God's Original Act of Creation

[veteran]

God's creation of the heavens and the earth is very ancient, much more ancient than what our Christian traditionalists have taught us. This is easliy discovered in God's Holy Writ, but not easily believed by many. I'm going to reveal more of this matter here that I revealed in another thread under the Bible Study section.

Apostle Paul spoke of a very deep matter involving God's creation in Romans 8, something many have difficulty with. Yet it's not difficult, not if one understands how God through Moses declared His original perfect creation of the heavens and the earth at Genesis 1:1, and then the earth becoming a waste and a ruin because of some ancient event, and then God's reestablishing of the earth past Genesis 1:2 and the state of His creation for today.

Rom 8:18-25
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Paul speaks of a future time, definitely after our Lord Jesus' future second coming, involving the future glory to be revealed in us who have accepted Jesus Christ as our Saviour. The world to come is the subject here.


19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

This word "creature" in the Greek is 'ktisis', put for God's creation, which the KJV translators later render as 'creation' further down. God's creation is waiting for the manifesting of the sons of God, for what time? The subject here Paul began with was what? The future glory still yet to come which we who believe still wait and hope for.


20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him Who hath subjected the same in hope,

Once again, this word "creature" means 'creation' per the Greek. Paul declares that the creation was made subject to "vanity", and that not willingly, but by God Who subjected His creation in the same hope of the future glory that we also hope for.

Question: Just when... and how... did God subject His creation to "vanity" like Paul says? I thought God's creation in Genesis we were traditionally taught was never into a state of "vanity"? And if God's placed His creation into that "vanity" state, that suggests His creation had to have at one time not been in that state of "vanity".

What does Apostle Paul mean by that word "vanity" (Greek mataoites)? When something is in vanity or vain, it means something that becomes useless, empty, worth nothing, which is also how that word is meant in the other NT examples applied to vanity of men that walk without Christ Jesus (Eph.4:17; 2 Pet.2:18). But here in Romans 8, Apostle Paul uses that "vanity" idea of how God placed His creation into that vanity state, not willingly.


And we know for sure that God did NOT... originally create the heavens and the earth in that state of "vanity" which Paul speaks of...

Isa 45:18
18 For thus saith the LORD That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
(KJV)

That "in vain" there, which God Himself said He did NOT create the earth in, is the Hebrew word tohuw. It is the SAME Hebrew word translated as "without form" in Genesis 1:2, and in Jeremiah 4:23. God did NOT... create the earth tohuw, not "without form" like we are traditionally taught how Genesis 1:2 reads.

Apostle Paul is showing us that too, because he delcares here in Rom.8 how God, not willingly, placed His creation in an imperfect state of "vanity".


Rom.8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

God's creation (ktisis) will eventually be delivered out of the "bondage of corruption" He placed it in.

What? Just when did God ever put His creation into that "bondage of corruption" and "vanity" state?

And especially, what event could have happened on earth to cause Him to place His creation into this "bondage of corruption" and "vanity" state which Paul speaks of?


Rom.8:22 For we know thatthe whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

There's that Greek ktisis again, this time translated as "creation".

How is it that God's creation "groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now"? And how is it that Paul says "we know that"? Well, look at God's creation today. Does it look like God's creation has liberty from death and disease, and fraility like our flesh bodies have today? No, certainly not.


Rom.8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
(KJV)

But not only God's creation groans and travails in pain together, but ourselves also, with waiting for the future glory of the world to come and the new heavens and a new earth (Isa.65; 2 Pet.3).


Then there's Apostle Peter's declaration of this same matter Paul declared...

2 Pet 3:5-7
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
(KJV)

How many worlds is Peter covering in that chapter? Let's count them:

1) the world that then was;
2) the heavens and the earth, which are now.
3) new heavens and a new earth (2 Peter 3:13).

The old world perished, but when was that? It was not with the time of Noah, for the creation did not perish in Noah's day, because the ark did not perish, nor did the olive branch which the dove brought back to Noah after the waters upon the earth had receeded. The only things that perished were men and animals that weren't in the ark.

Peter's reference to the earth standing out of the water and in the water is a description back at Genesis 1:2 through 1:9, when the earth had become tohuw, and God then moving the waters upon it to make the dry land appear. That was Peter's "world that then was" which perished being overflowed with water. It's a pointer back to when Satan originally rebelled against God, and His having destroyed that old world to end Satan's rebellion upon the earth.

