Adam and Eve

[GenemZ]

I do not really know a lot about Gap Theology.

Your posts, if they are an example of Gappist thinking, seem to interject information between the lines of scripture that is not written there.

The Bible speaks of Lucifer before his fall. It speaks of rebellion and judgement by God. It does not interject what is not there. It just fills in the gap with what is mentioned elsewhere as to place it in its proper sequence. You think Satan fell after man was created? Or, before? There was too much mentioned in the likes of Ezekiel to think that Satan came out of the same world as ours, and then fell. Angels were around a lot longer than man has ever been.

Job 38:4-7 (New International Version)​

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? ​

Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ​

Who stretched a measuring line across it? ​

On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?​

The angels witnessed to the creation of the earth. If the GAP theory is correct. Then, that means the angels have been around for millions of years potentially.

The Bible says a good number of things that pierce back into the prehistoric time of the fall of Lucifer.

Its not interjection of what is not there. Its something that requires extensive knowledge of Scripture to fill in. That's all.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[shernren]

First I must say this....... You have cut and pasted quotes from various posts, by different people, and placed them all in one single post.

If you would like to confuse the way things are kept in order here, and how folks know that their post is being referred to..... I suggest you like everyone else has learned to do. Respond to each post individually.

Most posters seeing me being quoted first might just skip over it. For its custom here that we respond to individuals. We do not create collages of many posts, into one.

Only two posters, actually, so I don't think that would be too confusing. But I have no problem with separating responses. I just found it tedious to open new replies (and the higher post count makes it daunting for newcomers to read through the thread.)

Now...

I never said it always refers to ex nihilio. I said it was a unique word used in association with God. And uniquely, can mean to create 'out from nothing.' Bara also holds some other meanings, as well. I never claimed it was only used one way. I think you have created something out from nothing over this.

But ex-nihilo was the only meaning you mentioned: "For it held a special and unique meaning of creating something out from nothing. "Ex nihilio."

Man's soul was created "out from nothing." " (post 110)

Your argument (for two separate creations of man) does not hold if there is any other meaning of bara besides ex nihilo creation which can be applicable in Genesis 1. I for example consider the use of bara in Gen 1 to signify the directness and uniqueness of God's action. God alone can bara (I agree wholeheartedly on that), and it is only appropriate that this word is used to describe the holiness and majesty of the Trinity getting to work on man. While in Gen 2 yatsar expresses how God "gets his hands dirty".

But because I don't see that bara has to mean ex-nihilo creation (which you yourself acknowledge), I don't see that the bara of Genesis 1 and the yatsar of Genesis 2 have to be different events.

While I am not so concerned about the idea of two creations, itself (rmswilliams has slightly, slightly similar ideas about how Genesis 1 and 2 describe different "adam"s), I am very concerned with the dualistic idea that the human soul has an ontological reality aside from the human body. Humans are both soul and body, whether frail earthly body or resurrected heavenly body. Saying that a human is simply the addition of a soul to a body, and that they can be said to exist distinctly from each other, is like looking at a cylinder from the top and from the side, and then deciding that a cylinder is a rectangle underneath a circle. It just doesn't work. The Bible practices Hebrew monism, not Gnostic dualism.

 

[GenemZ]

But ex-nihilo was the only meaning you mentioned: "For it held a special and unique meaning of creating something out from nothing. "Ex nihilio."

Man's soul was created "out from nothing." " (post 110)

Just like in the beginning God BARA the Heavens and earth. Out from nothing.

Your argument (for two separate creations of man) does not hold if there is any other meaning of bara besides ex nihilo creation which can be applicable in Genesis 1.

It holds. Just like I tell you that running water does not have legs. Context will reveal the meaning.

But? Who's context?

Its apparent that we both can not be guided by the same Spirit in this matter. So? One will be guided into the truth. While? The other, who grieves the Spirit? Will depend on human viewpoint to make his deduction.

That is why we have disagreements amongst believers. For not all walk in the Spirit as they should. They may be intelligent according to the world's standards.

Now, I am not saying who it is here that is not Spirit filled. Both of us might not be. But, both can not be filled and at the same time to see the truth in such a disagreeable manner.

Just because one of us finds reason to be contrary? It does not mean that being able to find a reason to be contrary is disproving the reality that someone else has been shown by grace to be true. It only means that the truth is free to be rejected in God's plan for man. That's all.

