:cloud9: Check this out.....
http://creation.com/
It's odd how the majority of scientists belive that the earth is billions of years old but Christian scientists think it's only 6k years old. It seems a gigantic gap.
More accurately would be "part of the Christian scientists"
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 03, 2010, 11:56:00 PM
More accurately would be "part of the Christian scientists"
J. Preston Eby has said that if the following sorts of concepts had been understood, there would have been less conflict between religion and science.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=96.msg5584#msg5584
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=96.msg5641#msg5641
Quote from former member Kratos (at rest in the Lord) - "There are brief mentions of previous ages and ages to come. We should not think that the Bible includes all that God knows or all that He has ever done. If we assume this, then we make the mistake of assuming that only those things spelled out in great detail can be true.
By your own mention in your time vs eternity thread, God being eternal means that He changes not. If He has ever been a Creator than He has always been a Creator. He could not have just one day said that today He will create something or this would have been a change of who He is. So it makes sense that He has forever been creating as we read in Genesis.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 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.
H8414
תּהוּ
tôhû
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The KJV says that it was "without form" which is defined above. But, notice Isa. 45:18.
Isa 45:18 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.
The same Hebrew word that was translated as "without form" in Gen. 1:2 is translated as "in vain" in this verse. The same Hebrew word is used for "created" in both places.
Now, according to the typical understanding of Gen.1, we have a problem. Isa. 45:18 says that God did not create the earth without form or void. So, either we have a direct contradiction in the Word or something happened between Gen. 1:1 when God created the earth and Gen. 1:2 when it was without form and void.
I believe that the Holy Spirit purposely used this same word so that we would know what had happened to the earth in a previous age. Unless you think that God needed to use evolution to make the earth the way He wanted it to be inhabited. The creation by the spoken word was perfect in the day He created it. Why would God speak into existence the creation in an imperfect or uninhabitable state? It seems that He always does things perfect and good.
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
Isa 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
Now, I know that a lot of UR believers feel that they have outgrown the traditional understanding of Lucifer, but let's leave this alone for now. When in Biblical history can we account for what is described in these verses? Whoever this mysterious Lucifer was, he had a throne on earth and wanted to ascend to the throne of God above the heights of the clouds (clouds being an earthly weather phenomena). As a result, the earth had BECOME a wilderness and cities were destroyed in the process and kingdoms were shaken.
I am not a Hebrew scholar by any means, but I understand that the first part of Gen. 1:1 is the indefinite article which should be translated as "In A beginning" and not "in THE beginning". But, I will not build a case on heresay of what I have heard. But, notice the translation of the word "was' in verse 2 which says that the "earth WAS without form and void".
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.
I have heard Hebrew scholars say that this word definately should be translated as "the world had BECOME without form or void". The Strong's confirms this saying that it means to become or to break or cause to come to pass or fail etc.
So to bring all verses together without contradiction. When God created the earth, He did not create it without form or as a wilderness, but He created it to be inhabited. However, after this initial creation, the eath had become uninhabitable or a wilderness and cities of some kind of men were wiped out in the process. So, God reformed what He had already created.
Hebrews 11 describes this initial creation. God spoke substance out of nothing. But, He used this created substance to make the earth habitable again and this time He made man in His image and let them have dominion. He did not put the earth under the dominion of angels this time. A careful study of Isa:45:18 shows that in the beginning God "created" the earth not in vain and later He "formed" it to be inhabited again. Creation is something out of nothing, but forming is reshaping what was previously created so it can be used again."
John (Kratos)
The gap theory..... :dontknow:
Not exactly. I think the gap theory can rely more heavily on evolution. The Genesis belief as recorded above states God is the absolute Creator, and that any evolution is only micro and never macro. (For anyone unsure, that there are obvious adaptations within species, but never an evolution from one species to another, as in, monkey-to-man :thumbdown:). It just basically says that God has been creating, that things exist from ages ago (the earth itself, fossils, etc), but that approximately 6000 years ago, at a time when the earth had become (at some point) without form and void, God created man in His image and gave him dominion...just as we see now and in the account of Adam and Eve. That He created new things, and reFORMed and reshaped some "old" things.
I believe that's approximately how Mr. Eby understands it, how Kratos above is describing it, and how I tend to give some credence to. I'll know more later :bigGrin:.
:cloud9: God bless Kratos, I miss him.... :HeartThrob:
He was good man and a dear brother.
:cloud9: Yes, he was. His passing hurt me. I really wanted God to move and spare him.
Quote from: jabcat on August 04, 2010, 01:08:44 AM
Not exactly. I think the gap theory can rely more heavily on evolution. The Genesis belief as recorded above states God is the absolute Creator, and that any evolution is only micro and never macro. (For anyone unsure, that there are obvious adaptations within species, but never an evolution from one species to another, as in, monkey-to-man :thumbdown:). It just basically says that God has been creating, that things exist from ages ago (the earth itself, fossils, etc), but that approximately 6000 years ago, at a time when the earth had become (at some point) without form and void, God created man in His image and gave him dominion...just as we see now and in the account of Adam and Eve. That He created new things, and reFORMed and reshaped some "old" things.