The "heavens and the earth, which are now", which is kept in store for God's future consuming fire event, began right after Genesis 1:2 with God reestablishing this earth and placing... His creation in "vanity" and "bondage of corruption" like Apostle Paul said.


This is what Peter means that some are "willingly ignorant" of this matter. And Peter references this very matter of God's previous destructions of this earth in speaking of Paul's Epistles about it...

2 Pet 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(KJV)

It's these things of the separate worlds and God's destructions of them which Peter points to in Paul's Epistles that the unlearned wrest with.


This matter is not about battles between creationism and evolution, for God's Word does not support evolution theory. This matter is what some call the Gap Theory, about an unknowable amount of time existing between the time of God's original 'perfect' creation at Genesis 1:1, and then the time of Satan's rebellion sometime after that, and then God bringing a destruction upon the earth to end Satan's rebellion, with the state of the earth at Genesis 1:2 shown in a wasted and ruined state as a result. And God then reestablishing His creation past Genesis 1:2 with a major difference per Paul; God having unwillingly placed His original perfect creation into a state of "vanity" and "bondage of corruption" for today since Adam.

 

[NicholasMarks]

A couple of points here...You are fond of quoting Paul...but it is Jesus Christ who is 'the way, the truth, and the life'...so we must use Jesus's teaching to compare Paul by.

Now...there is another way of looking at the teaching of Almighty God and getting the same truth from it. It is lateral thinking but a true Christian should be well able to cope with that.

If the entire universe is made from God's 'mighty power' then everything else is too...and this means God's Spirit is a manifestation of this same material. It also means that Jesus Christ taught us that we too have this same property within us and he showed us its capabilities over the flesh and over evil...providing...we follow certain laws. Those laws culminate into his life's story and we too can be co-sharers in it if we follow him accurately.

The alternative sounds pretty grim. Don't wait for the Judgment to find out.

 

[veteran]

A couple of points here...You are fond of quoting Paul...but it is Jesus Christ who is 'the way, the truth, and the life'...so we must use Jesus's teaching to compare Paul by.

Wait a minute. That's like saying Paul was preaching something different in His Epistles than what Lord Jesus preached.

That assumption is not valid, and I see it only as an excuse to not have to address what Paul wrote there in Rom.8.

Now...there is another way of looking at the teaching of Almighty God and getting the same truth from it. It is lateral thinking but a true Christian should be well able to cope with that.

If the entire universe is made from God's 'mighty power' then everything else is too...and this means God's Spirit is a manifestation of this same material.

That's not any idea that God taught, but one from men. Here's why...

Heb 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(KJV)

Did you get that? The things which are seen were NOT made of things which do appear. And another example...

Rom 1:20
20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(KJV)

Since you've failed to understand that, I'll explain it.

The things of God's creation that are seen, were not made... by that SAME material. The proof of God's Power involving His creation is how He created the things seen from something 'invisible' that is NOT... seen.

In other words, material matter His creation is made up of did not originate from material matter. Matter did not create matter, which also is a major law of physics that matter can neither be created, nor destroyed (by itself or by man). God's Word keeps the idea of 'spirit' and 'flesh' separate, which is a direct... teaching by Jesus Christ by the way (John 3).

It also means that Jesus Christ taught us that we too have this same property within us and he showed us its capabilities over the flesh and over evil...providing...we follow certain laws. Those laws culminate into his life's story and we too can be co-sharers in it if we follow him accurately.

The alternative sounds pretty grim. Don't wait for the Judgment to find out.

That's occultism you're pushing. Maybe you didn't think I was aware of pagan's wishful thinking that they can do everything my Lord Jesus did simply by attuning to imaginary cosmic life force and try and become their 'own' Christ? That's what it means to think we have a "property" within us that Jesus did which allows us to achieve some esoteric 'adeptship' spiritual state through the following of certain spiritual laws.

Our Salvation is ONLY through Faith on the Blood of Jesus Christ He shed upon His cross. And it is a free Gift for those who believe on Him, and remain in that Faith on The Father through His Son. There ain't... any other way of Salvation.

So if you keep playing with that mess, you're soon going to find out how that stuff is not an operation from The Father and His Son, but instead of the devil.

