- This topic has 2,076 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Mike: We do it the same way today. You can say “back in the day of my grandmother”, in which case the singular “day” is not a literal day, but a general time period. But you could also say, “back in the days of my grandmother”, in which case it is still a general time period, but the plural “days” refers to a bunch of literal days throughout that general time period.
Carmel: According to Google fight, back in the days seems more popular: 1,800,000,000 against 584,000,000.
So there you have it. Both are acceptable, and both are used by millions of people today, just as both were used at various times in the Bible. Therefore there is no need to address your novel of scriptural examples which has no bearing on my point anyway.
Carmel: Mike, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT IN ACTUAL FACT GOD WAS EXHAUSTED AND RESTED?
The word means “ceased”. God ceased from the creative work He had been doing on the previous six days. It had nothing to do with God being “tired”.
Carmel: IN THE SIX-DAY CREATION, HOW LONG WERE GOD’S WORKING DAYS?
THE BIBLE DOESN’T MENTION IT.
WHY SHOULD WE INSIST THAT THEY ARE ONLY 24-HOUR DAYS?
Because God clearly EQUATES them with the SAME 24-hour days the Israelites were to work before resting on the seventh day.
And because the word “days”, which God created, specifically and explicitly refers to dark/light earth cycles – and nothing else.
The Hebrew language allowed for God to tell Moses that He created over the course of thousands – or even millions – of years. But the moment God told Moses that He created heaven, earth, and everything in them in six days, it automatically meant six literal dark/light earth cycles, because there is no other meaning for the plural word “days”. And the moment God explicitly equated those six days to six of the Israelites normal 24-hour days – each with a single morning and a single evening – it left no question about it whatsoever.
So tell me Carmel, where exactly in scripture do you get even the inkling of an idea that the six days of creation were NOT six days?
LU: Mike,
I just read this post of yours:
LU: The book of John claims that Jesus was _______…
Mike: A god who was with THE God in the beginning.LU: The book of Hebrews claims that Jesus was _______…
Mike: A god whose own God set him above his peers.Mike, in your understanding, is Jesus a god whose name you can invoke, a god whom you bow down to, a god whom you follow, a god whom you serve, a god who gives eternal life, a god who made all things in heaven and on earth, a god who now has all authority in heaven and on earth, a god whom you can pray to, a god who you must believe in in order to receive eternal life, a god who is the Lord of lords, a god who is the only begotten god, a god who reigns at the right hand of his father eternally?
What do you say, Mike?
Mike says it would have been nice for you to refute – or at least address – my answers instead of ignoring them. 😉
Kathi, aside from a quick comment or question here and there, I’ll just wait until you’re ready for the dedicated thread. Because aside from glossing over my answers above, you also ignore a BUNCH of my rebuttal posts and only pick and choose the ones you WANT to respond to.
For example, you recently claimed that “Yahweh the Son” was the God who talked to Moses face to face. I showed you scripture that proves your claim wrong… but no comment. (And that rebuttal also opened up another avenue of questions about why humans can see Jesus – even shining as bright as the sun in all his glory – but cannot see Yahweh.) And so it goes with so many great points I make against your doctrine. You pop in once a week and cherry pick only the ones you think you can answer – while ignoring the others.
So I’m happy to wait until you’re done with school, and then I can really put your camouflaged Trinity Doctrine to the test in the dedicated thread. 👍
Feel free to save your current question above for that time and that thread.
LU: Do you think that the designer of the home takes an active part of the creation of the home even though they might have never been to the job site?
I think what you’re describing would be called the creators (plural) of the home. Would you agree? If not, I have asked you who the actual creator of your home is. And if so, can you also agree that the Bible doesn’t ever mention the word creators (plural) concerning the creation of the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything in them?
Exodus 20:11… For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them…
Psalm 96:11… Let the heaven rejoice, let the earth be glad; let the sea resound, and all that is in it.
Acts 4:24… “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them…
Revelation 10:6… And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it…
Psalm 146:6… He is the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them…
Hey Carmel, Gene, Proclaimer, anyone…
Why is the sea listed as separate from the earth in so many scriptures?
LU: Amen! I’m glad that you realize that the NT has a high Christology, exalting Jesus to the level of One who was actively involved in the creation of the heavens and the earth. Not many here who claim Jesus to be the Messiah and who accept the NT as the truth can see that. HN would be a very different place if those who say they believe in the NT actually knew that it said what you understand it to say. It must be perplexing to you to see others not admit that the Jesus of the NT is considered a co-person and co-creator with God.