Matthew 16:16-18 (New International Version)
"Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. "

Peter could not provide an airtight argument for Jesus being the Christ to someone else resisting the truth. For, they could always find some way to be contrary.

But, that did not cause Peter to not know the truth.

What he knew did not come by means of human reasoning.

The purpose of debates such as this one, should not be to see who will create an airtight argument that can not be denied. Which you seem to be saying is the standard to be achieved before you could see it my way. I see what I see by grace... You are free to find reason to not accept it. For I know no man caused me to see what I see from being taught from the original language of Genesis.

If it could be done? Someone create an airtight argument? That would be like God paralyzing Adam's hand so he could not grab the forbidden fruit. That is not how God's will works.

God allows man always for wriggle room. Free will to not accept what one does not want to believe.

You want to see Bara used in an alternative way? Fine. Go right ahead. I have no argument with you.

I for example consider the use of bara in Gen 1 to signify the directness and uniqueness of God's action. God alone can bara (I agree wholeheartedly on that), and it is only appropriate that this word is used to describe the holiness and majesty of the Trinity getting to work on man. While in Gen 2 yatsar expresses how God "gets his hands dirty".

No, but I see you as one to take enjoyment in finding ways for being contrary to what I know and believe. Fine. I know what I believe on this issue. Some will. Some refuse what is needed to be one.

But because I don't see that bara has to mean ex-nihilo creation (which you yourself acknowledge), I don't see that the bara of Genesis 1 and the yatsar of Genesis 2 have to be different events.

But they are. Plainly. And your way of thinking explains why some see two different creation accounts. Your way of thinking can not connect with what took place. So be it. Maybe in a few years you will see it... Maybe, next week.

While I am not so concerned about the idea of two creations, itself (rmswilliams has slightly, slightly similar ideas about how Genesis 1 and 2 describe different "adam"s), I am very concerned with the dualistic idea that the human soul has an ontological reality aside from the human body.

Have another cocktail. Enjoy the party. I have to be going now.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[Gus2009]

*sigh*

This is where things begin to get truly tiresome. I >>>KNOW<<< they are not the first hominids. They are, however, supposed to be us as we are NOW, and we have been around 200-250,000 years but only started communicating and creating civilizations a few thousand years ago? Does not compute.

I dont see why this should be so confusing. This is like being confused by the fact that the ancient egyptians couldnt harness nuclear energy, even though they were no different then we are today. It computes just fine to me that they didnt understand things such as quantum physics, mechanical and nuclear engineering. Should humans just start civilizations as soon as they come onto the scene? How quickly do you think they should advance? Just the same, it doesnt surpise me that even today, there are still hunter gatherer societies that have no form of agriculture at all. Does it surpise you that they havent formed civilizations?

Really, civilizations starting, are dependent on alot of things. Living in permanent residence groups is a big one. This depends pretty much on agriculture. If the whole hunter gather thing is working out for you, why would you want to change? I suppose all this "doing nothing" you talk about is everything before agriculture.

 

[shernren]

Its apparent that we both can not be guided by the same Spirit in this matter. So? One will be guided into the truth. While? The other, who grieves the Spirit? Will depend on human viewpoint to make his deduction.

That is why we have disagreements amongst believers. For not all walk in the Spirit as they should. They may be intelligent according to the world's standards.

Now, I am not saying who it is here that is not Spirit filled. Both of us might not be. But, both can not be filled and at the same time to see the truth in such a disagreeable manner.

Just because one of us finds reason to be contrary? It does not mean that being able to find a reason to be contrary is disproving the reality that someone else has been shown by grace to be true. It only means that the truth is free to be rejected in God's plan for man. That's all.

I choose to abide by Scripture's description of the Holy Spirit (as a Comforter, as another One who is with us, as the Spirit of unity between us and love between the Father and the Son) and not invoke His presence or absence in either of our lives to explain a mere intellectual discordance. I refuse to believe that a mere difference in philosophical worldview shows anything about how spiritual either of us are. And I choose the grace to believe that you are no less spiritual merely because you try to beat the messenger (in polite words) because you have no other reason to reject his message.

Since you delight in quoting completely unconnected Scripture, I return the favor. Meditating on the Bible edifies the soul and pleases God.

But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
(Jude 1:9 NIV)

If our doctrinal differences are really caused by spiritual discrepancies in either of our lives, then I'd leave the rebuking to God if I were you.

Enjoy the party too.