 

[justaname]

Thanks for posting this Vet, I now have a greater understanding of the gap theory. Although I am not sure I agree as I see how everything you have correlated together can be explained with a literal view, vanity being imposed by the fall, and accepting Peter's account as the occasion of the flood. I do like the way you try to understand the greek and hebrew for vanity. This is what gives rise for further investigations for my own journey of understanding "vanity." I may want to repost here with questions as I further my quest as you seem to have a strong grasp on this view.
Shalom

 

[justaname]

Interesting to say the least. The Isaiah passage being the most difficult portion to reconcile, it is the only matter I will address here. Either we are to assume when speaking about the earths creation to be at the end of the 7 days or the beginning of the second day, being the reshaping of a desolate earth To be sure the word yom is always translated as day and the use of ordinal numbers further supports the fact. Although in accordance with the text presented all this is in the time frame of the first day. From other texts we do know God's time is not equilviant to ours. As of now I still have not reconciled this to myself, and will continue my studies.

To correct my error it is the first day not the beginning of the second. Sorry for any misleadings.

 

[justaname]

A thought I did have is on the idea of a sovereign God needing to reconcile His first creation with a second creation that again fell by the hands of Satan seems absurd.

 

[veteran]

A thought I did have is on the idea of a sovereign God needing to reconcile His first creation with a second creation that again fell by the hands of Satan seems absurd.

Why would it seem absurd, since we well know God is going to destroy this present world by fire as written? The gap idea reveals that when God first creates something, it's perfect and good the first time. It's only because of others messing things up that causes Him to work a recompense.

What Paul revealed in Rom.8 that not only do we, His children, look to the future time of liberty in Christ's future Kingdom to come, but the whole creation being in "bondage of corruption" is also in hope for that too, tells us how God never intended for today's world to be a perfect creation. That's all the more pointed out when we read about the promise of a new heavens and a new earth yet to come and its descriptions.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Why would it seem absurd,

It would seem absurd because it is absurd. Is God recycling satan... giving him a second change to mess things up?

When God created the world everything was "good", not in the "bondage of corruption". There is no reason to question the scripturally sound notion that God subjected the world to the "bondage of corruption" because man sinned.

Another thing that is absurd is the way you interchange the meaning of the words "earth", "world" and "creation" at your own discretion as long as it supports this theory. In fact, you make a specific point of explaining that the word for creation is ktisis, and then go on and quote 2 Peter where this word does not occur, and try to say that Peter is saying that what perished was "creation"!

Vet, you can't use sloppy logic like that and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[aspen]

cool - it is not scientific because Genesis is not a scientific account.

 

[veteran]

It would seem absurd because it is absurd. Is God recycling satan... giving him a second change to mess things up?

When God created the world everything was "good", not in the "bondage of corruption". There is no reason to question the scripturally sound notion that God subjected the world to the "bondage of corruption" because man sinned.

Another thing that is absurd is the way you interchange the meaning of the words "earth", "world" and "creation" at your own discretion as long as it supports this theory. In fact, you make a specific point of explaining that the word for creation is ktisis, and then go on and quote 2 Peter where this word does not occur, and try to say that Peter is saying that what perished was "creation"!

Vet, you can't use sloppy logic like that and expect to be taken seriously.

Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with what I've covered, but still no need to get nasty about it.

You've come up with some faulty conclusions about the matter. God re-established this present world since Adam was not from any cause of Adam's sin. It was from because of Satan's original rebellion, which by the way is documentable in God's Word in several Scriptures.

Another matter that's documented in God's Word, is how for this present world, this time Paul says God placed His "creation" into "corruption of bondage" like Rom.8 states, is that God is using... Satan as a punisher mainly upon the rebellious. Satan can only do what God allows him to do. Our Heavenly Father is in control.

As for the Greek word 'ktisis' the KJV translators rendered as "creature" and "creation" in Rom.8, that's the related subject Apostle Peter was speaking of in the 2 Peter 3 chapter. Whether the term "creation" of Rom.8, or "world" in 2 Pet.3 is used, it's still about changes upon this earth which God brought, and will bring yet once more.

Heb 12:25-29
25 See that ye refuse not Him That speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused Him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him that speaketh from heaven:
26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now He hath promised, saying, "Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven."
27 And this word, "Yet once more", signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
29 For our God is a consuming fire.
(KJV)



it's all about God's creation, one for "the world that then was", and one for "the heavens and the earth which are now", and a final one for future new heavens and a new earth. If you think by that it means God creating a whole new planet from the start, then you're mistaken.

But what you're idea does is to strain at a gnat over words, while missing the whole idea that's written.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with what I've covered, but still no need to get nasty about it.