I believe that's approximately how Mr. Eby understands it, how Kratos above is describing it, and how I tend to give some credence to. I'll know more later :bigGrin:.
Not sure I follow how the gap theory can also support evolution. I am also one that sees this as "it became" void. I agree also that Scripture wasn't written to prove science, nor was it to date the earth. It was about the restoration of the relationship between man and God. The rest is a bit irrelevant. Interesting, and perhaps helps "lead" to other things. I have my personal thinking on stuff like this, but nothing is ever in stone.
Quote from: Nathan on August 04, 2010, 02:39:16 AM
Quote from: jabcat on August 04, 2010, 01:08:44 AM
Not exactly. I think the gap theory can rely more heavily on evolution. The Genesis belief as recorded above states God is the absolute Creator, and that any evolution is only micro and never macro. (For anyone unsure, that there are obvious adaptations within species, but never an evolution from one species to another, as in, monkey-to-man :thumbdown:). It just basically says that God has been creating, that things exist from ages ago (the earth itself, fossils, etc), but that approximately 6000 years ago, at a time when the earth had become (at some point) without form and void, God created man in His image and gave him dominion...just as we see now and in the account of Adam and Eve. That He created new things, and reFORMed and reshaped some "old" things.
I believe that's approximately how Mr. Eby understands it, how Kratos above is describing it, and how I tend to give some credence to. I'll know more later :bigGrin:.
Not sure I follow how the gap theory can also support evolution.
Yeah, I may have mis-spoke. It appears the gap theory is mostly (if not completely) associated with creation. My bad.
willieH: Hi James... :cloud9:
Not many shall accept the information I am about to share, but there may be those who have arrived at this same conclusion... :dunno:
Btw... Kratos was quite the "thinker"... and there is no doubt that he raised some good questions here, ...but in my own observations of them, I think they were short of understanding... :dontknow:
Quote from: jabcat on August 04, 2010, 12:07:52 AM
Quote from former member Kratos (at rest in the Lord) - "There are brief mentions of previous ages and ages to come. We should not think that the Bible includes all that God knows or all that He has ever done. If we assume this, then we make the mistake of assuming that only those things spelled out in great detail can be true.
One problem I have, is with this opening statement which notes --
"all that He has ever done"... God does not follow a CHRONOLOGY... He always IS... He does not "experience time" as a chronological member OF it... Time is INSIDE Him... He is NOT "outside" of TIME... The phrase "
all that He has ever done" implies chronology... it also implies that prior to this, He had no experience with it that which was "done"...
I see this to be amiss... GOD ...IS... experience. He IS a being of DOING, not a being of "DONE"...
IOW... What IS within GOD, always IS... it is not chonologically "experienced"... it just ...IS... Time is the realm in which the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL is being REVEALED, via the
WORD of GOD which DECLARED the "end from the beginning"... and which "made" all things which are "made"...
The assumption automatically surfaces, that the ETERNAL REALM also contains things that are "made" or that it has a "chronology" which also follows (as does time and things "made") ...a linear pathway... I do not see this as such...
The ETERNAL always ...IS... and all that is IN the ETERNAL has always BEEN... and ALWAYS IS...
With... the exception of the (UNREVEALED), ...KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL... That which is IN HEAVEN (the realm in which GOD lives continually)... is unviolated by EVIL, or UNHOLINESS...
However... GOD has chosen to REVEAL what has always BEEN, but has been UNREVEALED by Him, that being GOOD and EVIL ---> was + is + will be ---> being done (doings), ...within THIS REALM... moment by moment (now moving) until it is complete, PERFECTLY revealed... arriving at the
END which is EXACTLY where it
BEGAN --
Rev 1:8 Which shall serve ETERNALLY to MAGNIFY the JOY of
YHVH in the ETERNAL realm, forever... (whatever that means! ...I for one admittedly do not comprehend something [ETERNITY] that did not "BEGIN", nor ever "ENDS")
Quote from: jabcat on August 04, 2010, 12:07:52 AMBy your own mention in your time vs eternity thread, God being eternal means that He changes not. If He has ever been a Creator than He has always been a Creator.
This observation of "creating" and the "CREATOR" is a deduction, as is seen through the eyes of the FINITE viewer and viewpoint...
As I have just stated... Creation from the ETERNAL viewpoint (IMO) is not initiating something from nothing... it is REVEALING something that was always there, but VEILED from our vision, only KNOWN by
YHVH. (much like the DVD that has been sitting in your cabinet for 6 months, and contains the ENTIRE movie for the 6 months you ignored it in the cabinet-- and even though you have only watched 5 minutes of it... the WHOLE movie is still on the DVD! :dontknow:)
Like taking the cover off the painting in an art gallery, and REVEALING it... the painting was there to begin with, ...and was
present even though covered and unrevealed, until the cover is removed...
In kind, ...GOD has decided to "CREATE" the visibility of the painting (of the Knowledge of G & E), by REMOVING the cover (unveiling it) even though it was FOREVER there inside His heart, ...VEILED from our "sight"...
Quote from: jabcat on August 04, 2010, 12:07:52 AMHe could not have just one day said that today He will create something or this would have been a change of who He is. So it makes sense that He has forever been creating as we read in Genesis.
I definitely do not agree with this thinking (at least from a finite standpoint). This is a determination made, dependent upon FINITE vision as to what the perception of "CREATION" and the "CREATOR" are, attempting to align it FINITELY, with how it actually IS in ETERNAL terms...
Will GOD have other things within the ETERNAL to REVEAL? I do not know, but the Scritpures note He shall BE ...
ALL in
ALL... so it appears to me that this is the "crowning" revelation... maybe not... I do not know everything... and cannot declare any absolutes, and in doing so, arrogantly confine the ALMIGHTY to my finite viewpoints.
Is Creation a "DOING", as most consider it to be? ...which is that God "brought forth" something that WAS NOT existent, into being? Or is it something ETERNALLY different than is commonly esteemed? :dontknow:
I say "ETERNALLY", for anything which IS within GOD... is ETERNAL... for it is existent within an ETERNAL entity. Meaning that the "CREATION" was not something which "took place" 6K years ago, or 13.8 BILLION years ago... but in fact ALWAYS ---> IS :dontknow:
That there appears mysteries on the earth such as the "dinosaurs" or the state of the earth's strata... are of the "where is Noah's ark" variety... :laughing7:
Many things exist that are mysterious on this earth... and I think we shall all give ourselves a "slap on the forehead" when those mysteries are explained... :laughing7: I have a theory about
time that explains the dinosaurs and the earth's strata condition... which I have shared before, but shall withhold it for now.
I believe that the "BEGINNING" (as noted in
Gen 1) was
not the "initiation" of something that was not previously existent...
Rather the "BEGINNING" was the INITIAL MOMENT of the UNVEILING of what has ALWAYS BEEN in the heart of
YHVH... the KNOWLEDGE of G & E... which HE set upon this linear and FINITE pathway called TIME... which is ---> "NOW" ---> set sail into MOTION upon the curling and raging river of
TURMOIL... from the shores of ETERNITY where it was (animately) STILL, and within the state of
PEACE...
The INITIATION of the REVEALING of the a portion of the
WORD of GOD, which holds an EXPERIENTIAL and LIVING entity called
"the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL"... and that
"BEGINNING" proceeds until it reaches its
"END", which denotes the COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE as KNOWN in the Heart of
YHVH and is NOW Revealed by the
WORD, which had DECLARED it ALL, before it was REVEALED --
Isaiah 46:10This "CREATION" which would be HOME to the REVELATION of the "KNOWLEDGE" did not come into existence 6K years ago, nor 13 Billion years ago, it has ALWAYS BEEN... as held in the Heart of
YHVH ...which was UNREVEALED to any other living entity...
I'll address the rest of this post in another answer... I have some things to say about Kratos' view of lucifer...
...willieH :happygrin:
Alright, well-spoken. :thumbsup:
Much to consider.
willieH: Hello... :happygrin:
continuing... :duck:
Be it known that in NO WAY do I mean to tarnish the memory of our dear brother Kratos by my comments below... :grouppray:
But often times John stated things which were quite far-fetched... and unmentioned in Scripture.
QuoteIsa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
Isa 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
Now, I know that a lot of UR believers feel that they have outgrown the traditional understanding of Lucifer, but let's leave this alone for now. When in Biblical history can we account for what is described in these verses? Whoever this mysterious Lucifer was, he had a throne on earth and wanted to ascend to the throne of God above the heights of the clouds (clouds being an earthly weather phenomena). As a result, the earth had BECOME a wilderness and cities were destroyed in the process and kingdoms were shaken.
Kratos expresses a typically orthodox vision here... It is not UNGODLY to aspire to BE like GOD... heck... is that not... THE GOAL?
CHRIST even expressed we are to aspire to BE like GOD --
Matt 5:48This king of Babylon, falls from a once previously successful position as king... not as a resident of "heaven" which went haywire.
If whatever "our kingdom" might be, whether it be of a nation ...or of a single household, we should wish it to ascend to the heights of GODLINESS!
IMO -- This portion of Scripture is of the most misunderstood in the entirety of the
WORD... :sigh:
QuoteSo to bring all verses together without contradiction. When God created the earth, He did not create it without form or as a wilderness, but He created it to be inhabited. However, after this initial creation, the eath had become uninhabitable or a wilderness and cities of some kind of men were wiped out in the process. So, God reformed what He had already created.
Whattt? Where does John get this stuff? This deduction makes God look like a "tinkering scientist" that does not accomplish the desired outcome, so He initiates a cosmic "DO OVER"... :wacko2:
QuoteHebrews 11 describes this initial creation. God spoke substance out of nothing. But, He used this created substance to make the earth habitable again and this time He made man in His image and let them have dominion.