Adam didn’t say any of that, Kathi. Nor do the scriptures he posted say the many things you’ve claimed above. Well, except for the part where you accept that Jesus one of the many messiahs OF the God who created the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything in them.
A messiah/christ is someone who was anointed BY God. God cannot be one of His own anointed ones. But his holy servant Jesus can be, and is. 😉
Mike…….thanks., but I have responded to it, the answer is this, do you understand Gen 1v2 shows that the earth “came to be” , (to-hu and bo-hu ), the word (was), even in English! does not imply , it didn’t (exist ), before it was, or “came to be”, the way it is being described at the time of that description.
Can you at least admit that point.
Example, The car (was ) red , but before that it (was) green, and after that it (was) white.
The word (was) simply shows a “TIME”, in the past it existed that way. Common sense 101.
but it is not saying it always, “EXISTED” , that way, now is it?
Gen 1v1 …….In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, v 2 and the earth “WAS” , or, (came to “BE”) without form and void). The waters covered the earth, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters, and from that point the creation of this present creation started.
This fits the time line according to scripture perfectly and the present scientific data we now have also. By fossils found and carbon dating and many other scientific modern day findings .
I would very much like you to answer my presentation on the word (WAS) IS IT ACCURATE ?
Peace and love to you and yours Mike. …………gene
Hi Mike,
ME:1) DID YOU CREATE YOUR SON? AND HOW?
(2) DID YOU FORM YOUR SON? AND HOW?
(3) DID YOU MAKE YOUR SON? AND HOW?
(4) DID YOU ESTABLISH YOUR SON? AND HOWYou: (1) Yes, through the act of procreation.
MY QUESTION Mike, WAS CLEAR
DID YOU ……..
PROCREATION IS NOT
A ONE-MAN JOB!
You: (1) Yes, through the act of procreation.
THUS,
NO ! YOU, ALL BY YOURSELF DIDN’T CREATE YOUR SON, GOD DID IT ALL BY HIMSELF!
John1:3 All things were MADE BY HIM:
and without him was made nothing that was made.
(2) Yes, through the act of procreation.
ME: NO! YOU, ALL BY YOURSELF DIDN’T FORM YOUR SON, GOD DID IT ALL BY HIMSELF!
John1:3 All things were MADE BY HIM:
and without him was made nothing that was made.
(3) Yes, through the act of procreation.
ME: NO! YOU, ALL BY YOURSELF DIDN’T MAKE YOUR SON, GOD DID IT ALL BY HIMSELF!
John1:3 All things were MADE BY HIM:
and without him was made nothing that was made.
(4) Yes, through the act of procreation.
ME: NO! YOU ALL BY YOURSELF DIDN’T ESTABLISH YOUR SON, GOD DID IT ALL BY HIMSELF!
John1:3 All things were MADE BY HIM:
and without him was made nothing that was made.
Genesis 2:7And the Lord God FORMED man of the slime of the earth:
Mike, WHAT DID GOD DO IN THE ABOVE?
Synonyms for form
cast,
configuration,
conformation,
fashion,
figure,
geometry,
shapeMike the word CREATE is absent!
2Chr. 1:11 And God said to Solomon: …….., over which I have made thee king,
What did God do in the above?
Synonyms for make
Synonyms: Verb
fabricate,
fashion,
form,
frame,
manufacture,
produceMike the word CREATE IS ABSENT
Genesis 6:18 And I will establish my covenant with thee,……..
What will God do in the above?
Synonyms for establish
demonstrate,
prove,
show,
substantiateMike, the word CREATE is absent
You: Carmel, I gave you actual mainstream EVIDENCE that all four words are synonyms, right?
NO, THEY ARE NOT!
You: YOU, for personal reasons, want to PRETEND that each word refers to something different.
Me: DEFINITELY SURE OF!
You: These are not 5 different things God did to us, Carmel. They are 5 different ways to express the ONE thing He did to us
THAT’S YOUR CARNAL-MINDED REASONING!
GOD’S WAYS ARE NOT HUMAN WAYS!
Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.
Now read Mr. Mike what I said in my post back in page 89
Isaiah 45:18… 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.
You: Just look at all those words Yahweh used to emphasize
the same exact thing.