I'm not getting nasty at all. I just disagree, which is something you should not take personally. You don't agree with me either, I can live with that. Forums such as this are here so that we can air our differences, throw out our arguments, and weigh them up against each other. If you can't handle someone disagreeing with you then a forum isn't the place for you.

If I think you use sloppy logic then I will say that. It doesn't mean that I am nasty, or that I am right. I say it because I think that your arguments are not good. You are perfectly welcome to prove me wrong. I won't get offended.

God re-established this present world since Adam was not from any cause of Adam's sin. It was from because of Satan's original rebellion, which by the way is documentable in God's Word in several Scriptures.

OK, that's your assertion, and you seem to think that there are several scriptures that back you up without even mentioning what they are. So please, which scriptures are you talking about?

Another matter that's documented in God's Word, is how for this present world, this time Paul says God placed His "creation" into "corruption of bondage" like Rom.8 states, is that God is using... Satan as a punisher mainly upon the rebellious. Satan can only do what God allows him to do. Our Heavenly Father is in control.

Please vet, that doesn't make sense at all to me in the context of this discussion. What exactly are you trying to say? I realize that Satan is a punisher and that he can only do what God allows, but what does that have to do with the gap theory?

As for the Greek word 'ktisis' the KJV translators rendered as "creature" and "creation" in Rom.8, that's the related subject Apostle Peter was speaking of in the 2 Peter 3 chapter.

I can imagine, since the fall of man and the consequences of it (i.e. the ground being cursed) are clearly documented in scripture, that that was what Paul was referring to, as opposed to something that is not clearly documented in scripture.

I can also imagine that Peter was writing about the world that perished during the flood due to the increase of sin in the pre-flood world. Another thing that is clearly documented in scripture.

If you think by that it means God creating a whole new planet from the start, then you're mistaken.

What? I thought since you were talking about "creation perishing" that YOU were asserting that a whole new planet was created. But in any case I have never stated any such belief myself, so again, I don't really understand what you are saying... sorry.

 

[veteran]

I'm not getting nasty at all. I just disagree, which is something you should not take personally. You don't agree with me either, I can live with that. Forums such as this are here so that we can air our differences, throw out our arguments, and weigh them up against each other. If you can't handle someone disagreeing with you then a forum isn't the place for you.

OK, I'm wont take it personally, even though you threw out your "sloppy logic" idea at me. Disregard my slurs if I've given any also. And I assure you, I can handle a lot more than you would think. Doesn't mean I'll just sit and take it though without giving a rebuke as I see fit per the situation.

As for trying to prove you wrong, I don't see how you even allowed me that chance, since we both together still haven't yet gotten to a relevant Scripture debate. Rules of logic involve staying... on the subject of the debate, and a Biblical type debate involves considering the Scriptures, not simply our opinions. And personal type slurs directed at the other party is like 'speech clutter' within a logical debate.

OK, that's your assertion, and you seem to think that there are several scriptures that back you up without even mentioning what they are. So please, which scriptures are you talking about?

Satan sinned from the beginning said Apostle John (1 John 3:8). Even with holding the traditional creation view of Gen.1, God didn't create man until His 6th day. The Gap idea involves events that occured in Gen.1 before God forming man on the 6th day.

Have you read the Genesis Time Gap study I did in the Bible Study Forum section? It antecedes the understanding I posted here. They go together. I don't see need to repeat all that here again...

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/12703-genesis-time-gap/page__pid__143554#entry143554

Please vet, that doesn't make sense at all to me in the context of this discussion. What exactly are you trying to say? I realize that Satan is a punisher and that he can only do what God allows, but what does that have to do with the gap theory?

Paul's declaration in Rom.8 about God's creation is part of this, which I assume you read from my op here. Have you determined when the beast system of Rev.12:3-4 was yet? Notice it had only seven crowns, instead of ten like the one of Rev.13:1. What do you think our Lord is pointing to with that Rev.12 example of when Satan first rebelled?

I can imagine, since the fall of man and the consequences of it (i.e. the ground being cursed) are clearly documented in scripture, that that was what Paul was referring to, as opposed to something that is not clearly documented in scripture.

I can also imagine that Peter was writing about the world that perished during the flood due to the increase of sin in the pre-flood world. Another thing that is clearly documented in scripture.

Yet the time of Noah's flood was much later than Adam and Eve's sin in God's Garden, which is what is commonly referred to when speaking of the fall of man. God's present creation covers the time before the flood of Noah's days up to today. How's that? Because God did not destroy His creation with the flood of Noah, but only those outside the ark. With the dove bringing Noah an olive branch after the flood waters had receded, that reveals God did not destroy plant life upon the earth either (Gen.8). The event of Noah's flood does not fit the state of Gen.1:2, though there is a similiarity with the waters.