More scrambled eggs... Another story which tale tells that God just can't get it right... I don't buy any of it! :mnah:
John was very orthodox in his viewpoints... I met him in person on one occasion... He was quite outspoken and though he had just come to believe in UR, was still very much ensnared in the
orthodoxy he had recently departed...
QuoteHe did not put the earth under the dominion of angels this time.
This time? :omg:
Where does it say in the Scriptures that the earth was
EVER --- "put under the dominion of angels"? :faint:
QuoteA careful study of Isa:45:18 shows that in the beginning God "created" the earth not in vain and later He "formed" it to be inhabited again. Creation is something out of nothing, but forming is reshaping what was previously created so it can be used again."
John (Kratos)
Could someone explain to me how John got all this from
Isaiah 45:18?
Isaiah 45:18 says
nothing of "
RESHAPING" anything... These are just ideas that Kratos read into what was written... which were actually NOT THERE.
Gen 1:2 -- does not imply that God made the earth IN VAIN... it says it was WITHOUT FORM and VOID... which means that the things which were to be REVEALED and FORMED in the following 6 days -- the waters, the land, the animals, man and the Sabbath... were yet to be revealed in that
7 day process.
When a potter makes a vase... the clay is not designed, glazed and fired, in the SAME MOMENT! It is formed, then dried, then fired then glazed then fired again... a PROCESS...
GOD was REVEALING the creation of TIME, day 1-2-3-4-5-6---->7 ...He did not introduce EVERYTHING that was to be introduced on DAY ONE!
No more than the CLAY is a vase on DAY one... :mnah:
Just because the EARTH was revealed in steps does not imply that because ALL STEPS must needs take place AT ONCE... or that they were contrary to
Isaiah 45:18Just my :2c: ...but John, though he was a good man, ...often read into things while he was here @ TM...
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: jabcat on August 04, 2010, 01:08:44 AM
approximately 6000 years ago, at a time when the earth had become (at some point) without form and void, God created man in His image and gave him dominion...just as we see now and in the account of Adam and Eve. That He created new things, and reFORMed and reshaped some "old" things.
I believe that's approximately how Mr. Eby understands it, how Kratos above is describing it, and how I tend to give some credence to. I'll know more later :bigGrin:.
Does anyone have the reference Mr. Eby made similar to "if this were understood there would have been less conflict between religion and science"? I've googled and oogled :laughing7: and I can't find it...
Quote from: jabcat on August 04, 2010, 03:09:28 AM
Quote from: Nathan on August 04, 2010, 02:39:16 AM
Quote from: jabcat on August 04, 2010, 01:08:44 AM
Not exactly. I think the gap theory can rely more heavily on evolution. The Genesis belief as recorded above states God is the absolute Creator, and that any evolution is only micro and never macro. (For anyone unsure, that there are obvious adaptations within species, but never an evolution from one species to another, as in, monkey-to-man :thumbdown:). It just basically says that God has been creating, that things exist from ages ago (the earth itself, fossils, etc), but that approximately 6000 years ago, at a time when the earth had become (at some point) without form and void, God created man in His image and gave him dominion...just as we see now and in the account of Adam and Eve. That He created new things, and reFORMed and reshaped some "old" things.
I believe that's approximately how Mr. Eby understands it, how Kratos above is describing it, and how I tend to give some credence to. I'll know more later :bigGrin:.
Not sure I follow how the gap theory can also support evolution.
Yeah, I may have mis-spoke. It appears the gap theory is mostly (if not completely) associated with creation. My bad.
The gap theory does solve some problems.
Before the gap there was an era of untold length. After the gap is ~6000-10000 years.
So when science finds something old the simply call it pre-gap.
All other things fit in the 6-10.000 years.
The problem with that theory is that God recreated/fixed the universe. All kind of new things that never have been found.
Quote from: willieH on August 04, 2010, 05:32:07 AM
Quote from: KratosSo to bring all verses together without contradiction. When God created the earth, He did not create it without form or as a wilderness, but He created it to be inhabited. However, after this initial creation, the eath had become uninhabitable or a wilderness and cities of some kind of men were wiped out in the process. So, God reformed what He had already created.
Whattt? Where does John get this stuff?
That's very easy to answer...
Created = Make something out of nothing/not yet existing materials.
Formed = Make something out of already existing materials. => could
also be reshaping like a potter makes a pot from of lump of clay
QuoteThis deduction makes God look like a "tinkering scientist" that does not accomplish the desired outcome, so He initiates a cosmic "DO OVER"... :wacko2:
You only have a point
if Kratos said that God was 'forced' to do a unplanned fixing of things.
Were Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden because Father is a "tinkering scientist" that was forced to correct unforseen events?
Was the flood a way to fix mistakes made by a "tinkering scientist"?
Was Sodom destroyed because a "tinkering scientist" lost control?
