| Poster | Thread | jimp
Member
Joined: 2005/6/18
Posts: 1481
| | Re: | | hi, seems to me satan and his angels rebeled in pride. this is the theory that brought chaos. it is not my theory and i could care less. brother hovland calling someone a name does not prove anything for the irs calls him a tax evader. he may or may not be, the other person may or may not be a heretic. it is a non issue. prophesy to the bones and tell them to live... do not curse their dryness.jimp |
|  2007/3/28 3:12 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
[u]ChrisJD on 2007/3/28 2:07:01[/u]
"God does not create something that is without form and void"
How do we know this? How do we know what God would or would not create?
My own preference is still for the Gap Theory.
Here are some notes I did a while ago. The Gap Theory is not a theory I would die for but at my present understanding it is still the 'best fit hypothesis'. It also explains why some would say 'God did not create something that is "without form and void".
Hope you can make something of these scattered notes. The issue for me has to do with the Hebrew words 'tohu and bohu'. ie without form and void. The words are used elsewhere in the scripture and so we are not restricted to Gen 1:2 for our understanding of what the phrase might mean. These notes record the fact that Isaiah claims that God did NOT create the world 'tohu'. (Isaiah 45:18) If Isaiah is right how can Gen 1:2 refer to the original moment of creation?
Gen 01:01 Gen 01:02 Isaiah 34:11 Isaiah 45:18 Jer 04:23 1Pet 3:20-21 2Pet 3:06
So called because it suggests a "time gap" between the first two verses of the Bible.
Gen 1:1 is all that we are told of the "original" creation.
It is the first creative act of God recorded in scripture
"bara" (Hebrew) is used, in Genesis,
only of 3 specific acts of creation.
a) the creation of the heaven(s) and the earth Ge 1:1
b) the creation of animal life Ge 1:21
c) the creation of human life Ge 1:26,27
Strongs 01254
Ge 1:1,21,27,2:3-4,5:1-2,6:7
many bible teachers say it means "to create from nothing"
it is never used to describe the works of man
"asah" (Hebrew), also translated "made" is used often
throughout Genesis, and has a different meaning.
Strongs 06213
Ge 1:7,11-12,16,25-26,31,2:2-4,18,3:1,7,13-14,21,4:10,
Ge 5:1,6:6-7,14-16,22,7:4-5,8:6,21,9:6,24,11:4,6,
Ge 12:2,5,18,14:2,23,16:6,18:5-8,17,19,21,25,29-30,
Ge 19:3,8,19,22,20:5-6,9-10,13,21:1,8,22-23,26,
Ge 22:12,16,24:12,14,49,66,26:10,29-30,27:4,7,9,14,17,
Ge 27:19,31,37,45,28:15,29:22,25-26,28,30:30-31,
Ge 31:12,16,26,28-29,43,46,32:10,33:17,34:7,14,19,
Ge 34:31-35:1,3,37:3,38:10,39:3,9,11,19,22-23
Ge 40:14-15,20,41:25,28,32,34,47,55,42:18,20,25,28,
Ge 43:11,17,44:2,44:5,7,15,17,45:17,19,21,46:3,47:29-30,
Ge 48:20,50:10,12,20
it means to fashion, or produce, to prepare out of existing material e.g. to build a ship, or a house or to prepare a meal.
Ge 1:2 states that the earth "was" (it could be translated "became") without form and void.