Me: I’ll make it clear for you:
WHEN THE SPERM MEET THE OVUM
A human being is MADE in the FORM of a fetus!
NOT CREATED AS SUCH FROM THE PHYSICAL SIDE POINT OF VIEW, SCIENTIFICALLY!
HUMANS DON’T CREATE AS SUCH!
FROM GOD’S POINT OF VIEW THOUGH, IN THE SAME INSTANT
this human being is CREATED spiritually in the soul, MADE physically in the flesh, FORMED in the fetus, and ESTABLISHED in the womb?
READING THE ABOVE Mr. Mike,
SPECIFICALLY SPEAKING,
THEY ARE PERFORMING THE SAME EXACT THING?
DEFINITELY NOT!
When God in Genesis FORMED MAN OF THE DUST,
IT IS THE SAME EXACT THING AS WHEN GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH EX NIHILO?
When God said to Solomon “I have made thee king,”
IT IS THE SAME EXACT THING AS WHEN GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH EX NIHILO?
When God “established His covenant with Abraham”
IT IS THE SAME EXACT THING AS WHEN GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH EX NIHILO?
IF IN THE ABOVE THEY ARE DEFINITELY A REFERENCE TO SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN RELATION TO GOD’S OWN TASKS, WHY ARE THEY NOT ALSO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN RELATION TO GOD’S OWN OTHER TASKS?
CONSIDERING ALSO Mr. Mike
THAT CONCERNING GOD’S OWN GENERAL WORK, WITH EVERY RESPECT,
YOU ARE STILL ON MILK!
AND YOU TREAT GOD’S TASKS IN THE SAME EXACT WAY
AS YOU TREAT HUMANS’ TASKS.
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Carmel: Genesis 1:11 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2And the earth was void and empty,
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth
when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. 5And no plant of the field was yet in the earth…Genesis 5:1 1This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. 2He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
WHICH AND IN WHAT WAY THE OTHER TWO INTRODUCTIONS ARE EXACTLY PARALLEL AND IDENTICAL TO GENESIS 1:1
You: They all begin with an introduction to the process which follows… in which we are given more details.
NO NOT QUITE RIGHT!
Answer Mike,
DO YOU MEAN THAT GENESIS 1:1 IS A SORT OF SUMMARY OF WHICH TO FOLLOW?
YES OR NO PLEASE:
Let’s see!
GENESIS 1:1 IS A CONCLUSIVE INTRODUCTION STATEMENT ON ITS OWN! Right?
The reader EXPECT NOTHING TO FOLLOW AS SUCH AFTER THIS SORT OF INTRODUCTION, NO MORE DETAILS, TO FOLLOW, IT IS A SUFFICIENT INFORMATION!
IF I ASK YOU A MERE QUESTION:
WHAT DID GOD DO IN THE BEGINNING YOU SIMPLY ANSWER THE EXACT SAME INTRODUCTION.NO?
Genesis 2:4 THESE are the generations of the heaven and of the earth….
THE ABOVE INTRODUCTION IS NOT CONCLUSIVE, LIKE GENESIS 1:1, AND THE READER IS BEING PREPARED AND ENCOURAGED TO CONTINUE READING WHAT IS TO FOLLOW IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE SOME SORT OF KNOWLEDGE IN RELATION TO THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH, PRECISELY MENTIONED IN THE INTRODUCTION. THE FACT THAT THE VITAL “AND ” IS THERE!
FROM THIS INTRODUCTION I CANNOT ASK YOU A MERE SIMPLE QUESTION!
Genesis 5:1 1THIS is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man,
THE ABOVE INTRODUCTION IS ALSO NOT CONCLUSIVE, LIKE GENESIS 1:1, IT IS ALSO AN ABSTRACT, A SORT OF SUMMARY OF WHAT IS TO FOLLOW, already unknown in the book!
THUS NO VITAL “AND” IS REQUIRED IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE INTRODUCTION IS ALSO PREPARING THE READER TO READ WHAT FOLLOWS.
ALSO FROM THIS INTRODUCTION, I CANNOT ASK YOU A MERE SIMPLE QUESTION!
NOW IF GENESIS WAS A SUMMARY, THE VITAL “AND” WOULD HAVE BEEN
ABSENT LIKE IN THIS CASE!
