Posted on 05/10/2009 8:21:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Here is a big problem for your theory:
If it were as you say, it would not have been dark. After the expansion of creation, the universe became a place of much light. All of the major bodies emitted bright light.
This is the point that The Lord was saying “Let there be light.”
You seem to be getting a little frustrated, Ed.
Biblical teachings are mutating, even maybe evolving, right before your eyes!
That's gotta be a downer.
I seem to recall that Stephen Hawking was saying much the same thing. Maybe he was on the right track.
I ADDED NOTHING. What is it that Peter says people are WILLINGLY ignorant over and about, not once but two times?
1. First point of willing ignorance.
v5 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:
(NOT describing Noah's flood... and Genesis 1:2 says And the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the DEEP (DEEP WHAT?) And the Spirit of GOD moved upon the face of the WATERS, that is what was DEEP the water and it is NOT Noah's flood.)
v6 Whereby the world that then WAS, being overflowed with water, perished:
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.
Second point of ignorance.
v8 BUT, beloved, be NOT ignorant of this one thing,
that ONE day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
I added NOTHING.
Wrong! it was exactly describing the flood.
Whatever you smoke, give it up!
There was a flood in Genesis 1:2, before Noah. Peter knew about that flood and if you read the previous chapter Peter speaks to and about Noah's flood. NOT even the Peter followers pay much attention to what Peter actually penned that he was given to tell us about time. But hey nothing new under the sun as Solomon says.
“Here is a big problem for your theory:
“If it were as you say, it would not have been dark. “
Light was not created until verse 3. I don’t see it as
a problem.
But as I wrote, it doesn’t matter to me in the least.
I know WHO made everything from nothing. My faith in
Him and His work does not require more than He has
revealed - that He did it and did it in an orderly fashion.
I don’t want to try to make is say more than it says, or
less than it says.
best to you,
ampu
Peter was definately speaking of “Noah’s Flood,” the Genesis judgment. judgment was the topic of his sermon; the coming judgment, at the end of “The Day of the Lord.” What he was trying to get across was that that “day” would be 1000 years long, so that the firey end that he was prophesying was at least 1000 years off.
He was not in any way discussing the creation. Apples and oranges.
The problem is that by the time that the universe was expanded enough to have stars and planets, nothing was dark. It was all very bright lights. The "Deep" referred to in Genesis was the entire universe, which began as a sphere of water. that is the water that is hanging some people up. Its not a planetary ocean; its two light years in diameter, and being expanded (the word for it in the masoretic text is Raqia, which was also used later on to describe the hammering out of a lump of metal into a shield for war). If the creation of the universe had been in the past, the word raqia would not have made any sense.
I do not know who tells you how to read the subject and object of the information given. There was a flood described in Genesis 1:2 and Genesis means in the beginning... NOW there has to be a beginning for there to be an END, specifically meaning looking forward to judgment day. How is it conceivable to wall out and off the end from having a beginning?
Peter specifically says the world (age) that 'WAS' and that some are willingly ignorant to this instruction. AND that world (age) was flooded, just as Genesis 1:2 says this earth was in the DEEP. That is NOT Noah's flood, as Noah had not yet been born. I cannot give you what you clearly refuse to read with understanding.
Oh by the way in Noah's flood not everything perished, which is another point in the particular words elected signals to the reader this is NOT Noah's flood Peter is describing... As noted in the previous chapter when Peter does address Noah's flood.
Now even Paul speaks about time before the foundation of the world (this flesh age) when the 'elect' were chosen. So it is not as if what Peter is instructed to pen is a new thing. You think for one instant the Heavenly Father did not foreknow what His children would be told to think and believe.
You are free to pick and split and collect out what you desire to fit what you choose to believe. BUT nothing you have said changes the fact that there was a flood before Noah as described in Genesis 1:2. That is unless you are going to claim that Moses was mixed up and noted the flood to come. Just as some in religious circles claim that Genesis 2 is just another recounting of Genesis 1 in that all humanity born today came from just two human beings known as Adam and Eve.
No, there was not anything of the kind!
What is happening in Genesis 1:2 is the expansion of the universe (raqia). Get away from the limitations of the English translations, and back to the original Hebrew language and the argument is gone. Raqia is expand, forge, increase. That's the universe growing.
The world that was was the age of Adam, which was destroyed by a cataclysmic destruction of the entire surfacxe of the Earth. The nearly flat geography changed to mountains and deep oceans. That is what Peter was talking about.
“upper leadership of the Reformed denominations definately does not share their views”
Oh yes, when in comes to the old established Prebys in the US. This particuliar group is from some of the old groups. Personally, I don’t think their works are even worthy of review.....IMO.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but your interpretation above makes the theory of renovation much harder to support, because if Genesis 1:2 is only about the earth, then you can't account for a transition of the heavens.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
If Genesis 1:2 describes a transitional event for the earth, then where is the indication for a transitional event for the heavens, which you must account for in order to make sense of the second creation, or renovation, in the chronology that follows. You'd be left to simply say that God just didn't include it...and that just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever.
