RickD wrote:I'd have to say it means her heart is contaminated.Kurieuo wrote:Gosh, I don't know what that means really, to have a heart of flint, but it made me laugh.Audie wrote:Whether my heart is really flint would need a geologist to say.
It's a reference to the contaminated water in Flint, Michigan.
The thing is, "the Earth" isn't really individually mentioned in Gen 1:1.abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes I mean perfectly completed.Kurieuo wrote:You're kind of loading in "Gap" ideas with your thinking here.abelcainsbrother wrote:What would make you think God would created the earth in an empty and waste state like Genesis 1:2 says? This is one reason why I never liked the other translations that teach God did this. God did not create junk in the beginning and then decorate it in the six days?
God didn't create earth in an empty and waste state, rather earth passed through a "formless" state after which it was "empty" or "void".
Perfectly "brand new" or do you actually mean perfectly "completed"?abelcainsbrother wrote:No when God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning he spoke and they appeared perfectly brand new.
What for you is wrapped up in "the heavens and the earth" (ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets).
Where do you agree/disagree with what I wrote about such?
Scripture doesn't say how long earth was empty and void for, does it? It merely passed through such a state.abelcainsbrother wrote:How long was it when the earth passed through a formless state after which it was empty or void?
Isaiah 45:18 in various translations:ACB wrote:The heavens and the earth represents the entire universe and everything in it after God spoke and it was perfect and inhabited also from the beginning based on Isaiah 45:18.
Starting with Genesis 1:1 and working our way forward provides important structure to the discussion, rather then just skipping here and there and everywhere which is disorganised and hard to follow. Feel free to bring any Scripture to bare on your particular interpretation with any verse we're discussing in Genesis 1.ACB wrote:I don't like this idea we must read Genesis as if it as we have not read the rest of the bible because when you say I'm loading the Gap idea into it,it is based on what the bible says in other places that allows me to load Gap thinking into it. It is not just made up,it has always been based on other scriptures throughout the bible why we load a gap into it. This is what so many who reject it don't understand.They assume we made it fir first and then tried to find other scripture to support it,etc.But it is based on what the rest of the bible reveals to us throughout both the old and new testaments.
Not at all rude, and I wrote a lot so... as long as you're reading what I've said, so I hopefully won't have to repeat things over and over, you can address any points I've made as they arise in your own writing.ACB wrote:I probably seemed alittle rude maybe because I did'nt address all of your points but it was'nt meant in a bad way or anything but I was trying to address your overall point from your above post because some of it seemed like your opinion,so I tried to address the biblical points you were explaining. I will try to go back over it and reply to each of your points.
Yes we can say exactly how long it was because the text tells us exactly how long it was.abelcainsbrother wrote:Now when you say Genesis 1:2 is a continuation of Genesis 1:1 and that it was'nt long after Genesis 1:1 I don't see how you can say that.We can't know how long it was.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
I do know very well the difficulties with the Hebrew it can be to show there is a gap as it relates to the first few verses,I have read what Arthur Custance says about the Hebrew and he was honest about it,however just by knowing the difference between the Hebrew words "bara" and "asah" we can tell alot more than you realize and we can atleast tell something happened in verse 2 in order for the earth to be without form and void.We can for instance know that certian life had already existed before when it comes to the life God MADE however we can know the things God CREATED were new kinds of life. So we can tell by these words something happened. Also you claim that the Hebrew won't allow for it,but before about the 1970's most bible theologians were gap theorists,it was not young earth creationism,it was Gap Theory that was the dominant view with some Day Agers as well,but they were pretty much all OLD earth creationists. So how could all of these bible theologians be wrong? You would be in a minority view if you were living before the 1970's.I realize things have changed today but it was different back then.Even ancient jewish Rabbi's believed in and taught there was a Gap,yet you claim today the Hebrew won't allow for it? Why were Jewish Rabbi's teaching it then long before the age of the earth was such a hot topic? They certianly believed the Hebrew allowed for it. So does this just come down to wo we choose to believe? The modern theologians or the old ones? Somebody is right and somebody is wrong,they both cannot be right. You might want to follow along in my other Gap Theory thread where I'm refuting an article written by young earth creationists because I'm going to show that they are wrong when they claim "bara" and "asah" are interchangeable,and if there are Hebrew scholars today teaching this? There credibility is already in jeopardy. Now I can agree with you that I do need to learn how to make a better case for the Gap as far as the Hebrew and the first few verses of Genesis 1.I do need to understand the pro's and cons in more detail to be able to make a better case.I agree with you there.Jac3510 wrote:Yes we can say exactly how long it was because the text tells us exactly how long it was.abelcainsbrother wrote:Now when you say Genesis 1:2 is a continuation of Genesis 1:1 and that it was'nt long after Genesis 1:1 I don't see how you can say that.We can't know how long it was.