BUT SINCE THAT VITAL “AND” IS THERE
YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT GENESIS 1:1 IS A SORT OF SUMMARY IS
DEBUNKED!
I AM MORE THAN CONVINCED AND IT IS FINAL THAT
GENESIS 1:1 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GENESIS 1:3!
THE ACTUAL BEGINNING OF THE SIX-DAY CREATION Mr. Mike!
GENESIS 1:2 IS A MYSTERIOUS STATE OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH AFTER THE REBELLION!
IN TOTAL DARKNESS, BOTH SPIRITUAL AND PHYSICAL!
THE FACT THAT GOD INITIATED OUR PHYSICAL CREATION WITH THESE PRECISE WORDS:
And God said: Be light made. And light was made
WHICH ONLY MEANT
SPIRITUAL!
BY WHICH GOD INTRODUCED
“THE WORD” JESUS, AS A SPIRIT, THE FACT THAT
HE MOVED OVER THE WATERS IN GENESIS 1:2, MATTHEW 14:25
and by WHOM HE MADE THIS WORLD! DESPITE
SLAIN LIKE A LAMB FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD Rev.13:8
Hebrews 1:2In these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,
by whom also he made the world.
MIKE, ONE MORE THING:
FIND A SCRIPTURE THAT MAKE USE OF THE WORDS
BOHU VA TOHU AND IT IS NOT A REFERENCE TO
CONFUSION, CHAOS, WASTE, AND A NEGATIVE STATE OR REFERENCE!
TAKE OR LEAVE IT
IT’S YOUR PIGEON!
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Mike: Nobody is claiming that “was” means “always existed that way”, Gene. Let’s use your car example…
In 2002, Fred created a car. Now the car was formless and void. Then Fred welded the frame together on day one. Then Fred installed the engine on day two. Then Fred attached the body on day three. Then Fred painted the car red on day four. Etc, etc, etc…
Now Gene, be honest here… is there anything in the story above that would make you think the car had already existed and then been destroyed, and Fred was RECREATING it?
Is there anything in the story to suggest that the car was “always” red?
Gene, do you see the two bolded questions at the bottom? I’m awaiting direct and honest answers to those questions.
Gene: …the answer is this, do you understand Gen 1v2 shows that the earth “came to be” , (to-hu and bo-hu ), the word (was), even in English! does not imply , it didn’t (exist ), before it was, or “came to be”…
Gene, do you see how your response is NOT actually a direct and honest answer to either of my two questions? Please try again with actual answers.
Gene: The word (was) simply shows a “TIME”, in the past it existed that way. Common sense 101.
but it is not saying it always, “EXISTED” , that way, now is it?
Gene, please read the first words at the top of this post. It was my direct and honest answer to this same point the first time you made it. That answer is truthful, and it stands. Why would you re-ask a question that I already answered directly and honestly?
I know why. It’s because instead of addressing the heart of our disagreement, you decided it would be easier to create a STRAWMAN (something nobody even claimed) and then defeat your own strawman. And seeing that I addressed this strawman of your own making and veered us back to the heart of the disagreement, you ignored my answer so you could keep on using this strawman that you built. Is that it?
If not, please acknowledge that I’ve already told you that NOBODY here has EVER claimed that the word “was” means something ALWAYS existed. Acknowledge that I’ve now told you the same thing twice. And then promise to never again use that strawman that you yourself created. Thanks.
Okay, time to take it up a notch…
John 1:1… In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Gene, is there a time when the Word of God (as you understand it) did NOT exist, was NOT with God, and was NOT God?
Again, just DIRECTLY and HONESTLY answer the question, Gene – along with the other two bolded questions from before. No more diversions. No more strawmen of your own making. Just DIRECT and HONEST answers to straightforward questions, okay? Thanks.
Carmel: PROCREATION IS NOT A ONE-MAN JOB!
I posted a screenshot of an actual mainstream thesaurus page that lists all of them as synonyms just last week. Plus, Gen 2:4 that we are discussing lists both “created” and “made” in the same dang sentence concerning the heaven and earth, Carmel! Do you think Gen 2:4 is talking about two different heavens and earths – one that God “created” and the other one that He “made”? Just how far are you willing to take your nonsense?
Carmel: NOW IF GENESIS WAS A SUMMARY, THE VITAL “AND” WOULD HAVE BEEN ABSENT… BUT SINCE THAT VITAL “AND” IS THERE YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT GENESIS 1:1 IS A SORT OF SUMMARY IS DEBUNKED!
