FreeGrace2 said:
↑
My question was asking what is the big deal about a gap. What doctrines are affected, or how is theology affected? Anything?
Here is one theological problem I thought of.
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
This verse really doesn't support the YEC, as they do use this verse to link Adam's creation with Gen 1:1.
However, this is what I found from visiting the reference section of Cedarville University's library regarding the word "create".
Jesus and Peter said this:
Mark 10:6 - “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’
Obviously, the reference to Adam and the woman takes us to Genesis 1 and 2.
2 Pet 3:4 - They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”
Again, the reference to “our ancestors” would take us back to the original parents, Adam and Eve, and Genesis 1 and 2.
So, how do these verses relate to the age of the earth? The Greek word for “creation” in both verses is κτίσεως. My lexicon refers this word to ‘ktisis’. This Greek word is found under ‘κτίζω’. Under this word we read: “to reduce from a state of wildness and disorder”, from Bagster & Sons lexicon.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2936: κτίζω
κτίζω: 1 aorist ἔκτισα; perfect passive ἐκτισμαι; 1 aorist passive ἐκτίσθην; the Sept. chiefly for בָּרָא; properly,
to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island (Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus, others); hence to found, a city, colony, state, etc.
So from 2 independent Greek lexicon sources, this Greek word for ‘creation’ refers to a creation from a state of disorder and wildness. Or, to make something habitable that wasn’t habitable before.
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that in a long dissertation of κτίζω, that “in the religion of many peoples chaos stands at the beginning of being and becoming”.
The major mythologies (Greek, Roman and Norse) are all parallel accounts, with the names changed among the 3, which is best explained by understanding that Genesis 6 involved fallen angels contaminating the human race, which led God to destroy it, save 8 people; Noah and his family.
In a similar way, the account of creation from Adam and Eve was passed down among the generations. So the common thread of “chaos” in so many different religions would have come from what Genesis 1:2 actually says in the original, not in how every English translation renders it.
The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, by Balz and Schneider Eds. makes notes that “the OT creation narratives are most intelligible within the framework of ancient Near Eastern views, each motif has parallels.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology & Exegesis, by Sylva, notes that κτίζω is used in the the Septuagint for the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Ezra 5:17. It further notes that the word group for κτίζω is used always of divine creation, with 1 exception, in 1 Pet 2:13.
Silva also connects κτίζω with the believer being a new creation. This point is also noted in Kittel’s text. This parallels the restoration of the earth in Gen 1 with regeneration of the believer.
None of these verses make any sense if there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, where some speculate that gap consists of millions of years, maybe even billions.
Given my research above, and citing my scholarly sources that can be looked up by anyone who has access to such a library, proves that the underlining meaning of "create" suggests that the verb "create" has the meaning of a reduction from a state of wildness and disorder. My lexicon by Bagster and Sons.
Which then brings up another problem. Until God made solar time beginning with creation day 1 and onward, Genesis 1:2 is obviously meaning prior to creation day 1. How can anyone then claim that the earth already existed for millions or billions of solar years prior to creation day 1 when there would not even be solar time yet? And how did the planet get lit up all of these millions and billions of years if there is not even a sun until God creates one during the 6 days of creation?
The sun and moon are noted on day 4:
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,
15and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.
16 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.
17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,
18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Getting back to these 3 verses I brought up, where does Genesis have the beginning of creation starting at?
Gen 1:1. In fact, other verses in the Bible say that God SPOKE the universe into existence. That didn't take days. It was immediate.
Psa 33-
8 Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the
people of the world revere him. For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.
The "it" in v.9 refers to the world coming to be. That's Gen 1:1.
How does Gen 1:1 make sense if there is a gap of millions or billions of years since the beginning of the creation, and that in the gap there used to be life on this planet until God wiped them out, so He then started over after this gap? How does that add up to---all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation?
See my research above.
How can it still be the beginning of creation millions or even billions of years later, assuming that is when creation day 1 is meaning? But that would be called recreation not creation, assuming a gap first. None of those verses I submitted call it recreation.
The mistake is thinking that God took days or a length of time to create the universe. He didn't. As Isa 33:8,9 says, He spoke and "it (the earth) came to be."
If anyone is closed-minded here, it's you not me. You are closed-minded to the fact that the Bible is correct and that science isn't, in regards to how long the earth has been hanging out in the sky.
Where have I quoted ANY science? I have quoted scholarly Christian reference books that deal with the original languages. I don't care what science says. That's not what drives me. What drives me is the original languages and what they mean.
And I've already shown repeatedly, the key words in v.2 are translated far differently in the other places where they occur.
But, please explain something, if you will.
If God did create the earth "formless", how can any object have no form? That's impossible on its face. Gases take on the form of what contains it.
But the earth is a solid object. So how can it have no form?
Second, can you show me where God did ANY shaping/forming/etc of earth in Genesis 1?
What we do find in Genesis 1 is what God placed ON the earth.
Thanks.
LOL
