Three Earth Ages

[Calminian]

A different word is used in Genesis 1:1 then the one used in Exodus 20:11. Moses uses bara in Genesis 1:1; 21; 27 (Strong's H1254 - bara'). He uses asah (Strong's H6213 - `asah) in Exodus 20:11 as he uses asah in Genesis 1:7, 11, 12, 16 and 25.

God created the heavens and the earth 'bara' in Genesis 1:1, God made the heavens and the earth suitable for life then creates life (Gen 1:21) and man (Gen 1:27) in the sense of bara.

CREATE: bara' (baw-raw) "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue. Bara is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as 'asah, "to make" (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13), yasar, "to form" (Isa. 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13), and kun, "to establish." (F. F. Bruce, and W. E. Vine. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)​

See also Made `asah ( עָשָׂה Strongs H6213 )

Well I knew the asah vs. bara card would be played eventually. The truth is, asah is just a general word in he hebrew often just meaning to do. It's got a very broad range of meanings and can be interchangeable with bara. But it's really irrelevant, as the formation of all that is in the heavens and earth is what is being discussed. Creating a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 before anything was made, does not solve any of the conflicts between modern naturalistic theories and the Bible, for those naturalistic theories assert that the made universe (the sun moon and stars) has existed billions of years.

The angels rejoiced at the creation of life on earth:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? (Job 38:4-8)​

Again, the hebrew word here is erets which means land. The key word there is foundations. The foundations of the land were laid on day 3. This is when the unformed land was formed into dry land and the seas were gathered in their place (gen. 1:9-10). That is clearly what the passage above is referring to. Angels of light would have been made then on day 1. No problem here whatsoever once you get the ancient nomenclature. Angels would have certainly witnessed the day-3-events Job described.

Again, it comes down to believing Scripture. In six days God made all that is in heaven (sun, moon, stars, angels).

Our seminaries have become a clearing house of Liberal Theology, people are leaving the church in record numbers because they are no longer churches. What is happening here has already happened in Europe where there are a lot of professing Christians, most of which would never accept a miracle and certainly never proclaim the New Testament Gospel.

And this liberalism almost always starts with a compromise on Genesis in an attempt to reconcile it with modern science.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well I knew the asah vs. bara card would be played eventually. The truth is, asah is just a general word in he hebrew often just meaning to do. It's got a very broad range of meanings and can be interchangeable with bara. But it's really irrelevant, as the formation of all that is in the heavens and earth is what is being discussed. Creating a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 before anything was made, does not solve any of the conflicts between modern naturalistic theories and the Bible, for those naturalistic theories assert that the made universe (the sun moon and stars) has existed billions of years.

I'm not creating anything, 'bara' is only used in three places in Genesis 1. It's used three times in connection with man and it's definitely not synonymous with asah. Most importantly, Genesis 1:1,2 are separated from creation week, I didn't make that up, that's how the text is constructed. The only reference to time in those verses is 'in the beginning', I'm not importing that into the text, that's how it reads.

This whole business of a young earth is absolutely pointless, unconnected to anything doctrinal and a hobby horse for the antitheistic, Darwinian crowd and it's utter nonsense.

The emphasis is not on angels, it's not on the age of the earth, it's on life being created in general and man in particular. When the strongest possible term for creation, a 'new creation' is at the heart of the emphasis, a triple parallelism no less, it's not a clue but a beacon telling us what is important.

I can't believe it's so easy to distract Bible believing Christians for the most important doctrinal issue of Scripture with old bones, dirt and speculation things that the Scriptures never address.

Again, the hebrew word here is erets which means land. The key word there is foundations. The foundations of the land were laid on day 3. This is when the unformed land was formed into dry land and the seas were gathered in their place (gen. 1:9-10). That is clearly what the passage above is referring to. Angels of light would have been made then on day 1. No problem here whatsoever once you get the ancient nomenclature. Angels would have certainly witnessed the day-3-events Job described.

Again, we have no revelation regarding the creation of angels and every reason to believe they were created before life was created on this planet. This is not of any relevance to the doctrine of creation and no matter how many ways you slice and dice the semantics is pure undiluted speculation that distracts from the most important doctrinal principle of Scripture.

Again, it comes down to believing Scripture. In six days God made all that is in heaven (sun, moon, stars, angels).

Again, it comes down to the creation of the universe, life and man.

And this liberalism almost always starts with a compromise on Genesis in an attempt to reconcile it with modern science.

There is no conflict between the genuine article of science and Christian theism, there never was, there never can be. God is separate from the created universe, the theological term for it is the asiety (utter independence) of God. Science since the Scientific Revolution has been focused exclusively on natural phenomenon, any over lap between science and theology is anecdotal and incidental but never will it be definitive one way or the other.

This isn't that complicated, you speak where the Scriptures speak and remain silent where the Scriptures are silent and the Scriptures are silent regarding the creation of Satan and the angels. The only indicator we have is telling us they celebrated God's acts during creation week and that indicates they were already created.

The exegesis of the text is sound, you either see it or you don't. The message of Genesis 1 is not hard to understand, you either believe it or you don't.

This is a blend of Genesis 1 and John 1:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made. (The Nicene Creed)​

This is how the Nicene Creed ends:

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.​

In case you missed it, it says, the 'life of the world to come'. I find that so much more important then speculations about things the Scriptures never speak to directly.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:4,5)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Calminian]

...This whole business of a young earth is absolutely pointless, unconnected to anything doctrinal and a hobby horse for the antitheistic, Darwinian crowd and it's utter nonsense.

Brother, I'm really struggling with what you're saying here. It's seems like you're saying it's no big deal. But the fact is, the theology of the cross rests on the foundation of Genesis. If we throw out hermeneutical principles in Genesis, we undermine the very hermeneutical principles on which the gospel rests.

Now I would agree the issue is not about the age of the earth, but rather on the order of events (sin before death), and biblical authority (all things in heaven were made in 6 days). Scripture does not allow a gap for Satan to fall millions of years before Adam. Ezekiel 28 and Genesis 3 show Satan falling in the Garden, and being cursed along with man. These passages in and of themselves, preclude the gap theory.

Also, it seems technically, you're not a young earth creationists, you're a gapper. It seems so, anyway.

I can't believe it's so easy to distract Bible believing Christians for the most important doctrinal issue of Scripture with old bones, dirt and speculation things that the Scriptures never address.

Nor can I believe christians would throw out the biblical timeline (and biblical authority with it) for the sake of man-made philosophies. We absolutely know for certain that angels were created within the 6-day creation. In six days God created the heavens and all that is in them (Ex. 20:11). You can deny this all you want, your battle is with Moses. (I'll get to the bara'/asah issue shortly)

And it's interesting how you insist we have every reason to believe Angels were created before the six days of creation, and then in the next breath tell me it's of no doctrinal significance, and then in the next breath tell me scripture is silent regarding the creation of Satan and angels. I'm not sure what to make of this.

Currently the church in america is on the decline. Polls show belief in essential christian doctrines like the deity of Christ and Resurrection are down, while belief in evolution is on the rise. The next generation is rejecting the faulty foundation we're proclaiming. You may want to check out a very sobering book by Ken Ham "Already Gone." In fact, here's the first chapter. There seems to be a very subtle yet effective strategy here, that's pay big dividends for the enemy.

Belief in Genesis is not essential to salvation, but it is essential to a healthy balanced church that is able to touch the culture and reach the next generation. The nicene creed doesn't mention the authority of scripture as an essential doctrine either, but without it all doctrine falls. One can be confused about it and still be saved, but the church will fall apart without it. Don't you agree?

PS:

Also, you say that bara' and asah are never interchangeable, but look at how they're both used. In Genesis 1:26 God says let us make (asah) man in our image. And then in the very next verse in Genesis 1:27 the passage says that God then created (bara') man. Sounds pretty interchangeable to me.

We also see bara' used of the creation of animals, whereas Moses uses asah to refer to all the things on the earth that God made. There's no question these terms are interchangeable.

This argument of the distinction between bara' and asah solves nothing. It's a smokescreen. Even if you grant that God created the primordial substance and then used it to form everything in 6 days, it still does not solve the deep time issue. For scientists believe that the universe has been formed for billions of years (not just existing unformed), while scripture says it was actually formed over 6 days, only thousands of years ago. The gap theory, for all its compromise and hermeneutical backflips, gives us absolutely nothing in the way of appeasing science. This is why years ago, I had to leave the gap theory, and move to the day age theory (from the pot to the frying pan).

 

[mark kennedy]

Brother, I'm really struggling with what you're saying here. It's seems like you're saying it's no big deal. But the fact is, the theology of the cross rests on the foundation of Genesis. If we throw out hermeneutical principles in Genesis, we undermine the very hermeneutical principles on which the gospel rests.

All true but the age of the earth and the universe are not an issue doctrinally, the creation of life is something else altogether. Some logical separation between the creation of the universe and creation week remains a non-consequential opinion and/or literary feature. The doctrine of the creation of man and original sin are inextricably linked to the Gospel. I am doing what I can to make that clear.

Now I would agree the issue is not about the age of the earth, but rather on the order of events (sin before death), and biblical authority (all things in heaven were made in 6 days). Scripture does not allow a gap for Satan to fall millions of years before Adam. Ezekiel 28 and Genesis 3 show Satan falling in the Garden, and being cursed along with man. These passages in and of themselves, preclude the gap theory.

Heaven, if it's mentioned at all, is mentioned in the opening verse. The 'heavens' are the atmosphere of the earth in the creation narrative. I have no problem with a gap or the lack of one, I just think the universe and the sphere we inhabit, may have been created 6,000 years ago or maybe not. Nothing doctrinal is tied to the timeline, all we know about that is it was 'in the beginning'.

Also, it seems technically, you're not a young earth creationists, you're a gapper. It seems so, anyway.

Sure...

Nor can I believe christians would throw out the biblical timeline (and biblical authority with it) for the sake of man-made philosophies. We absolutely know for certain that angels were created within the 6-day creation. In six days God created the heavens and all that is in them (Ex. 20:11). You can deny this all you want, your battle is with Moses. (I'll get to the bara'/asah issue shortly)

I get along famously with Moses on this point thank you and I've addressed your objections with a sound exegesis of the text. Your making presuppositional projections which is permissible but hardly obligatory from the proof texts your using.

And it's interesting how you insist we have every reason to believe Angels were created before the six days of creation, and then in the next breath tell me it's of no doctrinal significance, and then in the next breath tell me scripture is silent regarding the creation of Satan and angels. I'm not sure what to make of this.

The Scriptures are silent on when the angels were created, period. God's words to Job indicate that they were celebrating creation week while it happened, it's as simple as that. Nothing doctrinal is involved, let alone threatened.

Currently the church in america is on the decline. Polls show belief in essential christian doctrines like the deity of Christ and Resurrection are down, while belief in evolution is on the rise. The next generation is rejecting the faulty foundation we're proclaiming. You may want to check out a very sobering book by Ken Ham "Already Gone." In fact, here's the first chapter. There seems to be a very subtle yet effective strategy here, that's pay big dividends for the enemy.

I've watched that happen for years, selling out the Liberal Theology in our seminaries made it inevitable.

Belief in Genesis is not essential to salvation, but it is essential to a healthy balanced church that is able to touch the culture and reach the next generation. The nicene creed doesn't mention the authority of scripture as an essential doctrine either, but without it all doctrine falls. One can be confused about it and still be saved, but the church will fall apart without it. Don't you agree?

Creation is essential doctrine, the Nicene Creed is a blended paraphrase of Genesis 1 and John 1. You must be a creationist to be a Christian. Still I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, I struggled with the Incarnation and the Trinity for quite a while so I understand someone who is doubting or confused.

PS:

Also, you say that bara' and asah are never interchangeable, but look at how they're both used. In Genesis 1:26 God says let us make (asah) man in our image. And then in the very next verse in Genesis 1:27 the passage says that God then created (bara') man. Sounds pretty interchangeable to me.

Some times they are used interchangeably, that doesn't make them synonymous, a creation can be both. A creation in the 'bara' sense is used only of God and it's a new creation, you can't say that about 'asah'.

We also see bara' used of the creation of animals, whereas Moses uses asah to refer to all the things on the earth that God made. There's no question these terms are interchangeable.

Wouldn't argue otherwise but the Qai form is distinctive, 'bara' is unique in it's meaning, consult you lexicon for details.

This argument of the distinction between bara' and asah solves nothing. It's a smokescreen.

No it's not, it's an irrefutable exegetical point detailing the profound theological implications of 'bara'.

Even if you grant that God created the primordial substance and then used it to form everything in 6 days, it still does not solve the deep time issue.

There is no 'deep time issue', there is an alternate reading of Genesis 1 that allows for an old earth and old universe cosmology. I don't need either of them to be old or young, my interpretation and hermeneutics remain unchanged either way.

For scientists believe that the universe has been formed for billions of years (not just existing unformed), while scripture says it was actually formed over 6 days, only thousands of years ago. The gap theory, for all its compromise and hermeneutical backflips, gives us absolutely nothing in the way of appeasing science. This is why years ago, I had to leave the gap theory, and move to the day age theory (from the pot to the frying pan).

That's simply not true, the age of the earth and the universe is irrelevant. I've gotten the exact same argument from Darwinians who think an old earth/universe cosmology is somehow fatal to Biblical theism. Personally I think it's little more then a diversion whether deliberate or incidental. Nothing in Scripture, certainly nothing in the Gospel is related to the age of the earth or the universe. Creation week is another issue entirely and I will not be goaded into believing otherwise.

I have studied the theology and the science involved with these issues and I'm confident I have a firm understanding of both. The age of the earth and the universe is irrelevant and I say that based on a sound exegesis of the primary proof text, Genesis 1. I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with it and it creates no inward struggle to openly admit that. We can agree to disagree on the age of the earth/universe, I have no qualms about it one way or the other. Think what you like about the creation of Satan and the angels, your primary proof texts do not stand up to close scrutiny. That's not a rebuke, that's a simple matter of fact of no real consequence.

Grace and peace,
Mark

P.S. Thank you kindly for the Ken Ham book excerpt, I'm enjoying it very much.

 

[n2thelight]

Calminian

But did you know that the word there for man is actually adam in the hebrew? Adam is what mankind is called in the Bible, since all come from Adam. This is very common. Israel, for instance, is generally referring to those that descended from Jacob. But we are all admites, because we have all come from him. Thus the general word for mankind is adam.

For that reason, that passage you quote above could not possibly be speaking about a pre-adamic race, which was destroyed before Adam existed. The "man" in that passage is referring specifically to the descendants of Adam. There's no possible way around it.

Brother, I was a gapper for many years. It solves some theological problems, but creates many more. It's an attempt to reconcile the Bible with modern ideas about deep time, while also preserving some important doctrines regarding sin and death. Unfortunately it requires hermeneutical backflips that just aren't feasible. On the surface, it sounds really cool, but once you dive into it, the problems abound.

All did not come from Adam and Eve,as Adam wasn't even the first man,created....

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Genesis 1:27"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."

So it was on this sixth day that both man and woman of all races were formed, and each after their kind. Yet all forms of mankind red, yellow, black [brown], or white are all created in the image of God.

Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, ad over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Adam wasn't created until Gen 2v7

Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Heck,we don't even have Eve here yet......

As for the pre Adamic race,I don't look at it quite that way,and they were'nt destroyed,the earth was,all went back to heaven to be born of woman,ie made flesh.....

We were with God when He created this earth


Job 38

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This is when the earth was created,and it was perfect,not void and without form....

 

[mark kennedy]

All did not come from Adam and Eve,as Adam wasn't even the first man,created....

You are mistaken, the New Testament witness is incontrovertible on this point of doctrine:

Strong's Concordance
Adam: Adam, the first man
Original Word: Ἀδάμ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Proper Noun, Indeclinable
Transliteration: Adam
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-am')
Short Definition: Adam
Definition: Adam, the first man, the first parent of the human race. (Adam, Strong's G76)​

In the New Testament Adam is always the first parent of humanity:

• Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, G76 which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)
• Nevertheless death reigned from Adam G76 to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's G76 transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom 5:14)
• For as in Adam G76 all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cor. 15:22)
• And so it is written, The first man Adam G76 was made a living soul; the last Adam G76 was made a quickening spirit. (1Co 15:45)
• For Adam G76 was first formed, then Eve. (1Ti 2:13)
• And Adam G76 was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. ( 1Tim. 2:14)
• And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, G76 prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (Jude 1:14)

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12). It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.​

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

Genesis derives its name from the Genealogies because it's the defining literary feature. Adam is the first parent of humanity which is why the name is synonymous with humanity very often in the Old Testament, just as Jacob's name, 'Israel' is synonymous with the nation of Israel:

Based on the calculations by Remus Genealogies Adam to Jacob.

 

[n2thelight]

Mark

You are mistaken, the New Testament witness is incontrovertible on this point of doctrine:

Strong's Concordance
Adam: Adam, the first man
Original Word: Ἀδάμ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Proper Noun, Indeclinable
Transliteration: Adam
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-am')
Short Definition: Adam
Definition: Adam, the first man, the first parent of the human race. (Adam, Strong's G76)​

I don't feel Im mistaken,and I know the geneologies quite well....However scripture states God created male and female at the same time

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Genesis 1:27"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."

Who are the male and female in the above verse?And then what did He tell them?

Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, ad over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Blessed who?Them!!!And told them to do what?Be fruitful and multiply,He didn't say that to Adam and Eve.....Lot's of people don't see it,but I can,and it's clear as day....And please don't tell me that Gen 2 is a recap of Gen 1,as you create a problem that's not there....

Where do you think Cain found his wife?

The intent of God was to have each race multiply "after their kind". For God created all that is necessary for all mankind to exist. "Replenish" is translated properly, and the command is to replenish the earth. This earth had a population in the first earth age, and it was inhabited by God's children. Satan caused one third of all God's children to fall, and follow him, and the result of that fall angered God. That is when "the earth became [tohu-va bohu] a waste and desolation", as recorded in verse two.

God is now commanding the races to multiply and "repopulate" the earth "after their kind". It seems though today that the whole world is a bit color blind, or maybe they think God is out of touch with today's world. It is interesting though, following Noah's flood in Genesis 9:1; "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth."

These are the only two places in the Bible where the word "replenish" is used, and both deal with the time following a destruction of the earth and mankind by a flood. To replenish anything, means that it had to exist prior, and in the same form.

Now about Adam,not manknid as I just gave,but The Man Adam

Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

The word "formed" is used [molded as clay] to describe the making of Adam. When man was formed he became a living creature. In the Hebrew it is "eth-ha-adham", which refers to the particular person "Adam", (not a generic form for man). The "Ha-Adham" [Adam] is the man that Christ will come forth through. Matthew 1:1-17, and Luke 3:23-38 both give us our documentation that this is true and did come to pass. Paul states in I Corinthians 15:21-23 that sin came into the world by the first Adam, but by the second Adam [Christ} all shall be made alive. Christ is the first fruits [to come out of the grave to everlasting life], and then "they that are Christ's at His coming". There was death by the first Adam, and salvation by Christ Himself.

This is not the same mankind of chapter one,and it's not a recap........

 

[Calminian]

...Heaven, if it's mentioned at all, is mentioned in the opening verse. The 'heavens' are the atmosphere of the earth in the creation narrative....

That's just not possible. The heavens are said to contain the clouds and also the sun moon and stars. Those extend far beyond the earth's atmosphere. And the ancient writer wouldn't have even known what an atmosphere was. The expanse of vs. 6-8 (the raqia') was named the heavens. This has to be a much vaster expanse than just the atmosphere. If you get a chance, check out Russell Humphreys exegesis in his book "Starlight & Time." His exegesis has by far become the majority opinion among creationist. In the ancient mind, the heavens was all that was above the land and sea. They had no idea jus how far it extended, and how far away these things were, but they called this vast upward expanse, the heavens.

I get along famously with Moses on this point thank you and I've addressed your objections with a sound exegesis of the text.....]

I'm not asking you to get along with him, and asking you to listen to him. I know you've studied him diligently, but the learning never stops. He told you that all that was in the heavens was made within the 6 days. You say "no, there's an exception with angels." That technically, is a disagreement with him.

The Scriptures are silent on when the angels were created, period. God's words to Job indicate that they were celebrating creation week while it happened, it's as simple as that. Nothing doctrinal is involved, let alone threatened.

Wrong! Moses said they were created within the creation week (period). And Job said the angels rejoiced at the formation of the land and sea on day 3. Read the actual passage you're using as a prooftext. Look at the events described. Look at the hebrew word used for earth. It's talking about the land and then immediately afterward, the sea.

Some times they are used interchangeably, that doesn't make them synonymous, a creation can be both. A creation in the 'bara' sense is used only of God and it's a new creation, you can't say that about 'asah'.

What I can say, and have proved, is that asah can be interchangeable with bara' and that it can indeed refer to a creative act of God. These hebrew terms help your argument in no way.

Nothing in Scripture, certainly nothing in the Gospel is related to the age of the earth or the universe.

But that's the point I made to you. I'm the one that told you it's not about the age, but rather about the authority of scripture. You choose to trust science over Moses who clearly tells you the sun, moon, stars and angels (all that are in the heavens) were made within creation week. You think it's just a little compromise, but it's huge. Where is your authority?

I have studied the theology and the science involved.....

I would urge you to put the science aside for a bit, and just focus on the theology. God's truths trump all theories of men, which are constantly changing anyway. Did you know the Hubble actually just found some galaxies that seem to be moving away from us faster than the speed of light? LOL! That just blows my mind. Man is so far from comprehending the heavens, it's not funny.

 

[Calminian]

I don't feel Im mistaken,and I know the geneologies quite well....However scripture states God created male and female at the same time

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Genesis 1:27"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."

Who are the male and female in the above verse?And then what did He tell them?

Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, ad over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Blessed who?Them!!!And told them to do what?Be fruitful and multiply,He didn't say that to Adam and Eve.....

Yes, that was Adam and Eve! In the hebrew, the verse literally reads,

Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make adam in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created adam in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and femalee he created them.​

All are descended from Adam, therefore the hebrew word for mankind is adam. Even Eve was an adamite as she was made from his side. We are all adam—mankind.

Can you now see why this completely precludes this passage from speaking about a pre-adam race?

Where do you think Cain found his wife?

Actually the text never says anything about Cain "finding" a wife. The passage says he went to Nod, and it talks about him procreating with his wife, but nothing about him actually finding her in Nod.

In fact, Cain and Abel would have been over a century old at the time of their conflict, and both may have already had wives and children at the time of Abel's death. How do I know? Seth was said to be Abel's replacement, and he wasn't born until 130 years after Adam's creation. Thus, Abel must have died a year or two before Seth was born. If Cain and Abel were born soon after the Fall, that would have given them more than a century to procreate with the daughters of Adam, which the text clearly says he had (Genesis 5:4).

Interestingly, jewish tradition supports my comments above. According to Josephus, Cain and his wife were banished from the presence of the LORD, and traveled to Nod together. Josephus also says that Cain later sent for his children to join him. Not authoritative but interesting, and fits well with a careful reading of Genesis 4. Here's an in-depth article on the issue.

Cain’s Wife Still On Trial

The intent of God was to have each race multiply "after their kind". For God created all that is necessary for all mankind to exist. "Replenish" is translated properly, and the command is to replenish the earth. This earth had a population in the first earth age, and it was inhabited by God's children. Satan caused one third of all God's children to fall, and follow him, and the result of that fall angered God. That is when "the earth became [tohu-va bohu] a waste and desolation", as recorded in verse two.

And this is why I had to leave the gap theory. It's pure made up speculation, that often contradicts the clear reading of scripture. You say replenish is translated properly, but by whose authority? Did you know that in the day that word was used, it didn't carry the connotation of a repeating action? And did you know when the word did start to carry that connotation translators stopped using it? You know why? Because the hebrew word doesn't have that connotation! Ravah just means to increase in number. Even the NKJV drops the replenish translation.

Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

The word "formed" is used [molded as clay] to describe the making of Adam. When man was formed he became a living creature. In the Hebrew it is "eth-ha-adham", which refers to the particular person "Adam", (not a generic form for man).

But did you also know that the word for mankind in Genesis 1 was also not the generic word for man, but was also adam!

This is not the same mankind of chapter one,and it's not a recap........[/FONT

LOL! Yes it is!!!! Take a look at the hebrew. THE HEBREW WORD FOR MANKIND IS ADAM!!!!! Sorry for shouting.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's just not possible. The heavens are said to contain the clouds and also the sun moon and stars. Those extend far beyond the earth's atmosphere. And the ancient writer wouldn't have even known what an atmosphere was. The expanse of vs. 6-8 (the raqia') was named the heavens. This has to be a much vaster expanse than just the atmosphere. If you get a chance, check out Russell Humphreys exegesis in his book "Starlight & Time." His exegesis has by far become the majority opinion among creationist. In the ancient mind, the heavens was all that was above the land and sea. They had no idea jus how far it extended, and how far away these things were, but they called this vast upward expanse, the heavens.

An interesting point but you don't get to equivocate the heavens of earth or space with the habitat of angels. The original statement still stands?

Heaven, if it's mentioned at all, is mentioned in the opening verse.

Now as for the actual exposition:

I get along famously with Moses on this point thank you and I've addressed your objections with a sound exegesis of the text.....

I'm not asking you to get along with him, and asking you to listen to him. I know you've studied him diligently, but the learning never stops. He told you that all that was in the heavens was made within the 6 days. You say "no, there's an exception with angels." That technically, is a disagreement with him.

Moses describes the creation of life on this planet, the creation of angels and the abode of heaven is not a subject Moses writes about. My disagreement is with your speculation regarding the creation of Satan and the angels, a point previously dismissed due to the lack of actual Scriptural support.

Wrong! Moses said they were created within the creation week (period). And Job said the angels rejoiced at the formation of the land and sea on day 3. Read the actual passage you're using as a prooftext. Look at the events described. Look at the hebrew word used for earth. It's talking about the land and then immediately afterward, the sea.

Moses says nothing of the sort, what the angels 'rejected' is pure undiluted speculation. I have not only read but have offered you detailed exegetical studies that you are simply not responding to. I'm aware of the terms for land and sea and the message is that they are separated by an act of God. Same with the light and darkness and the upper and lower firmament.

What I can say, and have proved, is that asah can be interchangeable with bara' and that it can indeed refer to a creative act of God. These hebrew terms help your argument in no way.

They are sometimes used interchangeably, that doesn't make them synonymous. When they are used in the same context is most often a parallelism, a common Hebrew literary feature. The Lexicon definitions couldn't be clearer and the context the words are used in cannot be ignored. A text without a context is a pretext and you are using an argument called equivocation which is a fallacious attempt to pass off two different things as if they were the same thing. It's an argument that never happened, a logical fallacy.

But that's the point I made to you. I'm the one that told you it's not about the age, but rather about the authority of scripture. You choose to trust science over Moses who clearly tells you the sun, moon, stars and angels (all that are in the heavens) were made within creation week. You think it's just a little compromise, but it's huge. Where is your authority?

Moses describes the creation 'bara' of the heavens and the earth in absolute terms in Genesis 1:1. There is no use of 'asap' in that passage. Moses will not use 'bara' again until the creation of life and your proof text doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. As far as the age of the earth from geology and cosmology there is nothing to compromise with, the age of the earth and the universe is irrelevant. I'm an evangelical so the authority of Scripture is in the canon, that is, in the original as is true of all Christian traditions regarding the canon of Scripture. What I refuse to compromise with is speculative interpretations based on texts taken out of context and speculation regarding the origin of angels.

I would urge you to put the science aside for a bit, and just focus on the theology. God's truths trump all theories of men, which are constantly changing anyway. Did you know the Hubble actually just found some galaxies that seem to be moving away from us faster than the speed of light? LOL! That just blows my mind. Man is so far from comprehending the heavens, it's not funny.

I haven't the slightest interest in cosmology or geology, the only relevant science is evolutionary biology. The primary issue is the creation of life in general and man in particular and the most important issue the is the evolution of the human brain from that of apes.

I can't very well set science aside in this discussion when it has nothing to do with what is being discussed. The age of the earth and the universe is irrelevant.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, that was Adam and Eve! In the hebrew, the verse literally reads,

And this is why I had to leave the gap theory. It's pure made up speculation, that often contradicts the clear reading of scripture. You say replenish is translated properly, but by whose authority? Did you know that in the day that word was used, it didn't carry the connotation of a repeating action? And did you know when the word did start to carry that connotation translators stopped using it? You know why? Because the hebrew word doesn't have that connotation! Ravah just means to increase in number. Even the NKJV drops the replenish translation.

The term used is variously translated

The KJV translates Strongs H4390 in the following manner: fill (107x), full (48x), fulfil (28x), consecrate (15x), accomplish (7x), replenish (7x), wholly (6x), set (6x), expired (3x), fully (2x), gather (2x), overflow (2x), satisfy (2x), misc (14x).​

There are five different forms of the word, it means, 'to fill, be full':

1. (Qal) to be full, fulness, abundance (participle), to be full, be accomplished, be ended, to consecrate, fill the hand
2. (Niphal) to be filled, be armed, be satisfied, to be accomplished, be ended
3. (Piel) to fill, to satisfy, to fulfil, accomplish, complete, to confirm
4. (Pual) to be filled
5. (Hithpael) to mass themselves against

It's used in Genesis 1 to describe new creatures simply filling the earth:

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill (H4390) the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (Gen 1:22)

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish (H4390) the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:28)​

It's also used of setting stones or consecration:

And thou shalt set H4390 in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be the first row. (Exo 28:17)

And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate H4390 them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office. (Exo 28:41)​

There is nothing in the literal meaning of the term to indicate a previous creation. The term allows for it at best but, all it really means is the fill.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I wanted to add an exposition of the Genesis account of the fourth day of creation.

The big difference between the Hebrew Scriptures and the surrounding nations was that their primary source was the elementals; earth, air, fire and water. The gods themselves proceeded from these elementals, in ancient times they even had schools of thought regarding which elemental came first, Thales for instance concluded water. The Hebrew Scriptures are definitively saying, God created the elementals, the heavens, the earth and all that is in them.

Now, about the Fourth day, the sun, moon and earth were already created because God was working on the earth for three days previously. It makes sense that the sun and moon were there they just weren't visible enough to discern between the times and seasons. Day 4 creation has a special word describing the act of creation:

Then God made (06213) two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made (1443) the stars also. (Gen. 1:16)​

Basically it's saying God made `asah ( עָשָׂה Strongs H6213 ), the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. That doesn't mean he brought them into existence but the idea is that he made them visible enough that they could 'rule' the day and night. The stars underwent no actual changes but were set, 'nathan' ( נָתַן nä·than' Strong's H1443) in the heavens, probably based on the same clearing of clouds or whatever atmospheric changes were required.

If God were bringing the sun, moon and stars into existence the word used would have been 'bara', (Strong's 1254 בָּרָא bä·rä'). Everything in the Genesis 1 account is written from the face of the earth, that's the perspective the narration describes creation from. What you have to appreciate is that the text has been well translated and seldom needs the kind of in depth analysis I'm trying to introduce you to here. Usually when you see 'created' it's describing an act of creation that brings something into existence, something only God can do. Then when you see 'made' it's often a change to an existing creation. Finally when you see 'set' it is an even more precise word that is often translated 'give'. In this context the clearing of the atmosphere would now 'give' a clear point of reckoning for determining the times and seasons.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Calminian]

Moses describes the creation of life on this planet, the creation of angels and the abode of heaven is not a subject Moses writes about....

That's news to me. Moses talked about the heavens the earth and the sea and all that is in them. If angels are in them, then they are included.

What you're doing is completely making up a story about angels existing prior, contradicting Moses. You're adding "except angels" to his statement.

Moses says nothing of the sort, what the angels 'rejected' is pure undiluted speculation. I have not only read but have offered you detailed exegetical studies that you are simply not responding to. ....

LOL. What exegesis are you offering? You said you believed scripture was silent on this issue. Now you're saying you've provided an exegesis on angels preexisting the creation?

I can't very well set science aside in this discussion when it has nothing to do with what is being discussed. The age of the earth and the universe is irrelevant.

And yet scripture records for us the history of the universe and gives us chronological data to the point where can can actually calculate it. I would then have to wonder, why did God give us all this information that Mark says is irrelevant?

I know. Maybe Mark is wrong! Maybe everything in the Bible is relevant.

Maybe God gave us this chronological data so we wouldn't wildly speculate about preexisting angels. Maybe He gave us this data so we'd understand that the entire universe began to decay after Adam's sin.

Maybe earth was defined in Gen. 1:10 as land, who we wouldn't fall prey to modern nomenclature and think of it as planet earth.

Maybe God revealed in Ezekiel 28 that Satan was still righteous in Eden, the Garden of God, until sin was found in him. Maybe God revealed in Genesis 3 that the curse on mankind, on the world and on Satan all happened the same day, so we'd know, and wouldn't have to speculate about when he fell.

Maybe it's all relevant.

 

[Calminian]

Day 4 creation has a special word describing the act of creation:

Then God made (06213) two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made (1443) the stars also. (Gen. 1:16)​

Basically it's saying God made `asah ( עָשָׂה Strongs H6213 ), the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. That doesn't mean he brought them into existence but the idea is that he made them visible enough that they could 'rule' the day and night. The stars underwent no actual changes but were set, 'nathan' ( נָתַן nä·than' Strong's H1443) in the heavens, probably based on the same clearing of clouds or whatever atmospheric changes were required.

Forgive me, this is just amazingly nonsensical. Asah is a very simple basic hebrew word. It means to do or to make. It's the same word God used when He said, "Let us make man in our image." Then the text goes on to say he brought man into existence.

Let's review. God says lets make man (asah). God then brings man into existence (bara'). No mystery there.

If God were bringing the sun, moon and stars into existence the word used would have been 'bara', ....

I can only conclude, you're making this up as you go. Asah absolutely can mean create or bring into existence, and God can uses both asah and bara' to express this, and He does exactly this, right here in the same chapter.

Also, while asah can mean to form something, either from nothing or from something, it's never translated to become visible or to appear. If that's what God wanted to communicate, there are several words He could have used—ra'ah (appeared, became visible) or gala (revealed). It would have been a very easy concept to express in the hebrew.

But these words wouldn't have made sense, since there were no animals or men to view anything from earth on day 4. If asah really means became visible, who did they become visible too? God? Angels? It makes no sense. God created, made, formed the sun, moon and stars on day 4. He did not make them visible (to absolutely no one), He made them exist. They were not, and then they were.

What's really going on? Mark is trying desperately to defend an indefensible position and getting into deep trouble with the original hebrew.

 

[mark kennedy]

Forgive me, this is just amazingly nonsensical. Asah is a very simple basic hebrew word. It means to do or to make. It's the same word God used when He said, "Let us make man in our image." Then the text goes on to say he brought man into existence.

Let's review. God says lets make man (asah). God then brings man into existence (bara'). No mystery there.

That's because asah has a much broader range of meaning, it can parallel an 'bara' creation, it can even be used to speak of a 'bara' creation but only in connection with 'bara'. Even though you've seen this before it bears repeating:

CREATE: bara' (baw-raw) "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue. Bara is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as 'asah, "to make" (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13), yasar, "to form" (Isa. 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13), and kun, "to establish." (F. F. Bruce, and W. E. Vine. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)​

With 'bara' only 'God is the subject', it's creation 'out of nothing' which includes the universe (Gen. 1:1), life (Gen 1:21), and man (Gen 1:27). Other verbs have a 'broader range of meaning'. 'Bara' can parallel 'asah', 'yasar' and 'kun' but that does not make them synonymous. What is amazing is that you have decided to ignore the actual meaning of these words, the way they are used in the Hebrew and the literary features they are used in.

I can only conclude, you're making this up as you go. Asah absolutely can mean create or bring into existence, and God can uses both asah and bara' to express this, and He does exactly this, right here in the same chapter.

I can only conclude that you have no intention of understanding the actual meaning of these words because they don't suit your preconceived notions. Only God creates in the sense of 'bara' and you obviously don't know the difference between a parallelism and a synonym. It's called equivocation and it's an argument that never happened.

Also, while asah can mean to form something, either from nothing or from something, it's never translated to become visible or to appear. If that's what God wanted to communicate, there are several words He could have used—ra'ah (appeared, became visible) or gala (revealed). It would have been a very easy concept to express in the hebrew.

You really need to start quoting and citing your sources because your all over the road with this:

`asah Made ( עָשָׂה Strongs H6213 ) - This verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament is used as a syonym for ‘create’ only about 60 times. There is nothing inherent in the word to indicate the nature of the creation involved; it is only when 'asah' is parallel to 'bara' that we can be sure that it implies creation. (F. F. Bruce, and W. E. Vine. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)​

But these words wouldn't have made sense, since there were no animals or men to view anything from earth on day 4. If asah really means became visible, who did they become visible too? God? Angels? It makes no sense. God created, made, formed the sun, moon and stars on day 4. He did not make them visible (to absolutely no one), He made them exist. They were not, and then they were.

It doesn't say that and your really going to need to be more precise if you want to split semantical hairs.

God made the firmament by dividing the waters above and below:

And God made H6213 the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (Gen. 1:7)​

God said for the fruit tree to yield fruit, not create it out of nothing:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding H6213 fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (Gen. 1:11)​

What's really going on? Mark is trying desperately to defend an indefensible position and getting into deep trouble with the original hebrew.

There's nothing desperate about my position, you've gotten increasingly fallacious, while I have offered one sound exegesis after another. I use lexicons, dictionaries a concordance and a detailed analysis of the construction and grammar of the text. You on the other had have equivocated 'bara' and 'asap' and failed to discern one of the most important literary features of Old Testament Hebrew, the parallelism.

You go through all of these changes in order to defend a speculative argument regarding the creation of angels and a flawed exposition of the order of creation. This is why evolutionists can run creationists in circles and easily get them to argue against the genuine article of science. The only issue raised by the Genesis account of creation that is in conflict with evolution is the creation of life in general and man in particular. The age of the earth and the cosmos is irrelevant and the sun was created along with the rest of the universe in Genesis 1:1.

You can argue in circles till you drop, the text does not support what you are trying to make it say. You haven't been able to make a single point stick and now your resorting to an ad hominem argument. That means you have exhausted whatever substantive arguments you thought you had and abandoned the clear meaning of the text in the original.

That's news to me. Moses talked about the heavens the earth and the sea and all that is in them. If angels are in them, then they are included.

The heavens are not the same thing as courts of heaven, you really are developing a bad habit of equivocating different things.

What you're doing is completely making up a story about angels existing prior, contradicting Moses. You're adding "except angels" to his statement.

No, you can't do an exposition of a narrative that doesn't exist within the pages of Scripture. All I know about the angels during creation week is that they celebrated it.

LOL. What exegesis are you offering? You said you believed scripture was silent on this issue. Now you're saying you've provided an exegesis on angels preexisting the creation?

I'm not the one who got this twisted, I'll give you some space to try to sort yourself out though.

And yet scripture records for us the history of the universe and gives us chronological data to the point where can can actually calculate it. I would then have to wonder, why did God give us all this information that Mark says is irrelevant?

Who are you talking to, I thought you were responding to my post.

I know. Maybe Mark is wrong! Maybe everything in the Bible is relevant.

I never said that, I said the age of the earth and the cosmos are irrelevant and the creation of the angels is something the Scriptures are silent about. Then you go into this flight of childish mockery, addressing me in the third person. This is what evolutionists do when they get desperate and have run out of actual arguments. It's disappointing to see a creationist resort to these kind of tactics.

Maybe God gave us this chronological data so we wouldn't wildly speculate about preexisting angels. Maybe He gave us this data so we'd understand that the entire universe began to decay after Adam's sin.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement and I'm not sure you do either.

Maybe earth was defined in Gen. 1:10 as land, who we wouldn't fall prey to modern nomenclature and think of it as planet earth.

God called the dry land Earth...so what?

Maybe God revealed in Ezekiel 28 that Satan was still righteous in Eden, the Garden of God, until sin was found in him. Maybe God revealed in Genesis 3 that the curse on mankind, on the world and on Satan all happened the same day, so we'd know, and wouldn't have to speculate about when he fell.

Satan was in Eden, "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God"... (Ez 28:13) and he was perfect until sin was found in him, "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee". (Eze. 28:18). There is no indication that he either created or perfect in Eden, that's a poor exposition at best. Anything else is pure undiluted speculation as I warned you it would be when you started off on this tangent.

Maybe it's all relevant.

Not the creation of life and not the creation of Adam. Based on the genealogies we get a definite timeline so while you chase tangents in circles:

That's relevant.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Calminian]

...I can only conclude that you have no intention of actually understanding the actual meaning of these words because they don't suit your preconceived notions. Only God creates in the sense of 'bara' and you obviously don't know the difference between a parallelism and a synonym. It's called equivocation and it's an argument that never happened.

LOL! Now you're arguing that Genesis 1:26-27 is hebrew parallelism? I think I've now heard it all.

No Mark, this utterly ridiculous. That passage is not poetry. We know very well what hebrew parallelism is, and this passage bares absolutely no resemblance. What we have is a clear example of 'asah meaning to bring something into existence. You had claimed erroneously, that God would not use this word to express a creative act. Yet he did. Now you're claiming this is hebrew poetry. This is just you desperately holding on to a very bad argument.

You really need to start quoting and citing your sources because your all over the road with this:

From a guy that thinks Gen. 126-27 is poetry.

There's nothing desperate about my position, you've gotten increasingly fallacious, while I have offered one sound exegesis after another.

More lolz. I don't know what else to say. You've made a positive assertion about the accuracy of your exegesis. How could I possibly respond, except by saying, no you haven't?

I use lexicons, dictionaries a concordance and a detailed analysis of the construction and grammar of the text. You on the other had have equivocated 'bara' and 'asap' and failed to discern one of the most important literary features of Old Testament Hebrew, the parallelism.

Yes, you site lexicons endlessly, and never actually prove your case from usage within the text. I'm showing you examples of usage from the text. I showed you specifically how 'asah is used as a creative act in the very chapter we're discussing. I've showed you the fallacies of trying to translate 'asah as "appeared" and why it is logically impossible for that to make any sense. How is that inferior to cutting and pasting lexicon definitions? Guys do this all the time trying to prove yom can mean billions of years. You're doing the exact same thing with bara' and 'asah.

This is why evolutionists can run creationists in circles and easily get them to argue against the genuine article of science. ....

Bingo. This of course, is your sole motivation for clinging to an interpretation that is compatible with naturalistic views of deep time. It's not about the text, it's about what evolutionists think of you. You agree with man's theory of deep time, so you search desperately for an interpretation that is compatible. But I feel I've shown why your gap-theory solution is a non-starter.

You can argue in circles till you drop, the text does not support what you are trying to argue. You haven't been able to make a single point stick and now your resorting to an ad hominem argument. That means you have exhausted whatever substantive arguments you thought you had.

Have a nice day
Mark

Mark, I'm just responding to what you're saying. I can lead doubters to the text, but I can't make them think. I realize nothing I've said has had an impact on you, but that's okay. Sometimes things take time to sink in, and sometimes people never agree. But IMHO, I've completely refuted every point you've made, and used the actual text to do it. But that's just MHO. Unfortunately, I don't have anything else to offer.

 

[mark kennedy]

LOL! Now you're arguing that Genesis 1:26-27 is hebrew parallelism? I think I've now heard it all.

You don't realize that this is a parallelism?:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27)​

It's a common Hebrew literary feature and it's not poetry, it's more accurately described as prose:

It is now generally conceded that parallelism is the fundamental law, not only of the poetical, but even of the rhetorical and therefore of higher style in general in the Old Testament….

…The palillogical parallelism, in which one or more words of the first line are taken up, like an echo or the canon in music, in the second:

"The Lord is a jealous God and avengeth;
The Lord avengeth and is full of wrath;
The Lord taketh vengeance on his adversaries,
And he reserveth wrath for his enemies" (Nahum 1:2)​

PARALLELISM IN HEBREW POETRY

No Mark, this utterly ridiculous. That passage is not poetry. We know very well what hebrew parallelism is, and this passage bares absolutely no resemblance. What we have is a clear example of 'asah meaning to bring something into existence. You had claimed erroneously, that God would not use this word to express a creative act. Yet he did. Now you're claiming this is hebrew poetry. This is just you desperately holding on to a very bad argument.

Your being absurd, historical narratives can use parallelisms, it's one of the most common literary forms in the Old Testament. Not once, not twice but three times the creation of man is repeated, that is clearly a parallelism. If you don't get that I don't know what to tell you but I really didn't notice it until my Old Testament professor pointed it out. At the time I thought nothing of it, it was only later when I realized that 'bara' was used three times in this passage that it peaked my interest.

It's not even an argument, it's a literary feature.

From a guy that thinks Gen. 126-27 is poetry.

Your really getting childish with this.

More lolz. I don't know what else to say. You've made a positive assertion about the accuracy of your exegesis. How could I possibly respond, except by saying, no you haven't?

Sad...

Yes, you site lexicons endlessly, and never actually prove your case from usage within the text. I'm showing you examples of usage from the text. I showed you specifically how 'asah is used as a creative act in the very chapter we're discussing. I've showed you the fallacies of trying to translate 'asah as "appeared" and why it is logically impossible for that to make any sense. How is that inferior to cutting and pasting lexicon definitions? Guys do this all the time trying to prove yom can mean billions of years. You're doing the exact same thing with bara' and 'asah.

That's right, I quote, cite and when possible I link my source material. You on the other hand are the only source material for your arguments. Unlike you I value Christian scholarship and academics.

Oh and BTW, much of the source material I use I type in from books I have collected over the years. When I can find decent online resources I go to considerable trouble to find, format and cite them. In return a fellow creationist responds with childish mockery.

Bingo. This of course, is your sole motivation for clinging to an interpretation that is compatible with naturalistic views of deep time. It's not about the text, it's about what evolutionists think of you. You agree with man's theory of deep time, so you search desperately for an interpretation that is compatible. But I feel I've shown why your gap-theory solution is a non-starter.

Round and around he goes...

Mark, I'm just responding to what you're saying. I can lead doubters to the text, but I can't make them think. I realize nothing I've said has had an impact on you, but that's okay. Sometimes things take time to sink in, and sometimes people never agree. But IMHO, I've completely refuted every point you've made, and used the actual text to do it. But that's just MHO. Unfortunately, I don't have anything else to offer.

No you've made a mockery of the text and I have serious doubts that you are even a Creationist. You have shown no interest in the doctrine of creation and went down every tangent you could find. You've trampled the text and the credible source material under foot. That's not someones humble opinion, that's fallacious rhetoric being argued in circles.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Calminian]

You don't realize that this is a parallelism?:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27)​

It's a common Hebrew literary feature and it's not poetry, it's more accurately described as prose:

It is now generally conceded that parallelism is the fundamental law, not only of the poetical, but even of the rhetorical and therefore of higher style in general in the Old Testament….

…The palillogical parallelism, in which one or more words of the first line are taken up, like an echo or the canon in music, in the second:

"The Lord is a jealous God and avengeth;
The Lord avengeth and is full of wrath;
The Lord taketh vengeance on his adversaries,
And he reserveth wrath for his enemies" (Nahum 1:2)​

PARALLELISM IN HEBREW POETRY

Yes, hebrew parallelism is found all throughout the Bible. Adam used it when he met his wife for the first time. But Genesis 1:26-27 is not hebrew parallelism in any way shape or form.

Mark is there a particular scholar that you've come across that cites this as parallelism? I'm not even sure anyone agrees with you on this.

The ironic part is, if it were parallelism, it would hurt our case, not help it. It would reinforce that "make" and "create" are parallel terms, the very thing you're arguing against.

historical narratives can use parallelisms, it's one of the most common literary forms in the Old Testament.

Agreed. This does not mean that every statement in Genesis is a parallelism.

Your really getting childish with this.

I'll leave the insulting to you. I've got the text on my side.

That's right, I quote, cite and when possible I link my source material. You on the other hand are the only source material for your arguments. Unlike you I value Christian scholarship and academics.

Hmmm. So when you said that if God wanted to speak of the creation of something he would not have used 'asah, was I wrong in actually showing you a passage in the very same chapter, where 'asah was used as a term for creation?

When you claimed that 'asah really means "made visible" was I wrong in showing you that that is never a translation used for 'asah?

Oh and BTW, much of the source material I use I type in from books I have collected over the years....

I would seriously consider getting your money back.

No you've made a mockery of the text and I have serious doubts that you are even a Creationist....

Well, I guess Answers in Genesis, CMI, ICR, Apologetics Press, Creation Today, etc. are all just mockers, because they agree with me on this, and they Genesis 1 is an example of hebrew parallelism. Hebrew parallelism is very easy to recognize and is found all over the Bible, even in Genesis. Translations will ping it out by arranging the text in in a poetic way.

BTW, here is the first instance of hebrew parallelism in the Bible, spoken by Adam himself on day-1.

Gen. 2:23 And Adam said:

“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”​

 

[n2thelight]

Seriously speaking,you all really think the different races came from two people?

 

[n2thelight]

(These verses are all taken from the KJV Bible)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis 1:1-2[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]End of sentence. Nothing more is said and no time frame is given.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]was: OT:1961[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]hayah, haw-yaw;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]a primitive root [compare OT:1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV - beacon, altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, follow, happen, have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, use.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]without form: OT:8414[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]tohuw, to'-hoo; [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]void: OT:922[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]bohuw (bo'-hoo); from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV - emptiness, void.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But wasn't this the way that God created the earth so he could seed it with plants, animals and finally people?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No, if you take a look at Isaiah 45:18 you will see the condition of the earth at the time of creation.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Isaiah 45:18[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]18 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.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Well then, how did the world become without form and void?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jeremiah 4:23-28[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Wasn’t this Noah’s flood? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No, because, as you will see below, there were eight Adamic souls saved plus an ark full of animals. The overthrow destroyed everything, there was no man, the birds were fled, the fruitful place was a wilderness and the cities were broken down.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis 7:11-16[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Peter 3:20[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV[/FONT]

​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Wait a minute, if this happened before Genesis 1:2, how could there be cities to be broken down?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are several verses in the Bible telling us that our souls and spirits existed before the creation of this earth age:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ephesians 1:3-6[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The apostles were predestinated to Jesus Christ![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Peter gives very convincing scripture about the creation, destruction of the earth and about the havens and earth, which are now. Furthermore he is saying that we once knew! hence "stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance." And in verse 3:5 Peter states that "we willingly are ignorant." I am paraphrasing here, the entire scripture is listed below.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2 Peter Ch. 3[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are a number of verses that promise [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mark 10:30[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John 5:39[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Acts 13:48[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Romans 2:7[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When you look up this word "eternal" in the Strong's concordance you will see that eternal live applies also to the past! You will live in all eternity past, present and future. For this to happen we must have existed before this life and before this earth age.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]eternal: NT:166[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]aionios, ahee-o'-nee-os; [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]from NT:165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV - eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jeremiah 1:5[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Revelation 13:8[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Peter 1:20-21[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God[/FONT]

http://www.bibleresearcher.org/Bible/comments/three-world-ages/three-world-ages.html
​