Interesting, considering that the introductory statements in both 1:1 and 2:4 are followed by the conjunction “and”… and even you agree that 2:4 is in fact an introductory statement. So it seems the inclusion or lack of “and” doesn’t make the “vital” difference that you thought it did, huh?
Carmel: I AM MORE THAN CONVINCED AND IT IS FINAL THAT GENESIS 1:1 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GENESIS 1:3! THE ACTUAL BEGINNING OF THE SIX-DAY CREATION Mr. Mike!
What you’re convinced of is irrelevant to what the scriptures actually teach, Carmel. And God Himself taught us that the very creation of both the heaven and the earth were INCLUDED in the six day creation. And your argument that one heaven/earth was “created” while the other was “made” has been shot down by Gen 2:4 (among other scriptures). So now what will you do?
Okay, time to take a different tack…
Carmel, does the plural word “days” ever refer to something other than literal 24-hour days in the Bible? Yes or no? And if yes, show the scripture(s).
Mike……First of all your “Fred” story is full of false asumptions, because if Fred created a “car” then it was not “void” , it was a car that means it had design and was not void at all, now if the car got into a wreck then it “BECAME” or (WAS ) “USELESS”, and after it was reparied it was or became a usable car again. The word (was) only denotes (TIME) something existed that way , it dosen’t mean it (always was that way) and that is a honest answer.
The only one not being honest here is you Mike, because the definition of the word (Was) is exactly what i said, Every dictionary backs it up. Gen 1:1, In the (begining) God created the heavens and the earth, 2, And the earth “was”, (came to be) to-hu and bo-hu.
Simple as that, and that is being honest and truthfull, just as i was about the earth being a round sphere which you or anyone being honest can see, FOR YOURSELF, through the cameras of the international space station 24/7, showing the earth we live on every second of every day, AS IT TRAVELS AROUND IT. 24/7. but you think that is being dishonest also right? So your oppinion as to what is honest or disingenious , is not worth much to me , it just your way of trying to devalue others and what they say, who plainly show you where you are wrong.
Peace and love to you and yours Mike……….gene
Gene: Mike……First of all your “Fred” story is full of false asumptions, because if Fred created a “car” then it was not “void” , it was a car that means it had design and was not void at all…
Everything that ever WAS created (past tense) began as not existing. If I say that Henry Ford created (past tense) his first automobile in 1896, I don’t mean his first car began its existence AS a completed car. First he had to design it, and build the individual parts, and then put them together, etc.
Gene: The word (was) only denotes (TIME) something existed that way , it dosen’t mean it (always was that way) and that is a honest answer.
Great. So now answer my question about John 1:1 then…
John 1:1… In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Gene, is there a time when the Word of God (as you understand it) CAME TO exist, CAME TO be with God, and BECAME God?
Please answer that question that I’m asking for the second time. Thanks.
Gene
If our earth and heavens had had a precedent, GOD WOULD HAVE MEAN IT IN A MUCH MORE OBVIOUS WAY, AS HE DID WITH NOAH; AND WE HAVE LOTS OF LESSONS TO DRAW FOR OUR LIFE. BUT HERE, IN GENESIS 1, WE HAVE NOTHING AT ALL, NOR IN THE REST OF THE BIBLE ELSEWHERE…
SO, WHAT IS THE USE OF TRYING TO MAKE A FIRE WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO BURN?GENESIS 1:1-5 IS THE FIRST PHASE OF THE CREATION OF THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH SIMPLY.
For Carmel, Gene, and Proclaimer…
This is a technical note about Gen 1:1 from the NET Bible scholars…
1 tn The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) at the beginning of v. 2 gives background information for the following narrative, explaining the state of things when “God said…” (v. 3).
Verse one is a title to the chapter, v. 2 provides information about the state of things when God spoke, and v. 3 begins the narrative per se with the typical narrative construction (vav [ו] consecutive followed by the prefixed verbal form).
(This literary structure is paralleled in the second portion of the book: Gen 2:4 provides the title or summary of what follows, 2:5-6 use disjunctive clause structures to give background information for the following narrative, and 2:7 begins the narrative with the vav consecutive attached to a prefixed verbal form.)
Now pay close attention here, guys, because it is talking about YOU…
Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth.
However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.