There was no interval of time between 1:1 and 1:2.
The grammatical structure is absolutely clear. 1:2 is just three circumstantial clauses. Here is something you can read on circumstanial clauses. In short, though, circumstantial clauses tell you the circumstancs or manner under which the main clause occurs. Gen 1:1 is the main clause, and we are told it happened under three circumstances:
This, ACB, is just grammar. It's not interpretation. To say that there is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 is as stupid as to say that Jesus was "a god" because the you "can" translate John 1:1c, "And the word was a god." The only people who would make such a claim are those with absolutely no grasp of Greek. And likewise, the only people who would make the claim that there is any length of time whatsoever between 1:1 and 1:2 are those with absolutely no grasp of Hebrew. Now you can make a case for a gap between 1:2 and 1:3, but between 1:1 and 1:2 . . . no. You can't have a gap anymore than you can in between these silly English sentences:
- In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth (<~~~~~~ Main clause)
(1) the earth was formless and void; (<~~~~~~ Circumstance #1)
(2) darkness was over the surface of the deep (<~~~~~~ Circumstance #1)
(3) the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (<~~~~~~ Circumstance #1)
I really want you to study those examples, ACB. It's not a matter of interpretation to say there is no "gap" between the (a) and the (b) clauses. in each case, one of the clauses explains what it was like when the main clause happened. No gap is possible by nature of the sentences. And so it is with 1:1 and 1:2. Grammatically speaking, there can be no gap between Genesis 1:1 an 1:2. To say there is a gap is to accuse Moses of not knowing Hebrew grammar. So, again, we know exactly how long it was between 1:1 and 1:2 and the answer is this--no time at all.
- 1) (a) While I was typing this, (b) I got a headache. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
2) (a) I fell off my bike (b) because the ground was so uneven. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
3) (a) I voted today. (b) It was cold, rainy, and perfectly expressed my feelings about the candidates. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
Okay. Carry on.
edit:
And btw, serious gappers don't contest that Gen 1:2 is made up of three circumstantial clauses. They argue that the clauses are not to be connected to 1:1 but rather 1:3, such that they give us the circumstances under which God said "let there be light" and not how He first made creation. Let pass the numerous problems with that view just in terms of the logic of the narrative. There are grammatical problems with that as well. For a brief discussion of that issue, read this. In short, the Hebrew grammar closes off all attempts at finding a gap between 1:1 and 1:2, a problem so severe that even the esteemed Merrill Unger (a gap theorist) had to argue that the Gap happened BEFORE Gen 1:1! (See his article, "Rethinking the Genesis Account of Creation" (BSAC 115:457 (Jan 1958)).
Really, dude. If you're going to pretend like you're an expert on the gap theory, you should know all of this already.
Such dishonest rubbish. It cannot be shown that there is a gap as it relates to the first few verses. On the contrary, it has been shown that there is no gap as it relates the first few verses.abelcainsbrother wrote:I do know very well the difficulties with the Hebrew it can be to show there is a gap as it relates to the first few verses,
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
Jac,buddy. Have you seen this? It is art work?From the Sarajevo Haggada which is jewish art work This was in the 14th century long before the age of the earth was known and before it was such a hot topic. These were Jewish people who understood the Hebrew in the 14th century. Look at this art work depicting creation. Look at the pictures from left to right. The very first picture depicts chaos,then the first day God divides the light,second day God seperates earth and water,third day vegetation,fourth day sun,moon and stars,fifth day fishes and birds,sixth day animals and man,seventh day rest. So that these Jews who knew Hebrew and saw there was chaos before the first day which is in verse 3 of Genesis 1. Who would you believe?Jac3510 wrote:Such dishonest rubbish. It cannot be shown that there is a gap as it relates to the first few verses. On the contrary, it has been shown that there is no gap as it relates the first few verses.abelcainsbrother wrote:I do know very well the difficulties with the Hebrew it can be to show there is a gap as it relates to the first few verses,
But hey, whatevs. I've done my one every six month post on the demonstrable idiocy that is the gap conspiracy (it's not even a theory). You won't take correction on a factual matter, and the Bible is clear enough on what to say to and about such people.
So I'll see you again in six months you're still busy repeating the same foolishness.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
Jac3510 wrote:Abel . . .
hey, as I said, whatevs
Thought that was my saying.
. You're dishonest with the evidence anyway. You're completely intransigent, unable to be reasoned with.