What? I thought since you were talking about "creation perishing" that YOU were asserting that a whole new planet was created. But in any case I have never stated any such belief myself, so again, I don't really understand what you are saying... sorry.

No, not the whole earth itself, but its surface; similar to how God destroyed the wicked off the earth for the time of Noah, but more as to how He is going to destroy man's works off the surface of the earth in the near future, using fire. It's pretty deep, but that's the 'level'... of destruction Paul spoke of at the end of Hebrews 12 that still future to us.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

OK, I'm wont take it personally, even though you threw out your "sloppy logic" idea at me. Disregard my slurs if I've given any also. And I assure you, I can handle a lot more than you would think. Doesn't mean I'll just sit and take it though without giving a rebuke as I see fit per the situation.

As for trying to prove you wrong, I don't see how you even allowed me that chance, since we both together still haven't yet gotten to a relevant Scripture debate. Rules of logic involve staying... on the subject of the debate, and a Biblical type debate involves considering the Scriptures, not simply our opinions. And personal type slurs directed at the other party is like 'speech clutter' within a logical debate.

Fair enough, if "sloppy logic" offends you I will try to find another way to express myself.

Satan sinned from the beginning said Apostle John (1 John 3:8). Even with holding the traditional creation view of Gen.1, God didn't create man until His 6th day. The Gap idea involves events that occured in Gen.1 before God forming man on the 6th day.

That's just slo.. (whoops! ) I mean,.. that doesn't really make sense given the following verses:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' (Matt 19:4)

and

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" (Mark 10:6)

The phrase "at the beginining" doesn't always have an exact meaning.

Have you read the Genesis Time Gap study I did in the Bible Study Forum section? It antecedes the understanding I posted here. They go together. I don't see need to repeat all that here again...

I did had a casual read, but to be fair I will try to look at it in more detail later on. However, it is not easy to follow your arguments. I find myself repeatedly trying to figure out what you mean. It might seem clear to you, but to me its very hard to trace the logic from one statement to the next. That's why I question so much. I am obligated to test all things.

 

[veteran]

Fair enough, if "sloppy logic" offends you I will try to find another way to express myself.



That's just slo.. (whoops! ) I mean,.. that doesn't really make sense given the following verses:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' (Matt 19:4)

and

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" (Mark 10:6)

The phrase "at the beginining" doesn't always have an exact meaning.

Our Lord Jesus was referring in a general sense... back to the creation of man of woman per Gen.1:26-27 on God's 6th day. Lot of previous events transpired prior to that 6th day per Genesis 1:1 through 1:25.

These verses in Gen.2 also point to that order of events, with His creating Adam later in that order...

Gen 2:4-5
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
(KJV)

Our Lord Jesus is not modifying that Genesis order of events by those Matthew and Mark verses. Ask others about this too, not just me.

I did had a casual read, but to be fair I will try to look at it in more detail later on. However, it is not easy to follow your arguments. I find myself repeatedly trying to figure out what you mean. It might seem clear to you, but to me its very hard to trace the logic from one statement to the next. That's why I question so much. I am obligated to test all things.

We're expected to test all things in His Word by allowing His Word to interpret Itself.

Countless times I've studied a matter in God's Word as written, and had trouble reconciling it with what I already understood. Only throught continued Bible study with His help was I made sure of it, especially when the same idea kept popping up in other Scripture witnesses (2 or more Scripture witnesses is required to establish a Truth in His Word). That's how the Gap idea came to me. I at first didn't really accept it, even though that's how the Scripture read.

The only way to be sure of that is to consider all relevant Scripture witnesses about a Bible subject, and that is going to require moving around in God's Word, because He did not give all answers of a Bible Truth in just one area of Scripture. A Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is a useful tool in helping us with that. The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge scholarly work is even better for that.

Most often, if... we will gain understanding in God's Word about a mater as written first, then God's Word sets the standard of measure for that subject. And then all things related to it must fit that standard of measure, including later when we look at the events and things of the world to see if there's actual proof for it, historical and/or physical. Those who want to shoot directly to theories of man's fields of science instead completing the rounds required in the Scripture first, are really just spinning their wheels on deepr Bible subjects like this one.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Our Lord Jesus is not modifying that Genesis order of events by those Matthew and Mark verses. Ask others about this too, not just me.

