The Earth was changed in 6 days

[versastyle]

its almost like you choose to not see it for some reason
It means ''make''
Thats good enough for me.

No it doesn't. We settled that one!

Isn't God called the creator? I will have to look that one up.

YahwehLove. Can you create and make?

Or can you just make? Because as far as I can tell, God is the only creator, and scripturally there is a difference.

Verse 1 - Created is used.
Verses thereafter - made is used.

Why the change?

 

[YahwehLove]

No it doesn't. We settled that one!

Isn't God called the creator? I will have to look that one up.

YahwehLove. Can you create and make?

Or can you just make? Because as far as I can tell, God is the only creator, and scripturally there is a difference.

Verse 1 - Created is used.
Verses thereafter - made is used.

Why the change?

Here, so we go no further on YOUR definition.
Here is the verse.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Gen 1:1)

created
H1254
áּøà
bârâ'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

There you go.
Its created now.
I fail to see where the issue is.

Are you teaching some gap idea?
If so, I posted verses before that said it ALL happened in 6 days.

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)


Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

 

[versastyle]

GEEZ!

YL: When was the water (for which God's spirit was upon) created?

Specifically, what verse is this clarified?

 

[YahwehLove]

........

 

[YahwehLove]

GEEZ!

YL: When was the water (for which God's spirit was upon) created?

Specifically, what verse is this clarified?

Youll have to clarify what it is your asking me.
Id say Gen 1:2 and in 6 he raised the lands.
If youd tell me what youre trying to propose a bit, I could be a little more clearer

Im not the enemy here friend.
I dont condemn you if you believe in TE.
If you are born again, then you are my brother

 

[versastyle]

Youll have to clarify what it is your asking me.
Id say Gen 1:2 and in 6 he raised the lands.
If youd tell me what youre trying to propose a bit, I could be a little more clearer

The bible isn't clear. According to scripture, the water is never created. Its just there. To think the entire creation occurred in six days only, is to believe the water isn't part of creation.

Also in verse six he did not "create" the masses that would become land. He raised up already existing elements.

Im not the enemy here friend.
I dont condemn you if you believe in TE.
If you are born again, then you are my brother

Thats good!

(btw - I also believe in YEC)

 

[thaiv]

Actually there is a difference between create and make. They are two different Hebrew words and they also have different implications.

 

[YahwehLove]

Actually there is a difference between create and make. They are two different Hebrew words and they also have different implications.

Thats fine if the context of a passage has some specific reason for distinguishing the two.

Now, are you saying that you have picked up on something that the scholars down thru ages missed when they translated the bible over and over and over again?

Somehow I get the feeling that and all powerful God can ''create'' or ''make'' and not have to worry much about semantics.

 

[versastyle]

Somehow I get the feeling that and all powerful God can ''create'' or ''make'' and not have to worry much about semantics.

I'm sure He can, but the odd part is why if they are so similar in nature, He still chose to use two different words.

There must be some significance to it, so maybe you don't feel we should worry about semantics, but God obviously does.

 

[versastyle]

Repost so maybe someone can tell me:

The bible isn't clear on when the water and physical masses were created. According to scripture, the water and masses are never created. Its just there. To think the entire creation occurred in six days only, is to believe the water and mass are not part of creation.

In verse six he did not "create" the masses that would become land. He raised up already existing elements.

 

[YahwehLove]

Repost so maybe someone can tell me:

The bible isn't clear on when the water and physical masses were created. According to scripture, the water and masses are never created. Its just there. To think the entire creation occurred in six days only, is to believe the water and mass are not part of creation.

In verse six he did not "create" the masses that would become land. He raised up already existing elements.

Youre really losing me here.
He created, then obviously did things like raise the lands masses.
Again, if you wouild make it clear where you are headed with this then Im sure an answer could be given.

Water is mentioned in verse 2, I guess that means it were created in verse 1?

 

[versastyle]

He created, then obviously did things like raise the lands masses.
Again, if you wouild make it clear where you are headed with this then Im sure an answer could be given.

Water is mentioned in verse 2, I guess that means it were created in verse 1?

All I am saying is that a literal 6 day only creation is not biblical. This position is severly weakened by the presence of water and mass being unaccounted for scripturally.

You cannot say the water and mass were created on day 1, since the scripture does not say it.

I don't know how to reconcile it without adding to the text.

 

[2Pillars]

Repost so maybe someone can tell me:

The bible isn't clear on when the water and physical masses were created. According to scripture, the water and masses are never created. Its just there. To think the entire creation occurred in six days only, is to believe the water and mass are not part of creation.

In verse six he did not "create" the masses that would become land. He raised up already existing elements.

Dear versastyle:

You are correct, the Scripture did not specifically mention the water being created. Allow me to further explain them for your spiritual understanding.

"In the beginning God Created the heaven (Air) and the Earth (Ground). And the Earth (Ground) was without form, (Dust) and void; (Empty) and darkness (Death) was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The 3 elements necessary for all physical form are shown... Air, Dust, and Water. Everything which is physical is composed of these 3 elements.

The text is correct in showing that the water was not directly created, or spoken into being, because it consists of elements of the Air or Atmosphere. Water is Hydrogen and Oxygen and came from the Atmosphere and is not shown as a separate creation.

This is correct in today's scientific knowledge, but IF the Bible were written by Ancient men, Moses would not have known this. He would have written that in the beginning God created the Air, Dust, and Water, but since God Himself is the Author, He correctly shows that the Atmosphere and Ground were created, and the Water was not a separate creation but instead, came from the Atmosphere.

Let me know should you require more Scriptural understanding. Perhaps, I could also pray for your needs.


God Bless

 

[versastyle]

Very interesting view. Thanks!!

 

[YahwehLove]

All I am saying is that a literal 6 day only creation is not biblical. This position is severly weakened by the presence of water and mass being unaccounted for scripturally.

You cannot say the water and mass were created on day 1, since the scripture does not say it.

I don't know how to reconcile it without adding to the text.

yikes.
I dont even comprehend youre reasoning here.
Maybe someone else who does will reply

 

[YahwehLove]

Very interesting view. Thanks!!

Ah.
Now I see

sorry

 

[versastyle]

I guess we can throw out the "verse 1 is a conclusion of the events to come" theory.

 

[YahwehLove]

I guess we can throw out the "verse 1 is a conclusion of the events to come" theory.

This is all very interesting tho.
Ive been toying with the possibilities here to reconcile some of what science is seeing without changing the scripture to do it and so far its quite astounding.

 

[versastyle]

This is all very interesting tho.
Ive been toying with the possibilities here to reconcile some of what science is seeing without changing the scripture to do it and so far its quite astounding.

I agree.

But I don't take many hard stances on anything written describing events the author did not witness themselves.

I think God guided the authors of the bible, however, I do not think He was the causation of action of the writer word for word, and human error and misunderstanding are still very prevalant in these types of passages.

 

[YahwehLove]

I agree.

But I don't take many hard stances on anything written describing events the author did not witness themselves.

I think God guided the authors of the bible, however, I do not think He was the causation of action of the writer word for word, and human error and misunderstanding are still very prevalant in these types of passages.

I see.
that helps me see where you coming from a bit more.
I was getting kind of lost there for a bit