What it doesn't mean is that anyone can make up stuff and claim to be inspired or have 'insight'.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'.
No "insight". Just doing the research on what the key words in v.2 actually mean.And yet the irony is, recognising there is a gap of time between Gen 1. vs 1 &2 is insight.
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.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.
So it's much better to let God's Word do the talking, and we simply repeat what the Word says.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.
That seems to be SOP. (standard operating procedure) on these forums.Anyhoo, was just curious. I guess it's not really the thread to discuss in detail as it's off topic.
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.
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?
As I've been pointing out, this isn't my "interpretation", but rather, what the Hebrew words really mean.Your interpretation would have us believe that the 6 days of creation have zero to do with the beginning.
So, "couldn't possibly", huh. I don't care what the time gap was. It doesn't matter.It couldn't possibly still be the beginning, some thousands, or millions, or even billions of years later.
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 6 days of creation are describing some of the things God did in the beginning.
No "insight". Just doing the research on what the key words in v.2 actually mean.
I would agree with this.I think we might have a different understanding of what constitutes "insight".
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Dinosaurs didn't die out, they just turned invisible and hid.hehe
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.
Have you checked various translations?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.
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.
Have you checked various translations?
In His description of behemoth, God states emphatically that the creature “moves his tail like a cedar” (Job 40:17).
Check these out.... Job 40:17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?