Where did I say that Jesus was "modifying" anything? That kind of remark can cause a lot of irritation, but I'll let it pass as a missunderstanding on your part.

My point was, just as you pointed out, "in the beginning" can be used in a general sense.

It was in response to this:

Satan sinned from the beginning said Apostle John (1 John 3:8). Even with holding the traditional creation view of Gen.1, God didn't create man until His 6th day. The Gap idea involves events that occured in Gen.1 before God forming man on the 6th day.

I assumed you submitted 1 John 3:8 to show that since Satan's sin was "from the beginning" then it preceded Adam.

Countless times I've studied a matter in God's Word as written, and had trouble reconciling it with what I already understood.

Try not to take this the wrong way, but I think that is what the problem is. No one should read the Bible trying to "reconcile it" with anything. If you do so there is always the danger that once an idea enters your head you are well on your way to reading the scriptures with a preconceived notion.

Gaining a knowledge of the truth does not necessarily come through diligent study, it comes though reading the Bible with faith that God's Spirit will reveal to you what He wants you to hear. If we project our own thoughts into what we are reading, then we will most likely not hear what God is trying to teach us.

Naturally, we can all be Bereans and check things out, but I think there is a subtle difference between doing this, and looking for ways to scripturally support something that we want confirmed.

The problem I have with the gap theory is that it demands doing the very thing you have been doing - spending a great deal of time looking for clues, tying verses together, and toying with definitions. This does not necessarily mean that you are wrong, but it does raise the question:

If a previous creation ever existed that had significance to our faith, then why didn't God just clearly spit it out in Genesis so that there would be no confusion? I realize that there are hidden gems in the Bible, but I am pretty sure that the kind gems that are hidden are those that impart great wisdom, as a reward for someone who seeks Him through faith, rather than some kind of secret "knowledge" that just confuses things for Christians.

 

[veteran]

Where did I say that Jesus was "modifying" anything? That kind of remark can cause a lot of irritation, but I'll let it pass as a missunderstanding on your part.

My point was, just as you pointed out, "in the beginning" can be used in a general sense.

Not how I meant it. Our Lord Jesus in Matt.19:4 was speaking of when God create man and woman per 'their'... beginning, not the Gen.1:1 beginning.

Matt 19:4-6
4 And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He Which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(KJV)

Have to include those other two verses to know just which... beginning Christ was talking about with Adam and Eve. That subject was written in Gen.2, after God had already created the heavens and the earth. It would appear you're trying to move the Gen.1:1 time to the time of God creating man and woman, which doesn't work, for His Holy Writ of Genesis is clear about that.

I assumed you submitted 1 John 3:8 to show that since Satan's sin was "from the beginning" then it preceded Adam.

And that's correct, for that 1 John 3:8 "beginning" is about who? Adam and Eve? Nope. It's about Satan, and when he first sinned.

Try not to take this the wrong way, but I think that is what the problem is. No one should read the Bible trying to "reconcile it" with anything. If you do so there is always the danger that once an idea enters your head you are well on your way to reading the scriptures with a preconceived notion.

You mean Truths in God's Word revealed through previous Bible study won't reconcile with a new discovery within His Word? I assure you, it will, every time, if it is really His Truth. You've completely missed what I was saying. I'm against having a pre-conceived notion, and then trying to reconcile it 'using' the Scriptures. Instead, I'm for letting God's Word speak, letting His witnesses in His Word do the revealing, and then... it MUST be reconciled with previous Truths He's given us the same way. And that's what I mant by my statement in my previous post...

"Countless times I've studied a matter in God's Word as written, and had trouble reconciling it with what I already understood. Only throught continued Bible study with His help was I made sure of it,...."

Gaining a knowledge of the truth does not necessarily come through diligent study, it comes though reading the Bible with faith that God's Spirit will reveal to you what He wants you to hear. If we project our own thoughts into what we are reading, then we will most likely not hear what God is trying to teach us.

Apostle Paul said to study... to show oneself approved unto God... (2 Tim.2:15). The Holy Spirit can impart Truth without Bible study, but the only way to verify it as God's Truth is through dilligent Bible study.

Naturally, we can all be Bereans and check things out, but I think there is a subtle difference between doing this, and looking for ways to scripturally support something that we want confirmed.

I agree, wanting to believe something we hear from others, or from some other source than The Holy Spirit, must also be verified in God's Word through dilligent Bible study. One of the Scriptures where God showed us how to do that is in Isaiah 28. In that chapter, He warned what would happen to those who refused to do it His Way that He showed there. And that way is line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little.

The problem I have with the gap theory is that it demands doing the very thing you have been doing - spending a great deal of time looking for clues, tying verses together, and toying with definitions. This does not necessarily mean that you are wrong, but it does raise the question:

Just because I refer to written Scripture in other Books of God's Word, you think that's just searching for clues to support the gap idea, instead of heeding other Bible witnesses about it? Every word is to be established by what? Do you remember that admonition from 2 Cor.13:1? By two or three witnesses.

I'm certain any sincere Bible student of God's Word would strongly disagree that to properly verify, we must do that by the immediate Scripture only. How do I mean that? According to what you're saying, when reading about the flood of Noah's days in the immediate Gen.6 through 9 chapters where first written, we would have to disregard everywhere else... that same topic is written of in other Books of God's Word. Doing that would certainly be denying much of God's Holy Writ. That kind of thing just ain't gonna' fly.

There's a difference between refusal to heed other Bible witnesses of a topic that occurs in other Books of His Word, vs. one who includes all relevant Bible Scripture about the topic. The former will be deceived much, while in the latter case they won't be.

If a previous creation ever existed that had significance to our faith, then why didn't God just clearly spit it out in Genesis so that there would be no confusion? I realize that there are hidden gems in the Bible, but I am pretty sure that the kind gems that are hidden are those that impart great wisdom, as a reward for someone who seeks Him through faith, rather than some kind of secret "knowledge" that just confuses things for Christians.

Once again, it would appear you think everything God gave to know about a Bible topic only appears in the immediate Scripture location where first mentioned, and not also in other Books of His Word also. God's creation is referred to in many other Books in His Word other than just Genesis. You've even posted Scripture outside of Genesis about it.

And you've still... not refuted what the Genesis Scripture states about the state of the earth at Gen.1:2 and involving the waters, all according to how it's written, including with other relevant Bible witnesses.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

It would appear you're trying to move the Gen.1:1 time to the time of God creating man and woman, which doesn't work, for His Holy Writ of Genesis is clear about that.

I'm not trying to "move" anything at all! I am just pointing out that the phrase "in the beginning" has a "general sense", which is what I have said all along, and that you also have admitted.

There is no "moving" involved, just as there is no "modifying" by our Lord Jesus.

"You mean Truths in God's Word revealed through previous Bible study"

Telling someone what they "mean" is a good sign that you are putting words into their mouths, don't you think? I don't "mean" anything other that what I say. You are assuming a "previous Bible study" based on someone elses "theory" as opposed to your "theory". I have not attended any Bible school, I don't read Christian literature and I don't read Bible commentaries. I read the Bible. That's it!

When I DO enounter a "theory" I do what I understand a Christian should do - check it out. It seems to me that checking the theory that you subscribe to seems to make you extremely defensive to the point of trying to distort words. That is never a good sign!

"Countless times I've studied a matter in God's Word as written, and had trouble reconciling it with what I already understood. Only throught continued Bible study with His help was I made sure of it,...."

Again, you present "continued Bible study" as though it was the universal formula for being right. The religious people of Jesus day spent their entire lives studying scripture and were totally astonished that Jesus could stand in the synagogues and teach "without having studied". What Jesus had, we have access to, through the Holy Spirit.

I don't diligently study scripture. I just trust that when Jesus told us that "The Councelor will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said" then he meant it. So far, the Councelor has not taught me about any gap theory.

There's a difference between refusal to heed other Bible witnesses of a topic that occurs in other Books of His Word, vs. one who includes all relevant Bible Scripture about the topic. The former will be deceived much, while in the latter case they won't be.

Sure, but just because you claim that certain other verses are "witnesses" of a topic does not mean that this is so. So far I find your references to be (in my opinion) vague, and weakly supported.

Once again, it would appear you think everything God gave to know about a Bible topic only appears in the immediate Scripture location

Once again?? Despite the fact that you completely side-stepped my point, you cannot possibly find anywhere in my posts that suggest that I believe that Bible topics only appear in one location. Not even ONCE, let alone "again"! You simply assume that since I disagree with you then my problem has to do with the locations of verses. No, as I pointed out, it has to do with the strength of the arguments you present.

But please! Istead of being evasive, address my point!

 

[veteran]

I'm not trying to "move" anything at all! I am just pointing out that the phrase "in the beginning" has a "general sense", which is what I have said all along, and that you also have admitted.

There is no "moving" involved, just as there is no "modifying" by our Lord Jesus.



Telling someone what they "mean" is a good sign that you are putting words into their mouths, don't you think? I don't "mean" anything other that what I say. You are assuming a "previous Bible study" based on someone elses "theory" as opposed to your "theory". I have not attended any Bible school, I don't read Christian literature and I don't read Bible commentaries. I read the Bible. That's it!

When I DO enounter a "theory" I do what I understand a Christian should do - check it out. It seems to me that checking the theory that you subscribe to seems to make you extremely defensive to the point of trying to distort words. That is never a good sign!



Again, you present "continued Bible study" as though it was the universal formula for being right. The religious people of Jesus day spent their entire lives studying scripture and were totally astonished that Jesus could stand in the synagogues and teach "without having studied". What Jesus had, we have access to, through the Holy Spirit.

I don't diligently study scripture. I just trust that when Jesus told us that "The Councelor will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said" then he meant it. So far, the Councelor has not taught me about any gap theory.



Sure, but just because you claim that certain other verses are "witnesses" of a topic does not mean that this is so. So far I find your references to be (in my opinion) vague, and weakly supported.



Once again?? Despite the fact that you completely side-stepped my point, you cannot possibly find anywhere in my posts that suggest that I believe that Bible topics only appear in one location. Not even ONCE, let alone "again"! You simply assume that since I disagree with you then my problem has to do with the locations of verses. No, as I pointed out, it has to do with the strength of the arguments you present.

But please! Istead of being evasive, address my point!

I'm not the one here evading the Scriptures that I've covered on this matter. Talking about what I covered with Scripture with the gap idea is still the main argument. I don't see you addressing that, but attempting to remain off that topic debate. The Scriptures that point to the gap idea in Gen.1 are very clear, nothing like the Scriptures you've tried to use in support against it, which you've actually used in a weak vague sense, like trying to dislodge the meaning of the phrase "in the beginning".

In Gen.1:2 the KJV phrase "without form" is the Hebrew word 'tohuw'.

In Isaiah 45:18 the KJV phrase "in vain" is the same Hebrew word 'tohuw'.

In Gen.1:2 God said the earth was 'tohuw'.

In Isaiah 45:18 God said He did NOT... create the earth 'tohuw'.

Nothing vague about those statements.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I'm not the one here evading the Scriptures that I've covered on this matter. Talking about what I covered with Scripture with the gap idea is still the main argument. I don't see you addressing that, but attempting to remain off that topic debate.

I don't think I have been off topic with anything I have written. But perhaps that is your latest tactic - pretending that someone who disagrees with you is off topic. But OK, let's "stay on topic" and look at the scriptures:

In Gen.1:2 the KJV phrase "without form" is the Hebrew word 'tohuw'.

In Isaiah 45:18 the KJV phrase "in vain" is the same Hebrew word 'tohuw'.

In Gen.1:2 God said the earth was 'tohuw'.

In Isaiah 45:18 God said He did NOT... create the earth 'tohuw'.

Nothing vague about those statements.

No, nothing vague at all about them. But what is vague is that from these four occurreces of 'tohuw' you somehow think that it indicates that, for some unfathomable reason, we have a creation in scripture that is not mentioned explicitly (that is, not vaguely) anywhere in the entire bible.

You don't even seem to have tested the possibility that the use of these words are compatible with a gap-less, one-creation scenario.

Let me illustrate. Let's say I'm God. Hello vet, I'm God. OK?

Now, lets suppose I want to create a pizza for my friends to eat.

First I create the pizza dough. It lies there formlessly on the table without anything on it.

Then I create the ingredients - the flour, the ham, the cheese, the tomatoes and all the other stuff.

Then, I say, "Let there be pizza" and there was pizza, and everyone gorged themselves.

Now, given these events it is obvious that:

1) I created the pizza void and without form, and

2) I did not create the pizza to be void and without form, but to be inhabited by all kinds of tasty stuff for my friends to enjoy.

God created the world in stages. He created it formless and void, but since he did not create for the purpose of being formless and void he decorated it with all kinds of fauna and flora, and finally mankind, so that they would "multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it."

These are the facts of the matter vet, and they are plain and obvious. There is no gap mentioned in the Bible - anywhere! There is no plural form of the word creation. They're not there, and if they should have be there, then they definititely would have been there.

 

[justaname]

OK now I am HUNGRY!! :wacko: