Because of faith in Psalms 12:6-7 in the KJB (a.k.a. Divine Preservation). It says in verse 6: “The words of the LORD are pure words:” and verse 7 says: “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
But if he gave all his money away? As some say here? How could he have compassion on another's need? That takes having money to begin with."But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?"
But if he gave all his money away? As some say here? How could he have compassion on another's need? That takes having money to begin with.
I think we have to realize that it's not for theology regarding creation that causes people to disagree with the clear accounts in scripture. Instead it's a hesitance to accept it because it's difficult.The gap theory falls apart very quickly because Exodus 20:11 clearly tells us that God created everything in 6 literal days.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
There is no gap - it’s merely a fantasy.
You sayThe meaning of specific words in the Hebrew PLUS in the NT Greek.
OK, I read every point associated with the Gap theory and every point that tried to refute the gap. The difficulty side made a whole lot of assumptions that are not valid.
The list of points FOR a gap are quite legitimate and based on the FACTS of what words mean.
1. "waw" is a conjunction and is used for both "and" and "but". But since the Septuagint translates v.2 as "BUT" we need to understand those 70 translators understood the Hebrew far better than any scholar today.
2. "hayah" I've taken the time to research from biblehub.com how many times the exact for of that word in v.2 occurs in the rest of the OT and how the various translations rendered it. From the difficulty side, #13, said that 'was' is the normal rendering. That is FALSE. Of the 111 times the exact form of 'hayah' occurs, it was translated as "became/become" nearly 60% of the time, while it was rendered as 'was' only 6% of the time.
3. Already noted the Septuagint.
4. tohu wabohu. I did the same with these 2 words. Most of the time they were translated as a uninhabited wasteland or words to that effect.
5,6. no comment
7. "creation vs made". From the "refutation side" point 21 said any distinction between the 2 is not valid. That is flat wrong! The Hebrew barah (create) means to create out of nothing, as in "God SPOKE the world into being". Came from nothing. The Hebrew ash (made) means to create/made out of something, which God did with Adam's physical body. But not his soul. See Gen 1;26,27. In the first verse, God made. In the second verse, God created. Different words. Different meanings.
8. Isa 45:18. This is a HUGE point. If we accept Gen 1:2 as translated, then there is a direct CONTRADICTION with Isa 45:18.
In 1:1,2 we have "God created the earth AND the earth WAS tohu".
But, in Isa 45:18 we have "God did not create the earth tohu". While some translations have "in vain" for 'tohu', the NASB has "a waste place", which fits its uses in the other verses in the OT.
The only way to fix the contradiction is to understand 1:2 as , "but the earth became tohu". And there is strong support for that translation.
9-11. various OT passages. No comment. I haven't studied them.
12. angelic fall. While it's obvious there was, we have no idea how it relates to eareth before God created Adam. So any type of explanation IS a theory.
But what isn't a theory, from the meaning of the Hebrew words, is that there IS a time gap between v.1 and v.2.
15. pre-Adamic people. This would be a theory. The Bible doesn't say.
As for the list of "difficulties":
1. "no mention of creation". Uh, what do they think 1:1 is about then? Of course there is mention of initial creation of the universe.
btw, it was very good that God excluded any information as to HOW the earth BECAME tohu. If He had done that, one can just imagine how many people would have gotten all mixed up with whatever happened, and probably applied God's actions towards fallen angels as legitimate towards people. Angels and humans are apples to oranges. No comparison.
2. "not the historical view". so what? Translators had zero context to translate v.2 properly. But comparing the words in v.2 as rendered elsewhere in the OT, the translators didn't use the MOST COMMON usage for v.2.
3. "Genesis not cryptic". Meaning that God "did not inform us" of any time gap, etc. Yes He did. The very words of v.2 tells us that the earth became tohu.
4. The point was mere assumption.
5. "contrary to Scripture". "no explicit verse about a previous creation". Fact is, there is only ONE initial creation, 1:1 is clear. v.2 tells us about the earth became something it wasn't initially. So everything that follows is a restoration of initial creation, not a new one.
6. 'no direct statement of judgment'. So what? Why does there need to be. Any judgment would have been directly at whoever was being judged, which wasn't humanity. See point 12 above.
7. "no death before sin". Animals could easily have died if fallen angels were on earth before Adam was created. In fact, Ezek 28 says that Lucifer was in "Eden, the Garden of God". After Satan rebelled, who is to say he didn't still have access to earth. We can't say either way. But we still have the Hebrew word meanings.
8. "God made the world very good". OK. That verse refers to the restoration. And God would have made the universe very good as well, 1:1.
12. "too much is made of the Hebrew "waw". No, it's very important, because that word was used both ways; as "and" and as "but". And the 70 Hebrew scholars of the Septuagint rendered it "but". They were better at Hebrew than anyone today.
13. "was or became". They claim the 'normal rendering is was', but I refuted that in point 2 above. Nearly 60% of all uses of that exact same form used in the rest of the OT it was rendered as "became/become".
14. "unformed unfilled" per 'tohu wabohu'. As already shown, most of the time those words are translated as a desolated wasteland or an uninhabited desert/waste place, or words to that effect.
16. "Jesus did not believe in any gap from original creation to Adam", and Mark 10:6 was cited. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ My lexicon says this for the word "creation": "properly, ro reduce from a state of disorder and wildness". Hm. Exactly how Gen 1:2 sounds from the proper translation of the key words.
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 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.
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.
17. Isa 45:18 Already discussed above. Common translation is contradicted by Isa 45:18. The proper translation removes any contradiction.
21. "no distinction between create and made". See 7. above.
22. Ezek 28. "more likely a heavenly place". That is presumption. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; Why would there be an Eden, a garden in heaven and also on earth? The obvious fact is that Satan was in the garden of eden even before he rebelled.
23. "time of judgment of angels not specified". Of course not. Why would God mix up history of angels with history of humanity? It would have caused all kinds of confusion and weird religions.
26. "God's failure". Well, let's consider the pre-flood world. Did mankind fail there? Sure did. And God wiped them all out, except 8. How about end times? Does mankind fail there? Sure will. And God will wi;pe them all out too. Except all resurrected and raptured believers. Who will reside for eternity on the new earth.
Just saying.
I ask you to do this with my responses.
Fair enough. Been there, done that. Amen.
btw, I was disappointed that Heb 11:3 was not mentioned, which provides more understanding.
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed (katartizo) at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
'katartizo' has these meanings:
to adjust thoroughly, unite completely, to prepare, to complete, adjust to fit, to repair, refit, a complete adjustment. The bolded words support a restoration.
Yes, it seems Ken Hamm of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum cannot separate an old earth from evolution. He treats any old earth idea as coming from an evolutionist. Well, he is wrong. While evolution demands an old earth, an old earth does NOT demand evolution. Especially an old earth with a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.
It's not obvious because Gen 1:2 was very poorly translated. And I do not blame the translators. They had nothing to work with, other than v.1. But since God said NOTHING about what occurred between the 2 verses, we only have theories about what might or did occur. However, v.2 stands clear that something DID happen to earth and God katartizo'd it. Excuse my Greek.
This is assumption. I claim He did in 1:2. You just have to dig in the original to find it.
By avoiding a whole lot of confusion. Can't you imagine the confusion if God revealed all His dealings with the rebel angels? Just imagine all the irrelevant "doctrines" that man would apply to humanity. I'm glad He didn't.
Sure, Adam was older than the earth. A few days, according to scripture. You're trying to make all this palatable and acceptable to secular people. Don't you realize how much of the Christian life requires supernatural help, including understanding and accepting it all?Thank you
I am open to the truth, which it seems you are not. I have laid out all my cards on why I believe the earth is way older than Adam. My ONLY source is Scripture itself.
This is ridiculous. I asked what doctrine is violated or how is biblical theology challenged by an old earth. The obvious answer is: none. So what's the big deal anyway?
Closed minded people usually come to that conclusion.
I'll tell you what is "theory". Whatever happened between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. That is a theory for those who speculate on what might have happened.
I don't focus on the "might have happened" stuff. I focus solely on what Gen 1:2 actually says. And I have backed up my conclusions from scholarly sources. Which I shared with you, and you summarily dismissed, typical of closed minded individuals.
I agree with you completely on that point. Now apply your own logic to that statement. If Jeremiah used the phrase to show the results of destruction from God's judgement, what must it necessarily mean in Genesis.
How can Satan be a murderer from the beginning if he was created perfect in all his ways?
Eze.28:15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.
Jn.8:44 He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
of usIsaiah 45:18 says, “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”
God did not create the Earth to be in vain (without purpose) but He FORMED IT BE INHABITED. That's what the purpose of the Earth was being formed for. For life to inhabit it (or to live upon it). In other words, God created the Earth for the purpose for life to make it their home.
In Genesis 1:2, when God said the earth was without form and void, He is desribing a time of when it was not formed yet. So there is no contradiction. God did not bring forth any forming (or making) of the Earth before that event. But when God did form the Earth, He did it with the intention for living beings to make it their home. So you are seeing a contradiction where none exists.
Huh? Adam OLDER than the earth. Quite backwards. And not a "few days" either.Sure, Adam was older than the earth. A few days, according to scripture.
Thats where you are also wrong. I don't care what "secular people" think. That doesn't drive anything I believe.You're trying to make all this palatable and acceptable to secular people.
What supernatural help doesn't do is accept false information.Don't you realize how much of the Christian life requires supernatural help, including understanding and accepting it all?
Is it difficult to understand that ALL matter has form?I t
I think we have to realize that it's not for theology regarding creation that causes people to disagree with the clear accounts in scripture. Instead it's a hesitance to accept it because it's difficult.
When Ezek 28 is compared with Isa 14:12-14, it becomes clear that Satan's "original sin" was wanting to be God himself. That was the real rebellion.This is all I have time to try and address for now.
As to John 8:44, I would think the beginning meant is meaning what is recorded in Genesis 3.
As to Ezekiel 28:15, assuming that is meaning satan(I'm not arguing that it is or isn't), what is recorded in Genesis 3 could be meaning when iniquity was found in him. After all, that's when God cursed the serprent, meaning satan. How many times does God need to curse satan? Only one time? Or more than one time?
Why is this an issue? Isa 14:12-14 describes Satan as the guardian of the throne room, obviously a position of prominence, because God needs no guards.If the latter, does anyone have proof from other Scriptures that God cursed satan more than once, and when those other times were?
Well, I didn`t intend to come in on the side of giving all money away. The verse just came to my mind as I was looking at the remarks. The Bible tells us that the greatest Christians will be the ones who spent their lives serving and helping others. I think most Christians will regret not being more ambitious.
This is all I have time to try and address for now.
As to John 8:44, I would think the beginning meant is meaning what is recorded in Genesis 3.
As to Ezekiel 28:15, assuming that is meaning satan(I'm not arguing that it is or isn't), what is recorded in Genesis 3 could be meaning when iniquity was found in him. After all, that's when God cursed the serprent, meaning satan. How many times does God need to curse satan? Only one time? Or more than one time? If the latter, does anyone have proof from other Scriptures that God cursed satan more than once, and when those other times were?
Bible Highlighter said:So being rich is by a case by case basis.
Precisely. Having wealth is not a sin in and of itself. We are warned against depending on our wealth or using it to the detriment of others but we are never told we can't have it. It is the love of money that is the problem not simply having money. The poor can be just as greedy as the rich. King David was very wealthy.
That's all I'm going to say on the matter as it is off topic. You want to start a thread on why only poor people can have faith, go right ahead.
I am not sure we agree. When I said being rich is a case by case basis, I am referring to how God defines in who is rich, and who is not rich (With God condemning those who are rich) according to the New Covenant way. Obviously if a person has pictures of Elvis Presley everywhere in their home, they are making that an idol and they really love Elvis in an unhealthy way. The same is true with money.
If we have a crazy over abundance of money we are showing that we love money
Common sense on that one. We need no preaching on that.
Why? Maybe God gave someone a great idea and he made lots of money with it.... Because that believer first matured in sound doctrine.... Sound doctrine - not the opinions based upon Bible teachers who promote and defend their personal biases while interjecting Scripture where it does not belong.
Misery loves bonding with others.
Teaching the Word correctly (with insight and substance) offers what overcomes the depression many face when placed in the spiritual warfare we find ourselves. Preaching is only complaining along with the depressed.
Teaching is gaining understanding and overcoming the obstacles that must be removed to make the vision of our souls able to see what is to be in God's plan. Very few can really teach. But, they think their preaching is teaching... Teaching is a rare gift. Jesus warned that only a few will find it. James 3:1 warns that only a few should be teachers. Yet, 2 Timothy 4:3, gives the sad news that we will have many teachers telling people what they want to hear. Not seeking what they need to hear to be made happy by God's grace..
oh well .......
Well, that is what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do. To get rid of all his money and give it to the poor. (Matthew 19:16-22)
The command was for the unique life for that rich young ruler. Some want to make it into a universal doctrine for all believers that the Lord has blessed with money. Can they offer someone like Jesus to teach them and follow after they give up all their financial security? Most teachers are not worth more than a few dollars today. Some are very good. Few only. For only a few will find it. Most will be on the broad and wide way to destruction....
Otherwise? There is nothing to debate on this issue. Common sense will take the reigns for whom it will apply.
When Ezek 28 is compared with Isa 14:12-14, it becomes clear that Satan's "original sin" was wanting to be God himself. That was the real rebellion.
Why is this an issue? Isa 14:12-14 describes Satan as the guardian of the throne room, obviously a position of prominence, because God needs no guards.
Then, in Ezek 28 we read that he was created perfect, "until iniquity was found in him", obviously a reference to Isa 14.
And Ezek 28 places him in Eden, the Garden of God before "iniquity was found in him".
What we don't have is any conversation between God and Satan about why God created an inferior creature and placed him on earth.
Now you are just hitting the disagree button (You are just throwing down your opinion in how you are right and I am wrong). That does not prove anything in my opinon.
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
The first thing to note is this---which didst weaken the nations! This indicates that nations have to be existing at the time. Before creation day 1 there couldn't possibly already have been nations existing. Until there is man first, and that man has multiplied on the earth, nations make zero sense in the meantime.
The next thing to note, this is a prophecy and that prophecies predict future events.
Verse 3 indicates---How art thou fallen from heaven. Compare with---
Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Isaiah 14: 13-14 indicates---For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
The following seems to be the fulfillment of--I will be like the most High.
2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Who would argue that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is meaning a time before creation day 1? No one would. And if this is connected with the prophecies recorded in Isaiah 14:12-14, why would one argue that that is meaning before creation day 1 when 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not meaning before creation day 1?
As there will be a Second coming of Christ? There will be a Second falling of Satan.
Each will be the finalization of what the First put into motion.
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?