Was Jesus sent to earth to repair the damage of a "tinkering scientist"?
I think your answer to all four questions is "No!".
So why is does mentioning 'a gap' automaticly mean Father correcting His mistakes instead of just being one tiny step in the His masterplan?
Note: I'm
not a strong supporter of the gap theory.
For me, backing way up to the Isaiah passage mentioning Lucifer . .oh . . .In don't know how many people we have that have gone through any kind of formal Christian education, but when I went through my experience, one thing they emphasized is how important it is not to form a doctrne from one passage reference. And yet this passage in Isaiah is the ONLY reference to the name Lucifer.
For me, if it's depicting anyone, it's depicting Adam. Everything was made for, through and by Christ. And beings that Christ is the morning star . . .that would make Adam the son of the morning star.
:cloud9: I think so, too, Nate.... :thumbsup:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 02:08:12 PM
Quote from: willieH on August 04, 2010, 05:32:07 AM
Quote from: KratosSo to bring all verses together without contradiction. When God created the earth, He did not create it without form or as a wilderness, but He created it to be inhabited. However, after this initial creation, the eath had become uninhabitable or a wilderness and cities of some kind of men were wiped out in the process. So, God reformed what He had already created.
Whattt? Where does John get this stuff?
That's very easy to answer...
Created = Make something out of nothing/not yet existing materials.
Formed = Make something out of already existing materials. => could also be reshaping like a potter makes a pot from of lump of clay
QuoteThis deduction makes God look like a "tinkering scientist" that does not accomplish the desired outcome, so He initiates a cosmic "DO OVER"... :wacko2:
You only have a point if Kratos said that God was 'forced' to do a unplanned fixing of things.
Were Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden because Father is a "tinkering scientist" that was forced to correct unforseen events?
Was the flood a way to fix mistakes made by a "tinkering scientist"?
Was Sodom destroyed because a "tinkering scientist" lost control?
Was Jesus sent to earth to repair the damage of a "tinkering scientist"?
I think your answer to all four questions is "No!".
So why is does mentioning 'a gap' automaticly mean Father correcting His mistakes instead of just being one tiny step in the His masterplan?
Note: I'm not a strong supporter of the gap theory.
I find the gap theory fascinating, could explain mysteries such as the lost city of atlantis, the desolation of mars being the place of war, mars is often asociated with god of war. But to me rev 12 shows that a third of the angels did not rebel until during the time of the creation of Israel, so maybe Lucifier was battling mostly by himself, but all this is just speculation, all of these things could equally happen, during the time of the tradditional creation week.
If it happened after the days of creation, then where did the serpent come from? he was already in the garden long before Israel was a nation.
Quote from: Nathan on August 04, 2010, 08:38:08 PM
If it happened after the days of creation, then where did the serpent come from? he was already in the garden long before Israel was a nation.
Yes that's one point that could explain a pre existent earth. But the creation event says that God saw everything and behold
all the he made was good. So to me the devil during the time of creation began to rebel against God sometime during the creation, after he spoke those, words
The dragon in Rev12 did not draw the host with his tail until the woman[Israel] was unveiled, so to me it means that Satan was recruiting some of Gods angels during the time of the creation of Israel. There are other interpretations of this, e.g the host here could be Satan destroying Gods angels with his tail, rather than recruiting(this might seem impossible, but remember that even Michael the archangel was respectfull of Satan's power during the time of the old testament). One could also argue that even though the woman is unveiled and told of before the dragon, you could argue that the description of the dragon is not neccerarily chronoligical in time after Israel, but could be describing a seperate event that may have happened before Israel, for the dragon is a destroyer but the serpent is a liar, did the serpent develop into the dragon as his hatred increased or are serpent and dragon to ways to describe the same evil being.
Quote from: thinktank on August 04, 2010, 08:59:16 PMYes that's one point that could explain a pre existent earth. But the creation event says that God saw everything and behold all the he made was good. So to me the devil during the time of creation began to rebel against God sometime during the creation, after he spoke those, words
Define "good" TT.
For me it means "as planned". That doesn't have to mean without sin. And certainly impossible to sin because Adam and Eve did sin....
The meaning of good is defined by it' context.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 09:05:56 PM
Quote from: thinktank on August 04, 2010, 08:59:16 PMYes that's one point that could explain a pre existent earth. But the creation event says that God saw everything and behold all the he made was good. So to me the devil during the time of creation began to rebel against God sometime during the creation, after he spoke those, words
Define "good" TT.
For me it means "as planned". That doesn't have to mean without sin. And certainly impossible to sin because Adam and Eve did sin....
The meaning of good is defined by it' context.
You have a good point, you mean that what God created at that particular time was all good, the earth and the animals and Adam and Eve.
It is an interesting subject and could explain why evolution scientists belive the earth is billions or is it millions, they keep changing it :grin:. I don't particarly want to argue with scientists and say that the earth is 6 thousands years old believing by faith, when that faith is based on error, being scoffed at not because of persecution but because of ignorance, similar to how people believed in a flat earth so I think it's important that Christianity establishes it's position on this matter to avoid any unecessary strife and also to have correct understanding to reach out to any would be learning scientists. But I just want to add that I am not saying that Christian scientists have it wrong, they might indeed be correct, which is my current position.
Quote from: thinktank on August 04, 2010, 09:32:10 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 09:05:56 PM
Quote from: thinktank on August 04, 2010, 08:59:16 PMYes that's one point that could explain a pre existent earth. But the creation event says that God saw everything and behold all the he made was good. So to me the devil during the time of creation began to rebel against God sometime during the creation, after he spoke those, words
Define "good" TT.
For me it means "as planned". That doesn't have to mean without sin. And certainly impossible to sin because Adam and Eve did sin....
The meaning of good is defined by it' context.
You have a good point, you mean that what God created at that particular time was all good, the earth and the animals and Adam and Eve.
I didn't mean that. If God wanted to create perfection He just would have cloned Father/Son/HS.
Got intentinally created sinners. Sounds weird but look at it this way. I assume you agree Jesus' coming to earth 2000 years ago was according to plan.
That can only be a plan if the plan also was to exile Adam and Eve from the garden. If they hadn't eaten from the tree they would still be perfect. There were no laws besides that "tree-law". If that law wasn't broken what would be the use of Jesus. They lived in a perfect enviorment. Father even walked in the garden.
QuoteIt is an interesting subject and could explain why evolution scientists belive the earth is billions or is it millions, they keep changing it :grin:.
My current view is that the 'days' are not days but ages. There are some views on that align with science.
An ancient Jewish scholar wrote that there are 2 calendars. The 'calendar of old' = before adam
And the normal Jewish calendar that is still used today.
You might like this article: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx (I hope the article is a bit clear)
I didn't mean that. If God wanted to create perfection He just would have cloned Father/Son/HS.
Got intentinally created sinners. Sounds weird but look at it this way. I assume you agree Jesus' coming to earth 2000 years ago was according to plan.
That can only be a plan if the plan also was to exile Adam and Eve from the garden. If they hadn't eaten from the tree they would still be perfect. There were no laws besides that "tree-law". If that law wasn't broken what would be the use of Jesus. They lived in a perfect enviorment. Father even walked in the garden.
I don't think God intentionally created sinners, the reason being he made Adam and Eve and all was good at that time. Things did get out of hand but just because God knows the future doesn't negate the fact of Adams fall. This stuff is complex though and I don't want to argue with you too much about this complex subject not that we would :winkgrin:
But I disagree that the father walked in the garden I believe that to be the son. For Jesus said no man has seen the father nor heard him at any time.
Adam and Eve both saw and heard God walking upon the earth. I also think that Jesus is the God that manifests himself to us personally, while the father is more, mystical and less approachable, unless done through Jesus who is our high priest. He that has seen the son has seen the father also.
QuoteIt is an interesting subject and could explain why evolution scientists belive the earth is billions or is it millions, they keep changing it :grin:.
My current view is that the 'days' are not days but ages. There are some views on that align with science.
An ancient Jewish scholar wrote that there are 2 calendars. The 'calendar of old' = before adam
And the normal Jewish calendar that is still used today.
You might like this article: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx (I hope the article is a bit clear)
[/quote]
Ages, would take ages though :grin: The problem with an age, however that long is, that it meses up the patterns of creation of the 7 day week and concerning time here upon earth. Also most civilization dates back to 5000 years around that time, oldest city etc, oldest human bones etc.
But I'll check out that article.
Quote from: thinktank on August 04, 2010, 10:10:34 PM
I didn't mean that. If God wanted to create perfection He just would have cloned Father/Son/HS.
Got intentinally created sinners. Sounds weird but look at it this way. I assume you agree Jesus' coming to earth 2000 years ago was according to plan.
That can only be a plan if the plan also was to exile Adam and Eve from the garden. If they hadn't eaten from the tree they would still be perfect. There were no laws besides that "tree-law". If that law wasn't broken what would be the use of Jesus. They lived in a perfect enviorment. Father even walked in the garden.
I don't think God intentionally created sinners, the reason being he made Adam and Eve and all was good at that time. Things did get out of hand but just because God knows the future doesn't negate the fact of Adams fall.
You can't have it both ways TT...
Things got out of hand and God had to fix things sounds like a not so perfect God.
If God knew things would get out of hand He either planned that for a reason or wasn't capable to design things as well as He would like.
QuoteThis stuff is complex though and I don't want to argue with you too much about this complex subject not that we would :winkgrin:
We already disagree TT because I think this stuff is one of the most easy parts of the Bible. If you see Father as someone with unlimted perfecting in everything He does then that forces us to certain conclusions. I'm aware people got executed for such conclusions a few centuries ago :mshock:
Quote from: ThinkTankAges, would take ages though :grin: The problem with an age, however that long is, that it meses up the patterns of creation of the 7 day week and concerning time here upon earth.
Time passes at a different speed at different places in the universe. So depending where the viewer is the age could last a day. Really. Trust me :laughing7:
QuoteAlso most civilization dates back to 5000 years around that time, oldest city etc, oldest human bones etc.
Civilization is on the current calendar; so no problem there.
QuoteBut I'll check out that article.
So I wrote all that stuff for nuttin :icon_jokercolor:
:cloud9: EXCELLENT article there, WW.... :thumbsup:
I shared it before, but as this article witnesses what was shown to me in a split second of time, I'm going to share it again. I was at my bible study almost 20 years ago, praying, and He gave me a vision of light going extremely fast from my left field of vision, and it slowed down in increments, like a paint color strip going from white to shades of darker, until dark black in the center. It then began to speed up again, finally turning back into the white light it started as.
I was given to understand that the white appearing light was Spirit, and that as it slowed down to the darkest dark, that was matter/creation. He spoke to me, "You have just witnessed creation." The slowness of it is like what this guy said in this article, ie. time "took hold" as soon as it became matter. Blessings....
Quote from: Cardinal on August 04, 2010, 10:39:41 PMThe slowness of it is like what this guy said in this article, ie. time "took hold" as soon as it became matter. Blessings....
QuoteNahmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" - from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning.
Some people might think that this is just fitting in science with the Bible. "time grabs hold" is a 'recent' scientific understanding.
Nahmanides lived 1194-1270 AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahmanides), so it's impossible he just stole the idea from scientists. Personally I wonder where he did find that info in the OT (he was a Jew)
Isa. 14:12 and Lucifer for my :2c: sure sure sounds like Adam and his atributes, from Gen.2:15 and Gen. 3:6.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 10:32:06 PM
You can't have it both ways TT...
Things got out of hand and God had to fix things sounds like a not so perfect God.
If God knew things would get out of hand He either planned that for a reason or wasn't capable to design things as well as He would like.
QuoteThis stuff is complex though and I don't want to argue with you too much about this complex subject not that we would :winkgrin:
We already disagree TT because I think this stuff is one of the most easy parts of the Bible. If you see Father as someone with unlimted perfecting in everything He does then that forces us to certain conclusions. I'm aware people got executed for such conclusions a few centuries ago :mshock:
[/quote]
There's no scripture though that says God is responsible for the fall of man, there's plenty to show our wickedness though. To me it's a bit like a scientist who builds this nano robot that can do it's own thing but the robot ends up looking at its creator and thinking I want to be like you and then goes and breaks down.
The scientist could easilly just throw away the defective robot, instead he chooses to sacrifice his time, sweat and blood to come in the form of a nano robot and to fix the damage that the robot brought upon itself. Herein is love Not that we love God but he loved us and sent his son to die for us.
When I look at what they did centuries ago I think they excecuted people for simply having an opinion that is different to the status quo. I think most of us here wouldn't survive :laughing7:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 11:33:01 PM
QuoteNahmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" - from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning.
Some people might think that this is just fitting in science with the Bible. "time grabs hold" is a 'recent' scientific understanding.
Nahmanides lived 1194-1270 AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahmanides), so it's impossible he just stole the idea from scientists. Personally I wonder where he did find that info in the OT (he was a Jew)
:cloud9: It's amazing the things they know, I have read several articles of late, expressing things that are DEEP, and they were from WAY back......He had to be teaching them, there's just no other explanation. :dontknow:
Quote from: thinktank on August 04, 2010, 11:52:31 PM
When I look at what they did centuries ago I think they excecuted people for simply having an opinion that is different to the status quo. I think most of us here wouldn't survive :laughing7:
:cloud9: I KNOW we wouldn't, LOL.....
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 04, 2010, 11:41:56 PM
Isa. 14:12 and Lucifer for my :2c: sure sure sounds like Adam and his atributes, from Gen.2:15 and Gen. 3:6.
:cloud9: That's what I think.....
Quote from: thinktank on August 04, 2010, 11:52:31 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 10:32:06 PM
You can't have it both ways TT...
Things got out of hand and God had to fix things sounds like a not so perfect God.
If God knew things would get out of hand He either planned that for a reason or wasn't capable to design things as well as He would like.
QuoteThis stuff is complex though and I don't want to argue with you too much about this complex subject not that we would :winkgrin:
We already disagree TT because I think this stuff is one of the most easy parts of the Bible. If you see Father as someone with unlimted perfecting in everything He does then that forces us to certain conclusions. I'm aware people got executed for such conclusions a few centuries ago :mshock:
QuoteThere's no scripture though that says God is responsible for the fall of man, there's plenty to show our wickedness though.
I think there are verses that say just that. (I make vessels for....)
If you buy a pot and it leaks. Are you going to blame the pot? The clay? The oven? Or the potter....?
QuoteTo me it's a bit like a scientist who builds this nano robot that can do it's own thing but the robot ends up looking at its creator and thinking I want to be like you and then goes and breaks down.
Sure the robot has to much vanity like mankind. Agreed.