So while I’ve been arguing from common sense and the identical format in Gen 2:4 that Gen 1:1 is an INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT, I just came across this NET note today – and now we know from a TECHNICAL GRAMMATICAL standpoint that I was right.
But wait, there’s more… Why did I happen upon this technical note today? …
I think God is trying to help me here, because all of a sudden yesterday, it dawned on me that I’ve been arguing about the singular word “day” (which allows some wiggle room since we use it idiomatically to refer to a general time period) when I could just make my case undeniable using the plural word “days”!
Unlike the singular “day”, which can be used idiomatically (“in that day”, “back in the day of”, etc), there is no such idiomatic use of the plural word “days” – either in the Bible or in contemporary English.
So when Jesus says, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man”, although he is talking about a general time period when Noah dwelt on the earth, the plural word “days” undeniably refers to an unspecified number of literal days during that general time period.
In other words, any time people in the Bible (or people today) speak of “days” in the plural, they are ALWAYS literal days… no exceptions. And when a person in the Bible (or a person today) includes a particular NUMBER of days (plural), there is absolutely zero chance that the person is talking about anything other than literal days!
So now read this and weep all you Bible deniers…
Exodus 20:11… For in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.
There is no argument you can make anymore, because while the singular “day” can sometimes idiomatically refer to a general period of time, the plural word “days” has NEVER referred to “multiple general periods of time”.
But wait, there’s even more… Ask me why the words “earth” and “sea” are red in the verse above. …
It also dawned on me yesterday that the Bible often makes a clear distinction between “the earth” and “the sea”. So I started to wonder about that (or God lead me to it, I don’t know). And so I did a little searching today and realized that the word “earth” ALWAYS refers to dry land in the Bible – the place where humans actually live. I couldn’t find a single scripture where the word “earth” in the Bible referred to an entire planet or an entire pancake filled with both land and water. “Earth” in scripture is always the land portion of our world, and never refers to both the land and water portions as a whole.
Exodus 20:11… For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.
Psalm 96:11… Let the heaven rejoice, let the earth be glad; let the sea resound, and all that is in it.
Acts 4:24… “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them…
Revelation 10:6… And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it…
Psalm 146:6… He is the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them.
(And many more…)
So why is that important?
Gen 1:9-10… And God said, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.”
Do you guys see it yet? The “earth” is never “the entire world”. The very meaning of “earth” is the dry land portion of our world, and the “seas” make up the rest of it.
And that dry land portion, ie “earth itself”, wasn’t even created until day 3!
Here’s some more enlightenment from the NET scholars…
2 tn The creation of the earth as we know it is described in vv. 9-10. Prior to this the substance which became the earth (= dry land) lay dormant under the water.
3 tn Traditional translations have followed a more literal rendering of “waste and void.” The words describe a condition that is without form and empty. What we now know as “the earth” was actually an unfilled mass covered by water and darkness.
But wait, there’s still more… Why are “bohu” and “tohu” red in the verse above? …
So after all the epiphanies I was given yesterday, another one came this morning as I wondered what it meant for the earth (ie: the dry land portion of our world and ONLY the dry land portion) to be “bohu” and “tohu” (“formless” and “void”). And then I remembered reading something one of those words meaning “invisible”. So I went back through the Frank Nelte article that Carmel and Gene kept urging me to read, and found this…
What the Latin Vulgate text of Genesis 1:2 tells us is that the PRECISE meaning of “tohu” has REALLY BEEN LOST! And it had already been lost by Jerome’s time (around 400 A.D.).
Okay, so the precise meaning of the words are lost to us, as are the meanings of many Hebrew words and even the pronunciation of the name of God.
Wycliffe came closer to the intended meaning of the Hebrew expression. Instead of rendering this as “empty and empty”, Wycliffe rendered this as “useless and empty”… Wycliffe was on the correct track.
Okay, Nelte accepts “useless and empty” as a valid translation of the Hebrew phrase.
Before we look at various different translations of this verse, let’s note some meanings and synonyms.
IDLE (used by Wycliffe) meant: useless, waste, worthless, etc.
VOID means: empty
WITHOUT FORM: synonyms are unformed and formless
Unusable (ie: useless) and unformed would perfectly describe the state of the earth (ie: dry land) as it lay dormant as an unfilled mass under the waters, right?