"was" is occasionally used with a simple accusative in the sense of "to be made" or "to become". e.g. Lot's wife "became a pillar a salt". see especially Gen 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
also
* became Strongs 01961
Ge 2:7,10,19:26,20:12,21:20,24:67,47:20,26,49:15
"without_form" is "tohu" (Hebrew)
Strongs 08414
Ge 1:2 De 32:10 1Sa 12:21 Job 6:18,12:24,26:7 Ps 107:40
Isa 24:10,29:21,34:11,40:17,23,41:29,44:9,45:18-19,
Isa 49:4,59:4 Jer 4:23
Isaiah 34:11 refers to a ruined city
Gesenius defines it as "that which is wasted, laid waste"
"void" is "bohu" (Hebrew)
Strongs 0922
Ge 1:2 Isa 34:11 Jer 4:23
Bishop Wordsworth
the word "bohu" joined with "tohu" as here, confirms the opinion that the Earth is here represented as having been brought into a "ruined, desolate condition; see Jer 4:20-30,
which is one of the best comments on this text. There Jeremiah is describing a ruin; he says, "I beheld the earth, and lo it was without form and void (tohu va bohu). I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down...."
[b]The only places where tohu and bohu are used together are
Ge 1:2 Isa 34:11 Jer 4:23
the last two instances both refer to "ruins" caused by an outpouring of God's wrath.[/b]
Isa 45:18
says quite specifically that God did NOT create the earth "tohu".
If Ge 1:2 describes the condition of the created earth at its very beginning, then Isaiah contradicts Genesis. The most honest biblical exposition must be that some tragedy or judgment intervened between Ge 1:1 and Ge 1:2.
Our first "view" of the earth in Ge 1:2 is that it is baptised, totally immersed. Baptism is always a picture of judgment to death. Of another "baptism" Peter says "being overflowed with water (it) perished"
2Pe 3:6 1Pe 3:20-21
a further distinction may be observed in that Ge 1:1 speaks of the creation of "heaven and earth", but Ge 1:2 speaks only of a ruined earth. This accords with Psalm 19 where it is the heavens particularly which declare God's glory, rather than the whole of creation as we find it. The glory of God is in all creation, but it is the heavens particularly which "speak" it clearly. Ps 19:1-6
the "gap" between Ge 1:1 and Ge 1:2 gives room for any amount of time between these events.
In supporting the possibility of a gap between these verses I am not necessarily 'buying in' to the whole G H Pember/Scofied scenario.
The view was helf in various forms by Oswald Chambers, Graham Scroggie, Campbell Morgan and many others...
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2007/3/28 4:07 | Profile | ChrisJD
Member
Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA
| | Re: | | Hi Ron, thank you for sharing your notes here. I don't think I am knowledgable enough to make any comments about the words that are used. I used to make refrence to Strong's quite a bit, but since I don't have any sort of understanding of the Biblical languages I try to be carefull about how much I take, or suppose, from that.
I would like to look at Isaiah 45:18 and share also some impressions I have regarding this, if tht would be alright. I'll put the verse up to have it in view:
"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."
As I was meditating upon this I thought about how sometimes the language of the prophets is hyperbolic and intense.
About this passage in particular...
I have some impressions that I would like to share:
It appears to me that when he says [i]he created it not in vain[/i], that this is explained by what follows, that is, he says [i]he formed it to be inhabited[/i]. In other words that God did not make it, or perhaps in a more fuller sense, that He did not [b]leave[/b] it [i]a waste, or desolate, or without any distinct form[/i], but that He [b]...formed it to be inhabited[/b], that is, going on, that He made this world suitable for life(I'd like to come back to that briefly). And all of that was preceeded in saying [i] he hath established it[/i], which I think is all in view of Genesis chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 2.
Going back to the notion of the earth being made suitable for life, I think this is the same thing that is communicated in verse 12 where He says
"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."
I see here another connection that I think is worth drawing attention to, and that is this putting together of the creation of both the Heavens and the Earth, that these are taken up here, together, and my mind goes then to Genesis 2:1 where it says
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them"
So then it appears that they being taken together, consititute a whole thing, a complete work, and that they were finished, together. Now I can imagine that, that is these being put together as one thing and also their being completed, as one thing, I can imagine this in the span of six days. But it gives me difficulty to think of it over a much longer period of time.