Genesis 1:2 AND the earth became (was) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
There may be more than I understand these words to say, mean and point to. But right at this point in time this tells me that there was a 'rebellion' and the point of focus was this earth. The range or extent the rest of the universe was affected I do not know because all that is specifically spoken to or about is the earth.
And to me the phrase 'transition of the heavens' would depend if one is in a flesh body or if one was in the spirit body. There would be a distinction in the dimension of what limitations a flesh body could see or comprehend.
If Genesis 1:2 describes a transitional event for the earth, then where is the indication for a transitional event for the heavens, which you must account for in order to make sense of the second creation, or renovation, in the chronology that follows. You'd be left to simply say that God just didn't include it...and that just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever
The word 'transitional' IMHO does not capture the event that Moses says took place after the declaration of in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (I will also add that others and including Moses in the book of Job give the reader other dimensions of things one cannot literally see with the naked human eye.
What comes to my mind, in particular regard to the purpose of what was said without elaboration is what Christ said when asked why he spoke to the masses in parables. Matthew 13:10-18 Christ quotes Isaiah 6:9.
The dinos existed, and I have no doubt they preexisted the day of the Garden party. Something quite catastrophic wiped them out and preserved their remains for later discovery. Their discovery has garnered three ideas, or even theories. Evolution, creationism 6,000 years ago, or creation and then destruction eons ago.
There may be more than I understand these words to say, mean and point to. But right at this point in time this tells me that there was a 'rebellion' and the point of focus was this earth. The range or extent the rest of the universe was affected I do not know because all that is specifically spoken to or about is the earth.
Well, first of all, if there was a rebellion that tied into this verse, you'll have to find it elsewhere because there is absolutely no indication of such an event in the text of this verse, or anywhere else in Genesis chapter 1.
Second, we do know the extent of the affected universe since God pretty much creates everything again in the chronology that follows. The destruction, according to your theory, must have been profound, yet, there's absolutely no mention of any event in 1:2 that would reconcile 1:1 with the renovation that starts on 1:3. I think that's very troublesome for your argument, to say the least.
And to me the phrase 'transition of the heavens' would depend if one is in a flesh body or if one was in the spirit body. There would be a distinction in the dimension of what limitations a flesh body could see or comprehend.
Genesis chapter 1 does not deal with the human condition at all. That's pretty much consensus, and common sense to anyone who reads it so I think you're really stretching here to support the unsupportable.
I don't know how to explain the fossil record, so I'm not even going to try, but given a choice between the word of God and the word of man, I'll take God's word every time. It would certainly make things easier if one of these alternate theories of Genesis were true, but I haven't found one that makes sense when plugged into context.
Further, this creation/destruction/renovation would likely leave no evidence of this previous age, let fossils that can be picked up right off the ground.
Me - “Light was not created until verse 3. I don’t see it as a problem.”
You - “The problem is that by the time that the universe was expanded enough to have stars and planets, nothing was dark.
I find that to be a rather large assumption of how God
created things. stars, planets, etc. didn’t exist until
HE spoke them in HIS time.
“It was all very bright lights.
Doesn’t say it in the text. I can only assume you believe
this from another source.
“The “Deep” referred to in Genesis was the entire universe, which began as a sphere of water.
Doesn’t say it in the text. In fact, it uses the Hebrew word that is translated as follows (according to Strongs):
“AV translates as “deep” 20 times, “depth” 15 times, and “deep places” once. 1 deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea. 1a deep (of subterranean waters). 1b deep, sea, abysses (of sea). 1c primeval ocean, deep. 1d deep, depth (of river). 1e abyss, Sheol.”
“that is the water that is hanging some people up. Its not a planetary ocean; its two light years in diameter, and being expanded
You may believe this and it is your right, but I don’t
find this assumption convincing. Again, the whole “two
light years” statement is not in the text. Nor is the “expanded”
part of your argument. You are grafting things into the text
(it seems) that are not there.
“(the word for it in the masoretic text is Raqia, which was also used later on to describe the hammering out of a lump of metal into a shield for war). If the creation of the universe had been in the past, the word raqia would not have made any sense.
I think it makes sense.
Yet, in the end, as I’ve said twice on this thread before,
my faith doesn’t require me to believe any more than God
wrote in Genesis or any less. Simply, He made everything from
nothing. How long it took from first act until completion
doesn’t affect my faith either way.
I wish you the best,
ampu
Yes, I say that you add much nonsense to his word.
The Bible speaks to the waters below and above the firmament, so I add nothing. It speaks to the Holy Spirit expanding the waters, which was the very act of creation, but you wish to reject that and replace it with George Lucas style pagan Star Wars fantasy, that is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Reality is apparently just too boring, and limiting for people like you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.