll leave it that. (at what point in the club do i get my secret decoder ring?)
Here the Bible draws a distinction between the wicked and those who have insight. The wicked will not understand the words of the prophetic writing. So why don't they understand the prophetic writing then, if belief or non belief is irrelevant? you realize of course that daniel was not in the bible before it was written. daniel preached the apocalypse -- and many, many prophets preached that god was punishing or was going to punish israel for her infidelity. the wicked reconcile it in their heart, saying "that doesn't apply to me..." when really it did. daniel is speaking, essentially, about twisting the words of the prophets -- but his statement is almost tautological. the people who understand will change, and those who do not will not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
There is a link between the moral condition of the readers of God's word and their ability to understand in the prophetic writing . It is the case that the unbelievers in God's headship over the nation were effected by being unable to understand further His word. then the bible is useless for evangelism.
They chose their own wisdom to the wisdom of God. And in the chapter this is said concerning the consequences: look, this is stupid. the issue at hand is that you are making stuff up, and trying to change the meaning of words in the book of genesis. that is not the wisdom of god -- it's not even treating the bible as some kind of secret code book. it's just plain bs. it's ad-hoc, and an overactive imagination. just stick to the words on the page. and genesis is NOT a book of the prophets. it's a book of the law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
What then do you think of Simeon ben Jochai's comment on Genesis 1:2 and 2:4 written to represent some rabbinical opinions around the end of the first century and beginning of the second century AD: i started posting in this thread with some information from the footnotes of my chumash. i'm aware that there are many different rabbinical traditions regarding a great many things. and yes, the gap idea is one of them -- and one that i feel is unfounded. and it's a rather late one, too. but that's not what this thread is about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
and genesis is NOT a book of the prophets. it's a book of the law. You don't think that Jacob's twelve blessings upon his twelve sons was prophecy? You don't think that God's promise to Abraham and Sarah of the birth of Isaac was prophecy? You don't think that God's prediction that Abraham's descendents would be 400 years in bondage in chapter 15 was prophecy?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein. AdminPD Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
I've been rather lenient on the topic of this thread since the originator seems to have abandoned it, but do not venture away from word meanings please.
Prophecy is definitely off course. Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout. Thank you
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024