Now to the shocker…
At this point we might also briefly consider the Greek LXX translation of “tohu and bohu” in Genesis 1:2. For “tohu and bohu” the LXX here reads “aoratos kai akataskeuastos”. Greek “aoratos” means “invisible”, “kai” means “and”, and “akataskeuastos” means “without preparation”. So the Greek LXX literally translates this expression as “INVISIBLE AND WITHOUT PREPARATION”.
Now we’re talking! “Invisible and Unprepared” is an even better description of the earth (ie: dry land) as it lay dormant under the waters – unable to be seen through the waters and not yet prepared for its coming role as the earth on which we currently live.
The point is that Scriptures like Colossians 1:15-16 and Romans 1:20 and 1 Timothy 1:17 make quite clear that “aoratos” really does mean INVISIBLE! And thus the LXX translation of Genesis 1:2 is not only poor, it is totally unacceptable! There is no way that the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:2 means “and the earth was invisible”! The author of this LXX text (i.e. Origen) was obviously clueless as to what “tohu” really means!
Wait a minute there, Mr. Nelte! Knowing now that the word “earth” refers ONLY to the dry land portion of our world, and not to our world as a whole, “invisible/unseeable” is not only possible, it’s the most PLAUSIBLE translation!
Nelte is reading the word “earth” and picturing an invisible rotating ball of both land and water. But that’s NOT what “earth” means in the Bible… EVER. So it is his erroneous understanding of what the word “earth” actually means that causes him to lose his mind over the thought of the earth (ie: dry land) being “unable to be seen” under all that water.
The bottom line is that the precise meaning of both “bohu” and “tohu” are lost to us today. On the other hand, Origen and the translators of the LXX lived during a time when both koine Greek and Hebrew were widely spoken and understood. So it’s clear that these people whom Nelte calls “clueless” would have a much better understanding of languages that they themselves used on a daily basis than we or Frank Nelte would, looking back from 2000 years later, right?
So it doesn’t really matter if you prefer “invisible and unprepared” or “unusable and unformed”. The point is that our entire world (heaven, earth, sea and everything in them) began as a blob of water in darkness.
1. Then God created light (and the 24-hour dark/light cycles He named “days”) on day 1.
2. Then God created heaven on day 2.
3. Then God created the earth itself – and the seas and vegetation – on day 3.
4. Then God created the sun, moon, and stars on day 4 – and placed them into the heaven that He created on day 2.
5. Then God created birds and fish on day 5.
6. And then God finally created land animals and man on day 6.
And we now know for a fact that this was done in 6 literal days, because the plural word “days” ALWAYS refers to literal days – without exception. And we now have no SCRIPTURAL reason to even entertain the silly notion that the heaven and earth whose creation is described in Gen 1:1-31 ISN’T the ORIGINAL heaven and earth, because we know that Gen 1:1 MUST BE an INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT based on common sense, the parallel introductory statement in Gen 2:4, the CLOSING STATEMENT in Gen 2:1, and the GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE itself that makes it impossible for 1:1 to be anything other than an opening statement.
I rest my Biblically supported case against Scientism… for now.
Rebuttals?
Hi Mike,
Me: (1) DID YOU CREATE YOUR SON? AND HOW?
(2) DID YOU FORM YOUR SON? AND HOW?
(3) DID YOU MAKE YOUR SON? AND HOW?
(4) DID YOU ESTABLISH YOUR SON? AND HOW(1) Yes, through You: the act of procreation
MY QUESTION Mike, WAS CLEAR
DID YOU …….. and HOW?
PROCREATION IS NOT
A ONE-MAN JOB!
YOU,
ALL BY YOURSELF DIDN’T CREATE, MAKE, FORM, and ESTABLISH YOUR SON!
So Mike, your answer is
Debunked
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Hi Mike
3. Then God created the earth itself – and the seas and vegetation – on day 3.
Me
👇
[9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
[10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
[11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
[12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[13] And the evening and the morning were the third day.…and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth;
Do you really believe that God is creating the dry(earth) AT THIS TIME?
I RATHER BELIEVE THAT THIS TAKES PLACE ON THE FIRST DAY AND THAT ON THE THIRD DAY “THE DRY” APPEARS (she was previously enveloped by the waters and therefore she was drawn from the waters, SHE APPEARS like after a baptism…😐)
👇
2Peter 3:5
5 They do not want to know that heavens once existed by the word of God, as well as an earth DRAWN FROM WATER and formed by water,God bless
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
