/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>850399

Should include this also for the day-age theory one

3. Many day-age theorists will also say that day seven is still going on, but "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.(Exo 20:11)" God rested on the seventh day. He didn't just create the world, and then rest for then until now. It is clear that day seven has ended.

Based

The local flood view is still literal though

nice blog post

Makes sense. There really is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 though.

Isaiah 45:18 says "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."

Everything that God creates is good, and is also new. He even says this in Revelation 21:5 "Behold, I make all things new." If God made something that was without form and void in the moment of its creation, this infallible statement by God would not be true. Rather, something must have happened to make it become flooded with water and destroyed, then God creates the world as a new creation in six literal days the rest of Genesis.

>The problem with that is God says at the end of day six “behold, it was very good (Gen 1:31)”, it’s not good if the fall of Satan would have already happened.

When God creates the new heaven and new earth in the end times, it will be very good and there will be no death in it. The existence of this fallen world is not a contradiction to that. Or are you saying it is?

>In Exodus 20:11 the Bible says “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is…”, that doesn’t leave room for billions of years.

That's right, it doesn't. But Exodus 20:11 doesn't include all of the things that Nehemiah 9:6 does, and Nehemiah 9:6 does not say six days.

>The gap theory has death occurring before the fall of man, which also contradicts scripture, "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.(1 Cor 15:21)"

Ok, so when God creates the new heaven and new earth in the end times, there will be no death entered into that world there. But death did occur in this fallen world before God created the new world in Revelation. No contradiction, because if God creates a new world, it will be very good and no death will be entered into it at its creation. Like God says "Behold, I make all things new" in Revelation 21:5. This is why God creating an earth that is without form and void is not believable, as well as Isaiah 45:18 saying God "created it [the earth] not in vain". The word for "in vain" is of course the same word used for "without form and void" in Genesis 1:2. Something clearly happened to the earth, some judgment happened between the two verses to make it become destroyed. God did not create it in vain; in that state. He says so in Isaiah 45:18. And I will believe this statement.

Also,

>Peter says the world was overflowed with water and perished (2 Peter 3:5-6)

This has to be referring to the first flood. In 2 Peter 3:7 (the next verse) he implies directly that the heaven itself (the atmosphere) was destroyed and had to be remade by God. Notice Peter says the heavens and the earth which are now, in verse 7. This implies that the heavens (atmosphere) which are now, are not the same as what existed before this flood. But if the atmosphere was destroyed, there would be no air and everything would die without exception. This would have to be describing the first flood, not Noah's flood where there was still air and Noah survived. God's twofold promise not to cut off all flesh, nor to destroy the earth by flood in Genesis 9 could easily be a reference to these two events. But the reference in 2 Peter 3:6-7 has to be referring to the flood that made the earth become flooded with water in Genesis 1:2 by the way I see it. Then after this flood, God separated the waters from the waters and made the firmament that exists now, which is what Peter refers to. He says "the heavens and the earth which are now" in 2 Peter 3:7. It's pretty conclusive this means there was a previous heaven (again, atmosphere) that stopped existing due to a flood.

>>850424

>Makes sense. There really is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 though.

The main fault is that people misinterpret "Light" as the sun or some other physical light. But the sun was created on a later day. Think like someone in the ancient world. What did "Light" usually signify?

It signified Time/time keeping. God's first act of Creation was Time. But that doesn't mean there weren't events happening before Time in this Creation. Time doesn't exist in Eternity or the realm of the Kingdom.

>>850405

This.

Really, Op. Your talents are wasted here. You should put this all on Facebook.

It mean, no one's ever heard this idea of taking the Bible absolutely literally before.

>>850424

>If God made something that was without form and void in the moment of its creation, this infallible statement by God

No. It was six days of creation. Yes, he created/formed the earth to be inhabited, but it took six days.

>The existence of this fallen world is not a contradiction to that. Or are you saying it is?

In the New Heaven and New Earth Satan and all the unsaved will be in the lake of fire. So there will be no more sin nor death so it will be very good. But in the gap theory is has Satan still roaming around and God calling it very good.

>That's right, it doesn't. But Exodus 20:11 doesn't include all of the things that Nehemiah 9:6 does, and Nehemiah 9:6 does not say six days.

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

What is Nehemiah leaving out from Exodus 20:11? They both say that God created the earth and heavn and filled them. Just in Nehemiah it doesn't say six days, but that doesn't mean it was more. Like if you work on a prject for six days and one time you said it took six days, and the another time you didn't mention how long it took. Both are right, but you can tell it was six days.

>Ok, so when God creates the new heaven and new earth in the end times, there will be no death entered into that world there. But death did occur in this fallen world before God created the new world in Revelation

Sure there's going to be no death, but it says "and there shall be no MORE death… for the former things are passed away." It doesn't say that for the first (or I guess for you the second) creation.

>heaven itself (the atmosphere) was destroyed and had to be remade by God. Notice Peter says the heavens and the earth which are now, in verse 7. This implies that the heavens (atmosphere) which are now, are not the same as what existed before this flood.

I dunno what exactly you believe. But I personally believe the canapy theory for before the flood, so that would still make sense in that context becuase the atmosphere would be different.

Also would like to add to it that if you believe there was the first creation and God competely wiped it out then, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the FIRST heaven and the FIRST earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." which is pointing to the earth we currently live in.

also again though there is nothing implying a gap when you read those two verses. God could have easily put "and much later" betweeen them, but he didn't

>>850431

I don't speak Hebrew so I can't say for certain, but

I've heard there are two words for light, word is the source of light, like a light bulb. And the other is the actual light itself. And that the word for "light" in "Let there be light:" is the second, not a light source.

>>850492

>Yes, he created/formed the earth to be inhabited, but it took six days.

Then why does it already say he created the heaven and the earth in verse 1. Clearly, the original creation ex nihilo took place before Genesis 1:2, otherwise nothing would exist.

When God creates something, it is not in a ruined or formless and void state. That is what the statement "I make all things new" means. And this makes sense, God's creations are good and complete as is. That just makes logical sense. This is also why God even specifically said in Isaiah 45:18 that he "created it [the earth] not in vain." It is to clear away that very misconception that he would create something without form and void in the beginning.

Again, "in vain" is using the same root word as "without form and void" and it's saying he did not create it in that way in Isaiah 45:18. So why do you suppose he specifically said this about the way in which he created earth? For no reason? There has to be a reason. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righeousness.

>It was six days of creation.

This also agrees with everything in Scripture. God creates new things from time to time. Genesis 1:1 details the first creation ex nihilo. Later on, God creates more things that are also new, because everything God makes is good and new. And nothing is without form and void, without becoming that way due to ruin/destruction.

Otherwise, there would be things that God creates that are not new, and the statement in Isaiah 45:18 would be contradicted.

>But in the gap theory is has Satan still roaming around and God calling it very good.

The Bible still has Satan existing in the lake of fire in the end times. While the New Earth that will be created and which will exist at the same time as the lake of fire, will still be very good.

If theoretically Satan, or sin, or death were to somehow enter the New Earth some time after it is created in the future, then it would stop being good. Of course we know this. But of course the difference is that will not happen this time.

>But in the gap theory is has Satan still roaming around and God calling it very good.

Not if he entered only after God said that. Which, of course, all theories commonly state.

>What is Nehemiah leaving out from Exodus 20:11?

Exodus 20:11 is leaving out the heaven of heavens with all their host. That could have been created in Genesis 1:1, and would have existed since before the six days started in verse 4 which is when God divided the light from the darkness.

>Like if you work on a prject for six days and one time you said it took six days, and the another time you didn't mention how long it took.

Let's say you built a house in six days according to one statement. But then according to another statement you built a house and a foundation but the amount of time is not stated. Now, if according to the two statements the foundation is not counted as part of the house, then it could have been made before the six days of house-building started, and the length of time between the foundation being created and the beginning of six days of house-building is not stated.

Perhaps the foundation was laid a month before that, and the building that was there before was destroyed, before the house was built. Since the foundation was not mentioned in the first statement that specified six days, this is not outside the realm of possibility.

If we then include consideration of the other Scriptures mentioned by me, this actually becomes a requirement rather than merely possible.

And If so, it would explain the reference in 2 Peter 3 and in Genesis 9 about the entire world being destroyed by a flood separate from Noah's flood, and yet more importantly it would avoid contradicting Isaiah 45:18 and Revelation 21:5.

>>850500

>>850492

>Sure there's going to be no death, but it says "and there shall be no MORE death… for the former things are passed away." It doesn't say that for the first (or I guess for you the second) creation.

That is not conclusive. Nowhere does it have to say that in order for it to be true. All we have are the statement in 1 Corinthians that death came into the world by man. This could be explained equally well by either explanation. Just as the new earth will not have death, being a new creation, unless somehow it enters into that creation (which it will not in this case).

>so that would still make sense in that context becuase the atmosphere would be different.

The verse literally means that the heavens and earth that exist now are not the same as the world that then was. The two are contrasted. Meaning the world from before was completely destroyed, and that means not only would earth be destroyed but also there would be no air. In the scenario Peter describes, the air would not be created (or possibly returned) until after the flood, when God separates the waters from the waters and creates the firmament in Genesis 1. We happen to know the earth in Genesis 1:2 was completely covered in water, as it would be if it had been completely destroyed by a flood, including even the atmosphere. If we go with Peter's scenario, the heavens and the earth which are now did not exist before the flood in question, as the statement of II Peter 3:7 is in comparison with "the world that then was."

>Also would like to add to it that if you believe there was the first creation and God competely wiped it out then, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the FIRST heaven and the FIRST earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

This makes sense if you believe the earth was created, then it became destroyed by a flood so that it was formless and void, and then the heavens and the earth were created according to the narrative of Genesis 1:2 and onward. It is pretty clear that God used that destroyed remnant to create entirely new things upon, thus marking the beginning of creation. Creation refers to everything that exists which God created, and it began with the six days. That does not preclude things existing before the six days of creation began in Genesis 1:4, such as the original creation ex nihilo of Genesis 1:1, no matter what amount of time you might place between those two events. You could theoretically place no time between the events, but we are not required to (Nehemiah 9:6 does not require it, and it includes more things than Exodus 20:11.)

So like I said, God used that destroyed remnant to create entirely new things upon. Thus, it is not an entirely new earth and can still safely be called the first earth. But all of creation seems to have been created in six days on top of the ruins of the world that existed before (2 Peter 3:6).

>God could have easily put "and much later" betweeen them, but he didn't

He could have easily put "and immediately after" between them, but didn't do that either. Accordingly, I do not say it was immediately after OR that it was much later. I maintain it could have been a long or a brief amount of time, and Scripture does not outright say either way. We know how long it was since the start of the first day, but the time from Genesis 1:1 to 1:4 is never stated. Exodus 20:11 does not include everything that Nehemiah 9:6 does. Isaiah 45:18 states God did not create the earth in vain, suggesting it did not start out like that but became like that. And God doesn't leave these kinds of things in his word by accident, there has to be a reason for these passages to exist. It seems pretty reasonable that Nehemiah 9:6 and Isaiah 45:18 are there to help teach us about creation, since that is the subject of those verses.

Hopefully that made some sense. I am not even saying there were millions of years or any specific amount of extra time before the six days at all. But there had to have at least been enough for the earth to become without form and void for whatever reason, because we know God doesn't create things that way. Especially not the earth, as He even specifically took special care to say, infallibly, in Isaiah 45:18.

>>850501

>>850492

I forgot to add, "the creation" could also be used just as easily to refer to the new earth once it is created, because this will be a new creation in and of itself. The fact that this "new Creation" (which, this time will be an entirely new heaven and earth) will have a beginning (and hence, "the beginning of the Creation" could refer to the creation of this new earth to those that live in it) does not preclude the existence of this world that is former to it.

Likewise, Satan and death will still exist in the lake of fire, but this will be separate from the new Creation, so that it will be very good. Just as the Creation after the six days was originally very good before any sin, death or devil entered into it due to the events that occurred between Genesis 1:31 where it was "very good," and Genesis 3.

Likewise, the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1 was originally very good as well before it became without form and void in Genesis 1:2.

Ultimately, whether or not the story is literal or a parable doesn't matter. What matters is the meaning behind the story.

>>851048

1. A "meaning behind words" is a metaphor overused into being misleading.

2. If for your belief system it doesn't matter if the Old Adam is factual, then it must also not matter if the New Adam is factual. All consistent men agree Adam is as true as Christ - believers and unbelievers.

>>851049

Most people named Adam I met are NPCs so in general terms no, Adams aren't real.

>>851048

This is literally a liberal fag enabler argument

No. Compromise here means compromise elsewhere.

>>851048

It's a good thing I don't have to listen to people like you, because this is exactly the kind of relativism that has led to the problems of today.

>>851055

>>851057

Care to explain? Not that I doubt you but doesn't taking a literal approach miss out on the symbolic implications and wouldn't that be bad if the stories were intended to be symbolic? After all certain OT names tell the story of Jesus' life despite being presented as real people.

>>851068

>After all certain OT names tell the story of Jesus' life despite being presented as real people.

Like what?

There's typology and prophecy. David was a type of Christ, and in the psalms he prophesied about the future messiah

This is the type of OC I like. Will read on the s—ter later

>>851077

Well after reading that everything else Origen says sounds a lot less stupid. So he was concerned with spiritual and symbolic matters?

>>851077

You think typology is heresy?

>>850398

where did Cain find his wife in the distant land?

>>851077

>pro-Origen

>against typology

lolwut?

>>851120

It never says when that happened. They probably had other kids at the time

>>854484

>>851120

Genesis 4:7 tells us that Cain, in some manner took sin itself as a wife. See the parallel that the latter part of this verse has with Genesis 3:16. They both use the same verbiage.

This would seem to suggest that the offspring of Cain, as opposed to the line of Noah, would not actually be fully men in the same sense that Noah was. This would also explain the statement in Genesis 6 where it says that Noah was "perfect in his generations."

This would also explain why it says that flesh was "corrupting his way" in the earth. Genesis 6:12. It's not because random angels were interbreeding or anything like that. I don't believe that for a second. It was because more people were following after the pattern of Cain, and not staying with human partners. And his offspring therefore could only say they had some human parents, because Cain's wife was not one, thus explaining how Cain found a wife before any of his siblings were even born. These corrupted offspring of Cain would be called the "daughters of men" because they were the abomination formed by Cain's rebellion.

And this is as opposed to the "sons of God" like Noah who continued to keep God's way.

>>850431

>>850493

Either way it fits with the Big Bang narrative. According to the Big Bang Theory, light was the very first thing to exist because the universe was too hot for matter to form. And according to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, light is the very measure of time by virtue of its constant speed.

>>855567

Genesis 1:2 says that there were waters on the earth before God said "Let there be light" in Genesis 1:3.

The narrative directly goes as follows:

<2 And the earth 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.

<3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

>>850398

Going by this you'd have to believe the Earth is flat and covered by a dome (the firmament).

>>855584

Or alternatively you don't

>>855568

>without form, and void

most cosmological myths (im using myth as in a general belief here, not that genesis is false) start off without water alone in a "formless void" or something of that sort, like the greeks for example. Its likely jsut trying to use imagery to evoke the feeling of emptiness, since it might be rather hard for a illiterate shepherd 3000 years ago to conceive of a total void.

>>855567

And yet you guys forget that in Genesis 1:1, the Earth (without form and void) is created before the light.

repent, for this board is entirely given to sin

>>856017

Verse 14 is about physical light, as modern people understand the word "light". The creation of the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. Verse 1 is about establishing Time. Or more to the point, it's about Order. God destroying the Chaos (the Deep) and first establishing a sense of Order. It's not a story about any Big Bang. It's more about subverting a well known story in Mesopotamia of Tiamat (the chaos dragon of the seas), who warred with the god Marduk, who split her in two and divided heaven from earth from the pieces of her body (see the parallels yet?). Except in Genesis' case, it's subverting this story. It has only one God, who doesn't need to go to war with anyone, and has no challenger. Chaos is impersonal, and destroys it simply by speaking (while later on in Genesis, any "sea monsters" are just designated as another of his lowly creations. Not some primordial rival). This would have been audacious, and maybe appealing, to outsiders to hear of only ONE God, who was all powerful and could destroy chaos in a mere instant. That's the bigger truth the writer is getting at with Genesis 1:1. Completely trashing Tiamat and Marduk in one little verse. Nothing about science.

>>856111

In Biblical cosmology, the order of events would be that Genesis 1:1-3 literally happens, and as a result of Lucifer's rebellion, he later causes the fall in chapter 3 of Genesis. Then, in the era of the Sumerians of Uruk, the Adversary creates the myth of Tiamat and Marduk among many others to subvert the truth by adding a few details here and there that are untrue. Finally, we have God preserving the true account of what happened throughout all of this through His Word, through ultimately the framework of what would end up being our book of Genesis.

>>856113

That's fair. You could look at it that way too. Either way, the true God gets all the glory, and it annoyed polytheists. And that's it main target. It's not about our modern notions of science, but a dismissal of polytheism known in the world.

I would say further that the whole chapter is subversive. Temple dedications (even outside Israel) lasted for seven days, where on the last day, the "god" rests in the temple. Solomon himself does this too when he builds the first Temple, as indicated in seven day dedication in Chronicles. In Genesis, it's a song of dedication for the true temple in heaven.

Other elements would have annoyed polytheists too. God creates plants and herbs before he ever creates the Sun. Pagans (and even people today) were enamored with the power of the Sun and of Fertility, and had gods dedicated to those domains. But here in Genesis, God doesn't need any of it. Plants grow because of his Word. There's no sun at all. The Sun is an after thought merely to automate what his word already began.

