Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3
The grass and trees were created on day 3 and the sun on day 4. Ever kept a plant out of the sun for one day? It will live. And no the days werent long periods of time. The verses are very clear with the inclusion of evening and morning were the (insert number) day. 2nd Peter 3:5 is talking about the flood in Noahs day. The next verse says “by which the world that then existed perished being flooded with water.” The Bible gives the account of the world flooded with water in Genesis.

Genesis 1:1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The sun is in the heaven(s) so what is declared is the beginning without telling us the when. 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 no *IN VAIN*, He formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Now in Genesis 1:2 we are told something happened to this earth to cause the earth to become *without form, and void* which is the very same Hebrew word as Isaiah uses. This is what Peter is describing when he said the world (age) that WAS and he also says the heavens were of OLD.

Peter already describes Noah's flood in the previous chapter (IIPeter 2:4-5, note 5 says And spared not the *OLD* (ancient) world,..." is speaking about the reason for Noah's flood, and in that flood not all perished. That word perished distinguishes the *AGE* being described.

Noah's flood was for a specific purpose as stated in Genesis 6:2 That the *sons of God* saw the daughters of men (Adam) that they were fair: and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made *man on the earth*, and it grieved Him at His heart. Genesis 6:9 These are the Generations of NOAH: Noah was a just, man and *perfect* in his generations, and Noah walked with God. Meaning Noah and his family did not partake with what is described in verse 2 of Genesis 6. So the flood would have been about where these that Genesis 6:2 described and would have covered their whole known earth.

45 posted on 07/04/2007 10:16:17 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: Just mythoughts
Genesis 1:1 is not an act of creation. It is simply a prelude stating who, what, and when...not in that order of course...and isn't intended as being part of the chronology of creation.

It is an introduction, a literary device if you will, and nothing more.

Verse two, a continuation of the prelude or introduction, acknowledges the intent in verse one, and states their (the earth and the heavens) relative status, which at that point, is pretty much non existent.

Finally, here is Strongs definition for the so called mistranslation, controversy, of the word "was/became," in verse two:

1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):— beacon, X altogether, be(- come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

As you can see, although the word could be translated as "became," it doesn't imply a necessary transition, as from one state to another, or a pre history of sorts. The King James Version, which translated the word as "was," is in perfect alignment with the definitions available, and again, such a definition does not necessarily imply a transition.

Now, here's the rub. Even if you did translate it as "became," with the implication of a transition...the first instantiation which preceded this transition would be entirely irrelevant and meaningless from our perspective since the transition would have obliterated any evidence at all of the first instantiation, per the terms, without form or substance (void)

The argument, that this one single word, "became," is indicative of a pre history, evidenced by the fossil record so to speak, is an argument that is not very well thought out at all, since all that evidence *must* originate from the second instantiation.

And with that, you're back where you started, without accomplishing anything...

46 posted on 07/05/2007 12:29:40 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson