Before the beginning there was only God.
The question is whether Genesis 1:1, and the week that ensued - the question is whether or not this is THE beginning which is spoken of throughout the Scripture. Is the beginning of Genesis One, and the whole chapter - is that beginning the time frame of the creation of Adam?
Is this the same "Beginning" that is mentioned quite a few times throughout Scripture?
Or is there another beginning? I think not. Can anyone provide scriptural support for the notion of some other, earlier beginning than THE beginning that is referenced by Jesus?
If Genesis chapter Five does not tell us WHEN the beginning was, then what is the reason for all the years and capacity for simple math to lead us to the precise date of the Flood AM?

Views: 1350

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That's a great question Aaron! But first, is there any special reason you are no longer arguing about the foundations of the earth in the other forum? Have you determined that your argument about them was not as strong as you previously thought? Is this why you no longer touch the subject? I was just curious because you just stopped responding and I wasn't sure whether that was because you have conceded the issue or if you were just getting around to posting a response.


 
Aaron Lewis said:

 

 

Do you have any argumentation to support why I should not believe what the Bible text says concerning the third heaven and God sitting on a throne with Jesus at His right side? 

 

If so please present it.

 

 

Hi Jim,

 

Are you saying you agree that the following is correct?

 

If you disagree that the heavens and the earth existed in Genesis 1:1 and was a completed product present your argumentation.

 

If you disagree that a disjunctive conjunction exists between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 present your argumentation.  The Jewish scholars who translated the LXX used a disjunctive conjunction. The Masoretic text is marked with a disjunctive conjunction.

 

If you disagree that God called the light day and a combination of the light that ended with evening and the darkness that ended with the light of the following day in Genesis 1:5 "DAY ONE" present your argumentation.



 Jim Brenneman said:

Good plan. Just stop. You keep challenging us to defend things that we already believe in. But you refuse to support you imaginations about God from Scripture. So stopping would be a good plan. You have no basis in OUR Scripture to say that God IS like man, or that from Eternity God was like man.

You have to stop putting words into my mouth.

I have continually said man is created in the image of God.

The following text agrees and is where I get my statement from.

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.

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

Do you disagree that God created man in Genesis 1:27 in His image?

Do you disagree that the man called Jesus made the following statement?

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Do you disagree that the man called Jesus and God are one and the same?

God Bless,

Aaron

Hi Alexander,

 

When you refute the arguments made I will respond.

 

God Bless,



Alexander Martin said:

That's a great question Aaron! But first, is there any special reason you are no longer arguing about the foundations of the earth in the other forum? Have you determined that your argument about them was not as strong as you previously thought? Is this why you no longer touch the subject? I was just curious because you just stopped responding and I wasn't sure whether that was because you have conceded the issue or if you were just getting around to posting a response.


 
Aaron Lewis said:

 

 

Do you have any argumentation to support why I should not believe what the Bible text says concerning the third heaven and God sitting on a throne with Jesus at His right side? 

 

If so please present it.

 

 

Nah. Such gobbledy gook masquerading as sound thinking does not warrant a response. It is sufficiently muddled and confused to be apparent to all readers as addled nonsense.

Aaron Lewis said:

Are you saying you agree that the following is correct?

If you disagree that the heavens and the earth existed in Genesis 1:1 and was a completed product present your argumentation.

No. No need. It was not a completed product.

If you disagree that a disjunctive conjunction exists between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 present your argumentation.  The Jewish scholars who translated the LXX used a disjunctive conjunction. The Masoretic text is marked with a disjunctive conjunction.

It is a waste of energy. here to discuss disjunctive conjunctions. You don't know the grammatical implications and sense of the usage of the particle here - nor do you grasp the hermeneutical sense, even as proposed by the Seventy. I don't disagree about its presence, just with your convoluted ideas about the sense of the particle.

If you disagree that God called the light day and a combination of the light that ended with evening and the darkness that ended with the light of the following day in Genesis 1:5 "DAY ONE" present your argumentation.

Again, no need to present argumentation. Anyone who opens the Bible and reads it can see that the text does not at all say what you are wrenching out of it. "And Evening and Morning were Day One" is considerably different from your odd reading.



You have to stop putting words into my mouth.

No one is putting words in your mouth. You have said that God is like man. And the verses you quote to support this heretical claim do not say that God is like man.

????? I don't understand. I made my argument on May 17th here: http://www.creationconversations.com/forum/topics/when-did-the-sons...

 

You have yet to respond to the scriptural argument I've made. Are you suggesting that I have to refute your question you gave yesterday before you respond to the argument I've made almost a month ago? The whole reason I would rather not answer your question until you respond to my argument is because I would rather tie up the loose ends you have left hanging before we continue down other rabbit trails.

 

If you don't have a good answer for the scriptures I provided then concede the issue and we can continue.


 
Aaron Lewis said:

Hi Alexander,

 

When you refute the arguments made I will respond.

 

God Bless,



Alexander Martin said:

That's a great question Aaron! But first, is there any special reason you are no longer arguing about the foundations of the earth in the other forum? Have you determined that your argument about them was not as strong as you previously thought? Is this why you no longer touch the subject? I was just curious because you just stopped responding and I wasn't sure whether that was because you have conceded the issue or if you were just getting around to posting a response.


 
Aaron Lewis said:

 

 

Do you have any argumentation to support why I should not believe what the Bible text says concerning the third heaven and God sitting on a throne with Jesus at His right side? 

 

If so please present it.

 

 

Hi Charles,

Charles Jones said:

Aaron,

I, unlike you, have not had the opportunity to study Hebrew. That being the case, I will post the information that has helped my understanding of the passage, and I encourage all of the members here at CC that are well-versed in Hebrew to give input and help me to have the correct understanding or reaffirm if this understanding is correct. I also am curious to know what your explanation is for the orders in Gen1 compared to Gen2 if your understanding were the case.

 

Sorry you haven't had the opportunity to study Hebrew yet.  But you can still study Hebrew as you are still alive.  The problem with most modern teaching of Hebrew it is based upon Modern Hebrew.  Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew are vastly different.  It is thought today that a language that does not have vowels as Biblical Hebrew can not be spoken.  But Biblical Hebrew used consonants as vowels and yes it could be spoken.  The Masoretic text was completed in 1000 AD which was some 1300 years ago. They are the one's who added the vowel markings to the text as the markings did not exist prior to their inserting them.

 

Since James Patrick Holding is an orthodox preterist his views and mine are miles apart on many things.

 

Now as to G1 and G2.

 

G2 is the history/generations of the heavens and the earth in "THE DAY" (as opposed to many days) God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

The Hebrew word translated generations means:

1) descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies

a) account of men and their descendants

1) genealogical list of one's descendants

2) one's contemporaries

3) course of history ne

b) begetting or account of heaven

You can find this definition by using Strong's # H8435. The definition comes from the Genesius's Lexicon.

The verb translated created in Genesis 1:1 has God as the subject with the heavens and the earth as the results of the actions of the subject of the verb.  The verb bra is Kal 1ps perfect which means completed action.  Biblical Hebrew did not have tenses.  Either a verb was perfect which denoted completed or imperfect which denoted ongoing action.

The action of Genesis 1:1 was completed the heavens and the earth existed and the history of that day is recorded in Genesis 2:4-4:24.

According to Isaiah 45:18 the earth was not created in the condition put forth in Genesis 1:2.  The noun used in Genesis 1:2 and translated 'without form' is the same noun translated 'it not in vain'.  So Isaiah said God did not create the earth in the condition it is found in Genesis 1:2.

The events recorded in Genesis 1:2-2:3 took place just as ordered in those verses.

 

That is where the problem comes in trying to say that G2 is just rehashing or expanding G1.

The Jewish scholars who translated the Torah into the LXX translated the first letter of Genesis 1:2 as 'Now' which is a disjunctive conjunction.  That means they did not see Genesis 1:2 as a continuation of verse 1.  If the verb hyh is translated as exists (a state of being, as God exists.  The same verb is used of God say 'I Am That I Am'), verse 2 would read: Now the earth existed........

Which would mean that there was a change from Genesis 1:1.

 

"The Hebrew word here is sadeh, and where it is used of known geographic locations, refers to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture, as opposed to the word used in 1:11, "earth", which is 'erets -- a word which has much broader geographic connotations. 

A key to understanding what is being described here is that verse 2:5 goes on to explain WHY there were no "plants of the field" -- because a) there was no rain upon the earth, and b) there was no man to work the earth -- the two key elements for agriculture according to the ancient mindset. Thus, what this passage indicates is that there was as yet no organized agriculture, and that makes sense of the verses following, where God specifically plants the garden of Eden and places man to tend to it. G2 is not indicating that there were no plants created yet at all, but that a special place was set aside for the foundation of agriculture and for plants "of the field" to be developed."

The explanation of the animals in the Garden is much longer, so I will simply post the link. The animals are addressed a little down the page. http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

JPH is correct when he says,    

"The Hebrew word here is sadeh, which has the primary meaning: 1) field, land.  Strong's # H7704

He goes on then and assumes it is talking about a cultivated field.

He never discusses the first 2 words of the sentence which will put the noun in proper context.

The first word is a preposition with the conjunction prefix and is translated 'And every'.  Every is all inclusive of the object which occurs in the second word.

Which plant does 'every' not include?

The second word is transliterated shyh and means: 1) bush, plant, shrub.  Strong's # H7880

These are not plants that are grown in a cultivated field.  They grow in the woods and especially on uncultivated land.

Therefore the translators should have used land.

But none of every plant existing means that the man became the first living life form on earth after God formed him from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into that form.  Genesis 2:7.


As far as the excuse there was no man to till the ground was the reason there was no cultivated plants is a bunch of baloney.  The man did not plant the garden, God did.

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

So my question would be what did a man existing have to do with the cultivating of the garden or anything that grew in the garden?

 

God Bless,

 

Aaron

No one is saying man planted the garden. The idea of cultivation comes from the phrase "of the field" and the fact that Adam was put in the garden "to tend and keep it." Tending and keeping the garden is an agricultural process. The argument is not that "every" does not include cultivated plants, but that the plants that were already there were not cultivated until Adam began to work the land. When you say, "These are not plants that are grown in a cultivated field. They grow in the woods and especially on uncultivated land", are you referring to the usage of shyh, or are you referring to bushes, plants, and shrubs? If you are referring to the latter, many bushes, shrubs, etc. are cultivated, including berries, flowers, and even leafy plants that bear no flower or fruit. 

So for clarification, are you saying that your position is that the heavens and the earth were created and the garden of Eden planted and man formed on Day1, that either Adam had to wait until Day 3 for plants or that plants were created only in the garden on Day 1 and then the rest of the earth later in the week (same scenario/question for animals), and then what happened on Day 6? I'm sorry if I have misunderstood you, but this is what I have gathered from your post. If this is your position, it just seems like a very complicated reading of Scripture that for me still leaves the question of Day 6. The understanding of Genesis 1 as the whole week and Genesis 2 as a detailed description of Day 6 seems much more straightforward and more correct.

Hi Charles,

Charles Jones said:

No one is saying man planted the garden. The idea of cultivation comes from the phrase "of the field" and the fact that Adam was put in the garden "to tend and keep it." Tending and keeping the garden is an agricultural process. The argument is not that "every" does not include cultivated plants, but that the plants that were already there were not cultivated until Adam began to work the land. When you say, "These are not plants that are grown in a cultivated field. They grow in the woods and especially on uncultivated land", are you referring to the usage of shyh, or are you referring to bushes, plants, and shrubs? If you are referring to the latter, many bushes, shrubs, etc. are cultivated, including berries, flowers, and even leafy plants that bear no flower or fruit. 

So for clarification, are you saying that your position is that the heavens and the earth were created and the garden of Eden planted and man formed on Day1, that either Adam had to wait until Day 3 for plants or that plants were created only in the garden on Day 1 and then the rest of the earth later in the week (same scenario/question for animals), and then what happened on Day 6? I'm sorry if I have misunderstood you, but this is what I have gathered from your post. If this is your position, it just seems like a very complicated reading of Scripture that for me still leaves the question of Day 6. The understanding of Genesis 1 as the whole week and Genesis 2 as a detailed description of Day 6 seems much more straightforward and more correct.

Sorry for your continued confusion as to what I am saying the text says.  I will try to explain.

 

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

According to the Hebrew verb translated created the heavens and earth of Genesis 1:1 was a completed work.

The heavens and the earth existed prior to Genesis 1:2, which begins properly with 'Now the earth' ........

According to Isaiah the earth was not created as it is found in Genesis 1:2 as the earth was not created תהו (without form or empty) but to be inhabited.  Isaiah 45:18

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

All of the things in the history (generations of the heavens and the earth which ends at Genesis 4:24) took place in the day God created the heavens and the earth.  These things were completed in the same day that God created the heavens and the earth. 

 

None of the events of the second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth day took place until after God declared the evening of whatever existed that the heavens and the earth was created in and the morning that ended the dark period found at Genesis 1:2 as "DAY ONE".

 

Now if some enlightened person could show me where the Bible does not say:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

If that verse does not declare that the following history/generations of the heavens and the earth happened on the same day that God created the heavens and the earth, I will have to rethink my position.

 

 

There are those who question what I believe about creation, so let me set the record straight.

 

I believe that the heavens and the earth was created in a light period as there is no place in the Bible that says light was created.  It does say that darkness was created and the only way darkness could be created is if it began to exist in a light period.

 

I believe that "DAY ONE" ended when God declared that the morning following a dark period ended "DAY ONE".

"DAY ONE" was followed by the second day, third day, fourth day, fifth day, sixth day, and the beginning of the seventh day in which God ceased His creating/making.  As far as God is concerned that seventh day is still continuing as He has not started creating/making.  Yet our earth still rotates and we count each rotation as a day.

 

Thus everything in our universe including our universe was created or made by God during those six days recorded in Genesis chapter 1.

 

I believe that the mankind that was created in the image of God in Genesis 1:27 began to exist some 6,000 years ago.

You can find the generations/history of the male of the mankind created in the image of God in:

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

 

God Bless,

 

Aaron

Aaron,

We disagree on the point of the seventh day, and here is a good article to address that issue. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v21/n3/seventh-day-eternal

As Jim has stated repeatedly, light was created when God said, "Let there be light". Why is the only way darkness can begin to exist if it began to exist in a light period? If darkness did not exist in 1:1, then we can conclude or at least leave open the possibility that neither light nor darkness existed in Genesis 1:1, as incomprehensible as that is to us. 

"All of the things in the history (generations of the heavens and the earth which ends at Genesis 4:24) took place in the day God created the heavens and the earth.  These things were completed in the same day that God created the heavens and the earth. "

Are you saying that the Fall and everything up to Genesis 4:24 took place on Day 1? How then does God call the six days "very good" if sin is in the world? Besides that, how do you say, "The events recorded in Genesis 1:2-2:3 took place just as ordered in those verses", if you also believe that the events that occurred up to Genesis 4:24 or even the just the events up to Genesis 1:8 occurred on the first day? Perhaps I am again terribly misunderstanding you, but your posts just keep confusing me.

The question of this thread is whether or not the "BEGINNING" of verse one is the same beginning as mentioned in John 1:1-3, the same beginning of ALL THINGS THAT WERE created as mentioned in Revelation 4:11 - and the beginning that is the first beginning, the beginning of all beginnings.

Aaron says not. He says that there was a throne and a place for God to dwell that was before the beginning. And inasmuch as the throne of God and any place is not actually God, but something other than God, these things are made and not eternal, they are finite things with beginnings - ergo they had a beginning before the beginning.

What was the beginning of all things, before which there was no prior beginning of anything that began?

Eccl. 3:1; Isa. 46:10; 48:3, 7; 64:4; Jer. 17:12; Matt. 19:4; Matt. 24:21; Mark 10:6; 13:9; Col. 1:18; Heb. 1:10; 2 Pet. 3:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:13-14; 3:8; Rev. 1:8; 3:14; 21:16; 22:13. Is Genesis One and Two an overview of the origin of all things and of things related to the earth and man as a comprehensive origin event which Jesus called the beginning of the creation of God?

We can go round and round with all kinds of derail digressions that take this thread in other directions, derails about disjunctive conjunctions and the mean of tilling the soil and rain in chapter two. However, as the originator of this particular thread I will simply invite those who want to digress on these other topics, please feel free to start you own thread on those divergent topics. It is easy.

You are absolutely right Jim. Sorry for that digression. It's easy to make a small off-topic statement in a thread or to respond to off-topic statements and create a whole other discussion in  a thread, but as you said, it is just as easy to start a new thread where the topic belongs.

I often make the mistake of responding to off-topic comments. So I need to make a practice of refusing to digress on these rabbit trails. On the other hand when attacks are unleashed against creationists, in which they are called Pharisees, or legalists, or thought police, or doctrine Nazis, then I cannot help it - I must give an answer to such attacks. But to the questions of doctrine and Hebraic minutia that simply serve as a display of supposed erudition, we need to just ignore them. I wish there was a way for those who START a thread to control what sorts of responses are allowed to remain, but that is just not possible in this format.

Charles Jones said:

You are absolutely right Jim. Sorry for that digression. It's easy to make a small off-topic statement in a thread or to respond to off-topic statements and create a whole other discussion in  a thread, but as you said, it is just as easy to start a new thread where the topic belongs.

Thanks. Perhaps I will join that discussion.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Resources

follow us on Twitter

© 2014   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service