The creation of Man at the end is the most subversive to the Sumerian/Babylonian worldview. In their scheme, the gods created the garden for themselves, and for man to be a slave who worked for the gods. But in Genesis, the garden is created for Man and out of love. Not out of slavery.

They got us as kids man! They got us as kids, not the church, but the wolves! They pulled the fraud out in the open, since they've put the screen in front of our eyes! https://odysee.com/SpeakingTheTruthinalltheRealm:8

It's already banned by Public Broadcasting Service!

"In the beginning"

Time.

"God created the heavens"

space

"and the earth."

matter.

"And the earth 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."

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Light is light, not time, in order for light to travel, it needs time, as photons travel at a fixed speed through space.

I would like to point you to the following;

Video game development.

In a history long ago i made maps for UT2k4, an online shooter.

Every time i would load a new file, clean and empty, i would start with a blank space. Within this space i could create all kinds of objects.

However if i would load the map for testing, everything would be pitch black, if i forgot something very specific.

Why?

Because i did not add any "sources" of light to be generated within the map once it is loaded.

This is probably not purely aligning with the genesis 1:1-3 passages, however i do not think it is far from it either.

The light that God created in this context i am presenting was merely not fixed to celestial objects.

It does not really make sense to create plants on day 3 without light to nourish them.

In other words, i find it more reasonable that light was confined to terrestrial objects on day 4 (the celestial clock made for signs and seasons), then that light "actually means time", if there are very distinct words to be used if you want to describe either.

The church fathers also unanimously teach it:

Six thousand years of our world are not yet completed.

St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church, Commentariorum in Epistulam Pauli Apostoli ad Titum Liber Unus, I,Ib-4.

> Six thousand years of our world are not yet completed.

Council of Trullo, canon 3,

>Especially as the fault of ignorance has reached no small number of men, we decree, that those who are involved in a second marriage, and have been slaves to sin up to the fifteenth of the past month of January, in the past fourth Indiction, the 6109th year, and have not resolved to repent of it, be subjected to canonical deposition…

The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (AD 787), Sess. 6:

>“In the year 5501 Christ our God came to mankind and lived with us for thirty-three years and a little less than five months.”

St. Basil the Great (c. 330–379):

>"And if anyone were to say that the days mentioned in the account are not to be understood as days, he would be admitting that the sacred Scriptures are not true. For they would be saying that there were no six days, but only a confused time… the evening and the morning were the first day."

Source: Hexaemeron, Homily 1, trans. Blomfield Jackson (The Macmillan Company, 1895), p. 23.

St. John Chrysostom (c. 349–407):

>"In the first place, He [God] created light, and then darkness; He divided the light from the darkness, calling the light 'day,' and the darkness He called 'night.' And the evening and the morning were the first day… This, then, is the meaning of the expression, ‘and the evening and the morning were the first day.’ He made a day as we understand it today, with an evening and a morning."

Source: Homily on Genesis, Homily 1, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Catholic University of America Press, 1951), p. 21.*

St. Ephraim the Syrian (c. 306–373):

>"On the first day He made the heavens and the earth, and on the second day He made the firmament, and the evening and the morning were the second day. Thus, He made the days, as we know them, with evening and morning."

Source: Commentary on Genesis, trans. Edward G. Clarke (Fathers of the Church Series, 2010), p. 87.

St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395):

Quote:

>"The days in which the creation was completed are not merely periods of time, but true days. And on the seventh day, God rested, not because He was weary, but because He had completed the work."

Source: The Hexaemeron, trans. D.H. Williams (Catholic University of America Press, 2000), p. 79.

St. Ambrose (c. 340–397):

>"The world was formed in six days. We must not suppose that the days mentioned in the creation account are mere allegories or figures of speech. It is plain that the world was created in six days and that each of these days represents a real, distinct period."

Source: Exameron, trans. H.T. Armstrong (Fathers of the Church Series, 1957), p. 67.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202):

>"For in six days the Lord made all things, and rested on the seventh day from all His works, and sanctified it. Thus, the Scripture, by showing that the world was made in six days, teaches us that this number is fixed, for it is the first and the seventh which are named, and the rest of the days are set in between."

Source: Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 23, trans. John Keble (The Christendom Press, 1995), p. 552.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313–386):

> "The creation of the world, the heavens, and the earth, and all that is in them, was accomplished by God in six days. On the seventh day He rested from His works, not because He needed rest, but to teach us that we should rest."

Source: Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 5, trans. A. J. Mason (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7, 1893), p. 25.*

Theistic evolutionalists also believe that God created death and that it is natural.