Unfortunate but true.
Sure doesnt accept any science either.You won't accept correction from ancient authorities or modern.
Not just himself. As i tried to tell him, he is the worst sort of ambassador for the church.Keep making a fool out of yourself
Good suggestion for the rest of us to follow.. As I said, I'll probably stop in again in about six months and point out the idiocy of your pet conspiracy theory again, and in the meantime, I'll ignore you as I normally do for the simple reason that you ignore evidence. No reason to waste my time beyond what I've already wasted.
And this is what bothers me so much and why I do register objections every few months. I don't want to be complicit in his absurdity. There are enough very genuine problems that Christians have to deal with without inventing even stupider ones to deal with. I mean, hello, we claim that Jesus came back to life after three days and then ascended bodily into heaven, and that after being savagely beaten and tortured to death by Roman soldiers. And of course the Old Testament is full of miracles that just to a great many just appear absurd (so to pick on the obvious, young earth creationism, the global flood, the tower of babel, and so on--basically the first eleven chapters of Genesis!), no reason for Abel to make our job any harder. So Augustine said, "We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers" (De Genesi ad litteram, I, 19, 21, especially n. 39). Here, Abel not only is giving an interpretation that is opposed to science, but one that is opposed to Scripture and basic grammar itself. Absolute insanity . . .Audie wrote:Not just himself. As i tried to tell him, he is the worst sort of ambassador for the church.Jac3510 wrote:Keep making a fool out of yourself
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
I have noticed how he can take a sentence or two from some pop science article he has found, and turn it into something completely different.Jac3510 wrote:And this is what bothers me so much and why I do register objections every few months. I don't want to be complicit in his absurdity. There are enough very genuine problems that Christians have to deal with without inventing even stupider ones to deal with. I mean, hello, we claim that Jesus came back to life after three days and then ascended bodily into heaven, and that after being savagely beaten and tortured to death by Roman soldiers. And of course the Old Testament is full of miracles that just to a great many just appear absurd (so to pick on the obvious, young earth creationism, the global flood, the tower of babel, and so on--basically the first eleven chapters of Genesis!), no reason for Abel to make our job any harder. So Augustine said, "We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers" (De Genesi ad litteram, I, 19, 21, especially n. 39). Here, Abel not only is giving an interpretation that is opposed to science, but one that is opposed to Scripture and basic grammar itself. Absolute insanity . . .Audie wrote:Not just himself. As i tried to tell him, he is the worst sort of ambassador for the church.Jac3510 wrote:Keep making a fool out of yourself
Why are you overlooking Bara in Genesis 1:1? You totally overlook what this word means in order to twist it to your intrpretation.But the bottom line is there was chaos before the first day and we see this chaos in verse 2 but because of bara we know it was not created in this state from the beginning. Bara always replies to something new and so we know the creation in Genesis 1:1 was NEW.It was not created in a choas state something happened to cause it. And then as we read on and continue to see bara and asah in the text in Genesis 1 we know God made some things but he created some things. So we know the things God MADE were not new creations,but the life that God created was NEW kinds of life.Jac3510 wrote:Abel . . .
Yes, I've seen it. Do you not understand that illustrates MY point against yours? The creation in Genesis 1:1, the initial creation of the heavens and the earth, were such that they were created in a state of chaos. (That's what the grammar says . . . remember the circumstantial clauses?) On your view, you would expect a creation FOLLOWED BY chaos FOLLOWED BY a recreation. But that's not what you see. You see exactly what the grammar say: the initial creation is chaotic, and the seven days are all about bringing order out of that chaos. I mean, if you're going to keep defending this stupid conspiracy, AT LEAST adopt Unger's position and say that the gap came BEFORE Genesis 1:1 and that you get the theory from elsewhere in Scripture and not from Genesis.
But as for your paintings, big shock, they just show that today's scholars understand Hebrew better than Hebrew scholars of the 1950s, and our scholarship is now catching up to what people who spoke Hebrew natively were telling us all along. But hey, as I said, whatevs. You're dishonest with the evidence anyway. You're completely intransigent, unable to be reasoned with. You won't accept correction from ancient authorities or modern. I don't really care. Keep making a fool out of yourself. As I said, I'll probably stop in again in about six months and point out the idiocy of your pet conspiracy theory again, and in the meantime, I'll ignore you as I normally do for the simple reason that you ignore evidence. No reason to waste my time beyond what I've already wasted.
Peace out
edit:
And here's the Jewish Encyclopedia article on it. Funny that ACB either didn't read it or didn't pay it close enough attention as it contradicts his point. Best part is the picture he linked to is from that very article!
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... 0-creation
