Taking questions on the Creation.

[AV1611VET]

Maybe he was just "very good"?

Or 'perfect' --- as the passage says.

If God describes Satan as perfect, I'd hate to see what he'd come up with that was only "very good."

God didn't describe 'Satan' as perfect --- God described 'Lucifer' as perfect.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Well, this isn't the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is what condition the house & family were in prior to anything going wrong.

(Actually, it's a Q & A thread on the Creation Week.)

Hey, you opened the door...

Anyways, the creation week is so, well, boring really. It's all right there in Genesis one and two in plain queen's english. What's there to question?

 

[Cabal]

Or 'perfect' --- as the passage says.

And similarly, creation is only "very good" - not perfect, right?

God didn't describe 'Satan' as perfect --- God described 'Lucifer' as perfect.

Whatever, same thing.

As I said, if the evil villain of the story is described by his creator as 'perfect', I love what that implies for something he only describes as 'very good'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, you opened the door...

That's true --- sorry about that.

Anyways, the creation week is so, well, boring really.

Eh --- to some, maybe.

I use it to pwn three different philosophies:

1. Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
2. Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
3. Genesis 1:1a pwns abiogenesis.

It's all right there in Genesis one and two in plain queen's english.

Not exactly.

Some think they actually talked that way back then, and they didn't.

The language of the King James Bible is what we call a 'Heavenly language'.

Here are a couple of excerpts from In Awe of Thy Word, by Gail A. Riplinger:

The vocabulary of the King James Bible was not common, even in the 1500s. In the 1800s Archbishop Trench said,

"It is good that the phraseology of Scripture should not be exactly that of our common life;... just as there is a sense of fitness which dictates that the architecture of a church should be different from that of a house."​

The KJV is not the language of earth. It has no unnecessary steeples, but is "garnished with all manner of precious," "pure," "wholesome," and "undefiled" words --- clearly having come "down from God out of heaven" "polished after the similitude of a palace' (Psalm 144:12). The world shies away from its "wholesome words" and "pure language" qualities (Zephaniah 3:9).

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I actually like to use theory of evolution and reality to pwn myths.

 

[AV1611VET]

And similarly, creation is only "very good" - not perfect, right?

Wrong.

Six times in Genesis One, God declares His work, "good."

Then in verse 31, he steps back and declares all His work, "very good."

Thus identifying His creation as a gestalt, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Whatever, same thing.

Not exactly:

• Lucifer = light bearer
• Satan = adversary; accuser

 

[ReverendDG]

Wrong.

Six times in Genesis One, God declares His work, "good."

Then in verse 31, he steps back and declares all His work, "very good."

Thus identifying His creation as a gestalt, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

how does calling it "very good" make it a gestalt? that seems a baseless and stretched definition for something that isn't evident in the text.

Not exactly:
Lucifer = light bearer
Satan = adversary; accuser

well yes, lucifer is falsely interpreted as being something its not, another name for HaSatan, when in fact its a name for the king of tyre as the book says it is.
the fact is, every other verse in the bible that says something like "day-star", "light-bearer" or "morning-star" which are what lucifer is translated is never translated in the verse people believe is about satan.
funny that.
satan itself is just a word that means adversary, which is why jesus calls peter satan for doubting him.
HaSatan is more correct, but well english is lazy.
oh well.

 

[Sophophile]

Hence, my simple questions: How many years ago did the supernova [1987a] explode, and how far away was it when it did? Your explanation in the QV did not answer these at all.

Did you answer this yet AV1611VET?

Thanks
S.

 

[Cabal]

Wrong.

Six times in Genesis One, God declares His work, "good."

Then in verse 31, he steps back and declares all His work, "very good."

Thus identifying His creation as a gestalt, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

That doesn't imply perfect. Seeing as, y'know, that other verse LITERALLY describes Satan as perfect, whereas this one DOESN'T.

Not exactly:

• Lucifer = light bearer
• Satan = adversary; accuser

Again, and? They're still the same individual.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you answer this yet AV1611VET?

Probably not to anyone's satisfaction that I know of.

I really don't wish to reopen the discussion --- especially in this thread.

I spent a large amount of time in another thread with Jester going over it in great detail.

The point is, God handled the stars, Himself, even placing them in Second Heaven in pictographic notation (i.e. the plan of salvation is in the stars).*

Other than that, I'm at a loss to explain anything out there.

* This book is an excellent read on this subject:

​

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't imply perfect. Seeing as, y'know, that other verse LITERALLY describes Satan as perfect, whereas this one DOESN'T.

There are no verses that describe Satan as 'perfect' --- they wouldn't --- Satan means 'adversary, accuser.'

 

[JustMeSee]

I read and understand what happens in Genesis, but don't understand where you are getting these more complex ideas concerning the text.

Did someone pass their more detailed version of Genesis on to you, or did you come upon the details on your own. It almost seems that you are reading between the lines. Were you enlightened to this knowledge through God?

 

[JustMeSee]

There are no verses that describe Satan as 'perfect' --- they wouldn't --- Satan means 'adversary, accuser.'

Are Lucifer and Satan the same entity?

Was Lucifer described as being perfect?

 

[AV1611VET]

I read and understand what happens in Genesis, but don't understand where you are getting these more complex ideas concerning the text.

Did someone pass their more detailed version of Genesis on to you, or did you come upon the details on your own. It almost seems that you are reading between the lines. Were you enlightened to this knowledge through God?

99% of what I teach about Genesis 1 is what is called Basic Doctrine, or Doctrine 101, or Introductory Theology, or Creationism, or whatever you want to call it.

A structured class on the Creation (if I taught it) might go something like this:

1. The Creation
2. A Glorified State of Existence
3. The Plan of Salvation in the Stars
4. The Water Canopy Theory
5. Modified Punctuated Equilibrium
6. The Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy & The Law of Entropy
7. The Natural Attributes of God & The Moral Attributes of God

 

[AV1611VET]

Are Lucifer and Satan the same entity?

Yes.

Was Lucifer described as being perfect?

Yes.

Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

 

[Cabal]

There are no verses that describe Satan as 'perfect' --- they wouldn't --- Satan means 'adversary, accuser.'

Lucifer, whatever. They're the same person.

No offence AV, but after umpteen petty semantics threads about dinosaurs flying past your window, I'm really not in the mood for splitting hairs. You know what I'm talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lucifer, whatever. They're the same person.

No offence AV, but after umpteen petty semantics threads about dinosaurs flying past your window, I'm really not in the mood for splitting hairs. You know what I'm talking about.

Cabal, I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but you need to realize that this is absolutely necessary.

If not, then you have people getting the wrong idea that God created 'Satan' --- His own adversary.

And add to it the fact that most people (to my surprise) deny that 'Satan' used to be known as 'Lucifer', and that just serves to reinforce the idea.

I get the impression that many people don't even realize that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same angel.

But anyway --- I'm doing it for your own good.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Are you somehow implying that god did not create satan?

 

[Cabal]

Cabal, I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but you need to realize that this is absolutely necessary.

If not, then you have people getting the wrong idea that God created 'Satan' --- His own adversary.

Why wouldn't they? Again, this is back to my list of questions about Eden - why on Earth would you make that claim and still claim God to be omniscient and ultimately benevolent? If God is omniscient, then he knew exactly what Lucifer was going to do - and he still went and made him anyway. What other conclusion do you draw?

And add to it the fact that most people (to my surprise) deny that 'Satan' used to be known as 'Lucifer', and that just serves to reinforce the idea.

I can't say I've thought that - but at the same time, I think the...pantheon, for want of a better word, as described in the Bible is somewhat muddled anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you somehow implying that god did not create satan?

I think I've answered enough questions about 'Satan' --- especially in a thread about the Creation Week.

I am very confident that you guys understand the difference, and can appreciate the fact that we did not have an adversary in Genesis 1.

Amen?