Going back to Isaiah, another thing that stood out to me in looking at this, is that it appears as though the prophet's intention in calling thier mind to the creation was to confirm to Israel the Lord's intention of preserving them. I see this, in that before he says to them
"But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end."
And then, after this, we have our text, which seems to have the same force as if to say and to confirm to them that God has and will continue to establish them, that just as He had done with the Heavens and the Earth, He would do with them, that just as He did not form the Heavens and the Earth to be a waste, to be desolate, neither did He create Israel to be desolate, or to be a waste, or to come to nothing.
Well, those are some of my impressions from the text.
Chris
_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow
|
| | 2007/3/28 9:16 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
[u]ChrisJD on 2007/3/28 14:16:56[/u]
It appears to me that when he says he created it not in vain, that this is explained by what follows, that is, he says he formed it to be inhabited. In other words that God did not make it, or perhaps in a more fuller sense, that He did not leave it a waste, or desolate, or without any distinct form, but that He ...formed it to be inhabited, that is, going on, that He made this world suitable for life(I'd like to come back to that briefly). And all of that was preceeded in saying he hath established it, which I think is all in view of Genesis chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 2.
I think that is a valid interpretation. One of the key things in Hebrew poetry is parallelism where the second statement reaffirms the first but in different language. That would certainly fit your model.
When things can be interpreted in more than one way I like to keep an open mind.
I posted these comments elsewhere and I can't remember whether it was on SI, so this may be a repetition. Personally I am not trying to create space for evolutionary process or even geological ones, I'm just trying to do justice to the text.
Hebrew and Greek have another option other than singular and plural!! They have dual. The dual is never used in the NT but it frequently used in the OT. The effect of this would enable us to translate the first verse as In the beginning God created the two heavens and the earth. The Bible uses a three stage model of the heavens; in the first
the sparrows, in the second
the stars, in the third
the saints.
In may also be significant that there is no mention of the heavens in verse 2. That verse concentrates its focus on the ruined earth (Gap theory jargon). It is also significant perhaps to repeat that the Hebrew verb form here is exactly the same as found in And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7 KJVS) This would seem to indicate a definite time event. Before this man was not a living soul but afterwards he was. This construction justifies a translation of Gen 1:2 as and the earth became without form and void.
If this is a true interpretation it still leaves us with your question. It would seem to me that if Gen 1:1 is part of Day 1 then we really have a problem with Gen 1:16 which relates to the making of the stars. The second heaven of Gen 1:1 includes the stars. This makes a second making of the stars in Gen 1:16 very confusing.
Another relevant theme is the thrifty use of bara meaning to create. Gen. 1:1 (KJVS) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen. 1:21 (KJVS) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen. 1:27 (KJVS) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. It is often claimed that bara signifies to create out of nothing. You can follow up the other uses of the word and see if you think that holds up; Gen 1:1,21,27; 2:3-4; 5:1-2; 6:7; Ex 34:10; Num 16:30; Deut 4:32; Josh 17:15,18; 1Sam 2:29; Psa 51:10; 89:12,47; 102:18; 104:30; 148:5; Eccl 12:1; Is 4:5; 40:26,28; 41:20; 42:5; 43:1,7,15; 45:7-8,12,18; 48:7; 54:16; 57:19; 65:17-18; Jer 31:22; Ezek 21:19,30; 23:47; 28:13,15; Amos 4:13; Mal 2:10.
The other word, translated made in the KJV is asah which it is claimed is often used in the sense of making one thing out of another. This is also used in Gen 1Gen. 1:7 (KJVS) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen. 1:16 (KJVS) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen. 1:25 (KJVS) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen. 1:31 (KJVS) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Again tracing the use of the word asah in the OT can be illuminating, although a bit time consuming! It is used as a very general word and found over 1300 times in the OT. It may be significant that this is the word used when we are told that God made rather than created the sun, moon and stars; Gen 1:16
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2007/3/28 10:06 | Profile | john1140
Member
Joined: 2007/2/15
Posts: 34
A Sister in Christ from Michigan
| | Re: | | Brothers and Sisters,
Thank you for so many great responses! You have given me a lot to consider. When I was watching the Believer's Voice of Victory, a woman named Billye Brim was quite adamant that Satan had a kingdom and because of the five "i will" statements in Isa. 14, he was thrown down from heaven. Was his kingdom a legitimate one in heaven or was it (as one definition states) anything conceived (emphasis on conceived) as constituting a realm or sphere of independent action or control.
