The Gap and The Sumer Creation Myth

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Do you think when the scripture says the following that it is only referencing the Living Word, the Christ or is the written word also alive?

Heb.4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
What it doesn't mean is that anyone can make up stuff and claim to be inspired or have 'insight'.
 
Upvote 0

sawdust

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2004
3,576
599
67
Darwin
✟198,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What it doesn't mean is that anyone can make up stuff and claim to be inspired or have 'insight'.

And yet the irony is, recognising there is a gap of time between Gen 1. vs 1 &2 is insight.

I was simply trying to understand your position because there seemed to be an anomaly between the insight this thread revolves around and your statement regarding requiring a verse that stated directly God doesn't want anyone to reject salvation.

While I agree with you anyone can make stuff up and call it insight, it doesn't always follow that simply because we don't have the same insight, that what we hear is made up.

Anyhoo, was just curious. I guess it's not really the thread to discuss in detail as it's off topic. :)
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
And yet the irony is, recognising there is a gap of time between Gen 1. vs 1 &2 is insight.
No "insight". Just doing the research on what the key words in v.2 actually mean.

Anyone is able to do what I've done. No big deal. The conjunction in v.2 is a "disjunctive", and indicates a break between the verses. Exactly what happened between original creation and God's restoration of earth beginning with v.2.

The word "hayah" is the verb of existence, and means "to be or become". And since the EXACT form of the word in v.2 is found 111 times in the OT, and 66 of them were translated as either become or became, while only 7 were translated as "was", which includes v.2. So the most common translation is became/become.

The Hebrew of "without form" is 'tohu' and means a wasteland, a waste place in other verses.

So, v.2 really says, BUT the earth BECAME a WASTELAND.

Simply knowing how the words should be translated is all that it took.

I was simply trying to understand your position because there seemed to be an anomaly between the insight this thread revolves around and your statement regarding requiring a verse that stated directly God doesn't want anyone to reject salvation.
The point is that many people make direct statements but without any verse that backs up their statements. Of course we have 1 Tim 2:4-6 about God wanting all men to be saved, and 2 Peter 3:9, about God not wanting anyone to perish.

While I agree with you anyone can make stuff up and call it insight, it doesn't always follow that simply because we don't have the same insight, that what we hear is made up.
So it's much better to let God's Word do the talking, and we simply repeat what the Word says.

Anyhoo, was just curious. I guess it's not really the thread to discuss in detail as it's off topic. :)
That seems to be SOP. (standard operating procedure) on these forums. :)
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No "insight". Just doing the research on what the key words in v.2 actually mean.

Anyone is able to do what I've done. No big deal. The conjunction in v.2 is a "disjunctive", and indicates a break between the verses. Exactly what happened between original creation and God's restoration of earth beginning with v.2.

The word "hayah" is the verb of existence, and means "to be or become". And since the EXACT form of the word in v.2 is found 111 times in the OT, and 66 of them were translated as either become or became, while only 7 were translated as "was", which includes v.2. So the most common translation is became/become.

The Hebrew of "without form" is 'tohu' and means a wasteland, a waste place in other verses.

So, v.2 really says, BUT the earth BECAME a WASTELAND.

Simply knowing how the words should be translated is all that it took.

Your interpretation would have us believe that the 6 days of creation have zero to do with the beginning. It couldn't possibly still be the beginning, some thousands, or millions, or even billions of years later. The 6 days of creation are describing some of the things God did in the beginning.
 
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,139
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟75,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Your interpretation would have us believe that the 6 days of creation have zero to do with the beginning. It couldn't possibly still be the beginning, some thousands, or millions, or even billions of years later. The 6 days of creation are describing some of the things God did in the beginning.


It tells you right there in verse One, that before the six days of creation? God had ALREADY created the heavens and earth... And, the Hebrew tense places verse One outside of time!

There was NO TIME until "day one." Remember? "Day one."

And... there was no sun until day four! Where was the Light coming from for the first three days?


God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day
and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,
to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.
And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there
was morning—the fourth day."
Gen 1:16-19​


You got some problems if you really believe insight is not required for UNDERSTANDING.

Simple human-power verse memorization does not require UNDERSTANDING.

The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom.
Though it cost all you have, get understanding." Prov 4:7​

It says it will cost you all you have? Because to get understanding requires the rejection of those around you who fear growing in Christ. Because if they do? It places them in the center of the spiritual battle. Then you find out who Satan and his demons are in your life in the pressures that will come your way to make you fail.(1 Peter 1:6-9)

If we try to play it safe, and don't dare to find understanding? (which requires fighting the good fight) Then demonic pressures will pretty much will leave you to your own fears that you can not overcome without getting understanding. Understanding which must come by grace.

Understanding is not of ourselves. Its a gift of God.. Like Peter was told...


Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed
to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."
Mat 16:17​


Understanding is a gift from God. No man can impart understanding to another man by simply exchanging information. Collecting Bible verses and using them from human memory has no power in them from God. Understanding must come from God. It requires learning how to stay filled with the Spirit. Not.. filled with one's own self confidence, or pride of denial if made to feel inferior.

Such is what confronts us today.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It tells you right there in verse One, that before the six days of creation? God had ALREADY created the heavens and earth... And, the Hebrew tense places verse One outside of time!

There was NO TIME until "day one." Remember? "Day one."

And... there was no sun until day four! Where was the Light coming from for the first three days?

And that doesn't pose a problem for this alleged gap, though? If no time prior to creation day 1, how can scientists or anyone for that matter, claim it involved an x amount of years? After all, time consists of years, and 'no time' does not. And if there is no sun until day 4, what was used as a literal light source during the gap, then?
 
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,139
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟75,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And that doesn't pose a problem for this alleged gap, though? If no time prior to creation day 1, how can scientists or anyone for that matter, claim it involved an x amount of years? After all, time consists of years, and 'no time' does not. And if there is no sun until day 4, what was used as a literal light source during the gap, then?

There was a previous system for time established for the Prehistoric world...

That system did not require any sun, moon, nor stars like we know today.

Just look at the first three days in first chapter? No sun for the first three days.... BUT THERE WAS LIGHT for THREE DAYS! :scratch: ... how?

That is mentioned and is supposed to make one think and wonder what was going on... But, only after they can finally see enough to know what it is saying.

No one questions about the first three days of light until after they get some knowledge of God's Word.

No sun, moon, nor stars for the first three days. Yet? Light was given for three days between the nights?!

That is supposed to make the thinking person curious and to wonder what it can mean.

Because? God wants to give answers. Not religion so that a man can turn off his mind and not have to think. Just do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Davy
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Your interpretation would have us believe that the 6 days of creation have zero to do with the beginning.
As I've been pointing out, this isn't my "interpretation", but rather, what the Hebrew words really mean.

Secondly, the 6 literal 24 hour days are days of RESTORATON. That's that's the biblical view of Genesis 1.

Heb 11:3 - By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

The Greek word for "formed" is 'katartizo'. It is used twice in the gospels for "the disciples MENDINGtheir nets". Matt 4:21 and Mark 1:19

It is used in Gal 6:1 - Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.

Yep, the bolded word is 'katartizo'. Getting the picture? The word means to "repair, mend, adjust, fix, restore". And Heb 11:3 ties that word to Genesis 1.

God created the earth and then restored it. As the key words in v.2 indicate.

It couldn't possibly still be the beginning, some thousands, or millions, or even billions of years later.
So, "couldn't possibly", huh. I don't care what the time gap was. It doesn't matter.

What matters is that God created the earth but the earth became tohu. Isa 45:18 says "God did not create the earth tohu".

So do you really want to create a conflict and contradiction within Scripture or do you want to just go with what the words really mean?

The 6 days of creation are describing some of the things God did in the beginning.
It seems the sticking problem is with the phrase "6 days of creation". It wasn't 6 days of creation. It was instant creation from v.1 and Psa 33:9 - For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

The bolded words refer to Gen 1:1. The entire universe was created in v.1, all at once. Because God SPOKE the universe into existence per Psa 33:9.

So, the correct phrase regarding Gen 1 is "the 6 days of restoration".

Now, if you disagree with any of my points here, please address them to prove that I'm wrong.

Remember, I don't want to be wrong any more than you want to be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

sawdust

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2004
3,576
599
67
Darwin
✟198,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No "insight". Just doing the research on what the key words in v.2 actually mean.

I think we might have a different understanding of what constitutes "insight". To me insight is seeing what lies between the verses that comes about through study. The things the verses don't overtly state but point to instead. In regards to the topic at hand, the gap of time between the verses is revealed through the study you mentioned above but it is not stated there is a gap. Nor is it stated that there was a judgement or that the judgement involved angels yet Jeremiah connects tohu wa-bohu to God's fierce anger and uses it as a warning to Israel they will suffer the same judgement (almost) if they don't shape up. As the only other creature we know of that has a will to choose to go against God, ie angels, we understand the judgement was on them. None of that is written overtly but we understand it through insight.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I think we might have a different understanding of what constitutes "insight".
I would agree with this.

To me insight is seeing what lies between the verses that comes about through study. The things the verses don't overtly state but point to instead. In regards to the topic at hand, the gap of time between the verses is revealed through the study you mentioned above but it is not stated there is a gap.
When the wording clear indicates that something occurred that caused the earth to become something it wasn't before, you don't need a statement about a time gap.

Besides, a time gap has no bearing at all on any theological view or doctrine. The only point is to be honest about what the Bible does SAY. It doesn't take insight to realize from the wording that the earth became a wasteland. Regardless of the fact that God did not give any details about how that happened is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the earth became a wasteland. That is what the text says.

Nor is it stated that there was a judgement or that the judgement involved angels yet Jeremiah connects tohu wa-bohu to God's fierce anger and uses it as a warning to Israel they will suffer the same judgement (almost) if they don't shape up.
It is a real mistake to associate God's judgment in Her 4:23 to Gen 1:2. In Jeremiah, the context clearly indicates God's judgment. The mistake is to assume that the Hebrews words "tohu wa-bohu" MEANS judgment by God.

At least I don't make that erroneous leap. The plain fact is that the earth became tohu wa-bohu in Gen 1:2. That doesn't even suggest or hint at God judging the earth.

As the only other creature we know of that has a will to choose to go against God, ie angels, we understand the judgement was on them. None of that is written overtly but we understand it through insight.
Actually, judgment of angels is clearly stated in Scripture. Matt 25:41 - “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

We don't have to read between the lines to understand that God has judged the fallen angels and has prepared their ultimate eternity, the lake of fire.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You are making the same mistake as the other poster. It doesn't say it looks like a cedar tree, it says it moves like one. So until you compare a hippo spinning it's tail and a cedar tree whipping in the wind, you are making the wrong type of comparison.

That's funny. Just mention of a large tree like a cedar, which is the idea the Scripture is pointing to, destroys the hippo speculation.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Dinosaurs didn't die out, they just turned invisible and hid. ;) hehe

Evolutionists hide the real fossil evidence in the geological layers.
There's gaps in it too, showing a period when the majority of species were wiped out, and then new species and life springing forth. Science well knows about the end of many of those old species from the fossil evidence. For us to deny that fossil evidence just because some bishop in the 17th century took all the Bible begats from Christ back to Adam in 4004 B.C., and others took that to mean the earth is only around 6,000 years old, that denying is just a show of ignorance.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't know if that's true, afaik that's a minority view within Christendom as a whole.

So if Johnny jumping off the bridge were a popular idea, you'd follow?

The majority are always right, do you think? No, not hardly. What the majority believe does not always make a matter true.

Ultimately, is the idea 'written'? and is there more than one Scripture witness? that's the test one must use, not how many believe or disbelieve it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So if Johnny jumping off the bridge were a popular idea, you'd follow?

The majority are always right, do you think? No, not hardly. What the majority believe does not always make a matter true.

Ultimately, is the idea 'written'? and is there more than one Scripture witness? that's the test one must use, not how many believe or disbelieve it.

No, but looking into what it meant to the people it was addressed to at the time it was written gives you a better route to understanding than some random notions picked out of a hat, which is essentially what 'literal' readings of the bible add up to.
 
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,139
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟75,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, but looking into what it meant to the people it was addressed to at the time it was written gives you a better route to understanding than some random notions picked out of a hat, which is essentially what 'literal' readings of the bible add up to.

What "random notions picked out of a hat"? You're bearing false witness now, because there's been plenty of Scripture witness on the matter given already, and by just throwing it into your 'own little personal category' and trying to push that baloney as truth only shows your inability towards study of The Bible. It just reveals your willing Biblical ignorance.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What "random notions picked out of a hat"? You're bearing false witness now, because there's been plenty of Scripture witness on the matter given already, and by just throwing it into your 'own little personal category' and trying to push that baloney as truth only shows your inability towards study of The Bible. It just reveals your willing Biblical ignorance.

Well, I don't think so. At some point, as one example, the revivalist movements over there in the states threw the whole notion of acquiring actual knowledge out of the window and went with the idea that the text means whatever Bob or Sally happens to think it means when they read it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0