I have studied the transition between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, and if I remember correctly, the earth became (hayeth?) without form and void. Thus, it does appear that something happened between the time God created the heavens and earth and its latter condition. However, does that mean there was a group of actual people created in God's image before Adam and Eve or is it more plausible that satan's eviction is what caused the earth to become desolate?
Sonya
_________________
Sonya
|
| | 2007/3/28 10:55 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
john1140 on 2007/3/28 15:55:47
However, does that mean there was a group of actual people created in God's image before Adam and Eve or is it more plausible that satan's eviction is what caused the earth to become desolate?
to answer this would make us "wiser than what is written".
It is interesting that in both Isaiah and Ezekiel it is because of what happened 'in his heart' than he was judged.For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: (Is 14:13 KJVS)
Ezek 28:2,5-6,17However the Lord did not contest Satan's claimAnd the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.(Luke 4:5-6 KJVS)
There is a sense in which when we deny God access to his kingdom we are effectively setting up a kingdom against him.
The scripture also refers to 'the devil and his angels' which implies some kind of authority structure. Matt 25:41; Rev 12:9
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2007/3/28 12:21 | Profile | i12go4god
Member
Joined: 2003/6/30
Posts: 1
Appleton, Wisconsin
| | Re: Pre Adamic Civilization | | Here is what the NET Bible translators had to say about the transition from verse 1 to verse 2 of Genesis chapter 1:
"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.) 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."
And now I know why I was too intimidated to take Hebrew. :-)
_________________
Trail
|
| | 2007/3/28 14:23 | Profile | psalm1
Member
Joined: 2007/1/30
Posts: 1230
| | Re: | | pre adamic civilization[people] would have been imposible due to the fact that sin would preceed adam. This could never have happened.It would nullify the Word.......David |
| | 2007/3/28 15:01 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
i12go4god on 2007/3/28 19:23:01
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
I am not arguing for a pre-adamic culture but doesn't the NET support the Gap Theory somewhat.
ie
Verse one is a title to the chapter
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1 NKJV)
verse 2.
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters (Gen 1:2 NKJV)
verse 3
Then God said, Let there be light; and there was light. (Gen 1:3 NKJV)
In this scenario the 'two heavens and the earth' were already in being when God began his creative speaking in verse 3??
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2007/3/28 15:14 | Profile | HomeFree89
Member
Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana
| | Re: | | Quote:
psalm1 wrote:
pre adamic civilization[people] would have been imposible due to the fact that sin would preceed adam. This could never have happened.It would nullify the Word.......David
Right!
Here's a quote from Henry Morris:
" If the world existed prior to the pre-Adamic cataclysm, then it existed before the sin of Satan which brought on the cataclysm. that is, suffering and death existed for a billion years before the sin of Satan and the subsequent sin of Adam.
The Bible says, however, that death came into the world only when Adam brought sin into the world ( Romans 5:12, 1 Cor. 15:21).
This fact directly contradicts the assumption in the gap theory that death prevailed for ages before Adam. Furthermore, this primeval prevalence of suffering and death even before Satan's rebellion leaves only God Himself as responsible for such a state. But the very idea that the God of order and love would directly create and use a universal system based on randomness and cruelty seems almost blasphemous. These, however, are the implications of the gap theory."
Jordan
_________________
Jordan
|
| | 2007/3/28 16:52 | Profile |
|