But the limitations of the robot are not the fault of the robot. The scientist used a limited design.
QuoteThe scientist could easilly just throw away the defective robot, instead he chooses to sacrifice his time, sweat and blood to come in the form of a nano robot and to fix the damage that the robot brought upon itself. Herein is love Not that we love God but he loved us and sent his son to die for us.
I understand what you mean. But consider this: Nano tech is new. Scientists barely understand it. They know their designs are very flawed. They also know they can't do better. But hope to do better in a few years when they learnt new tricks.
But is Father a scientist that has to learn? Or does He fully master nano tech? If Father-scientist is able to make a perfect nanobot but he doesn't and after a while send His Son the nanobot-repairman to fix the nanobot; what can we derive from that info?
Father
could have created a nanobot that didn't need repair. He has no single excuse for the flawed robot. His designs are perfect. His materials are perfect. The habitat of the robot is perfect. Just because God=perfection and only does (create) perfect things. So when everything is created by a never failing perfect creator how can it be that the nanobot needs repair?
IMO because that repair is not because of a something that accidently broke down; no because it's part of a perfect plan.
QuoteWhen I look at what they did centuries ago I think they excecuted people for simply having an opinion that is different to the status quo. I think most of us here wouldn't survive :laughing7:
Good to close this post and day with agreement :thumbsup:
willieH: Hi WW... :hithere:
Quote from: willieH on August 04, 2010, 05:32:07 AM
Quote from: KratosSo to bring all verses together without contradiction. When God created the earth, He did not create it without form or as a wilderness, but He created it to be inhabited. However, after this initial creation, the eath had become uninhabitable or a wilderness and cities of some kind of men were wiped out in the process. So, God reformed what He had already created.
Whattt? Where does John get this stuff?
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 02:08:12 PMThat's very easy to answer...
Created = Make something out of nothing/not yet existing materials.
Formed = Make something out of already existing materials. => could also be reshaping like a potter makes a pot from of lump of clay
This is your observation, and you are welcome to it... I do not criticize you for it... but I definitely think it is a VERY SURFACE observation... that said...
FIRST -- Kratos ADDED thought (re-shaping" is NOT part of the definition of the word
YATSAR) to the word "FORMED" [yatsar] as is translated in --
Isaiah 45:18 -- asserting it to be an allusion to OTHER than the Creation account in Genesis... in order to give foundation for the other additions and unfounded assertions he made (
such as there were other "men", and "cities" that were destroyed by GOD) ...before GOD did His "Divine - DO-OVER"... and then, created ADAM... :rolleye: (forgive me --- What a lot of
baloney!)
(1) Kratos gives no
REASON for this DESTRUCTION of these "other men" and their "cities", ...nor does he
(2) provide any EXPLANATION as to why the "ADAM project" was not done to begin with... instead of these "other men" and "cities" being destroyed, or why this alleged UNBIBLICAL (unwritten) "destruction" even took place... as well as
(3) leaving out any PURPOSE that this might have serve as part of the alleged "creation/destruction/reshaping" PROCESS he proposes. :wacko2:
Can YOU enlighten us as to the PART or PURPOSE within the revealing agenda of GOD, that this UNWRITTEN assertion provides within His "revelation", WW?
(4) Time, the heavens, the sun, the moon, the seas, the land, food, and the animals all had yet to be created... so the "creation/destruction/reshaping" all took place before TIME and the necessary entities within it, were even EXISTENT? (pretty "HOLEY" conjecture... :pitiful:)
(5) So there were "other men and cities" according to Kratos --- which had no TIME, LIGHT, HEAVENS (including the earths atmosphere), SUN, MOON, STARS, WATERS, LAND, FOOD, ANIMALS... yet they somehow they "ticked God off" enough for Him to destroy them? ... :mshock: ... ah... this sounds like a very unresearched and badly written sci-fi or fantasy story to me... :prankster:
There are other holes to pick in this
THEORY of his, but for the moment, lets move on... (I'll pick on it more later :laughing7:)
SECOND --- Hope you can understand this:
That GOD created the "Creation" is a manifestation of an ETERNAL being... So the "manifestation" has to be of an ETERNAL essence, as it EMERGED from Him...
IOW... what emerges from an ETERNAL entity has the very same characteristic of that which it emerged from, which is ETERNAL...
As far as "FORMING" goes, ...The POTTER shapes the CLAY within a realm which is
(1) in motion,
(2) is "step oriented" = beginning/middle/end -- the POTTER's realm however, is NOT "step oriented" it IS as it IS... without any beginning or ending or processing parameters attached to it. :dontknow:
Quote from: willieHThis deduction makes God look like a "tinkering scientist" that does not accomplish the desired outcome, so He initiates a cosmic "DO OVER"... :wacko2:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 02:08:12 PMYou only have a point if Kratos said that God was 'forced' to do a unplanned fixing of things.
Let me stop this for just a quick minute...
Where is any suggestion of a "
PLAN" noted in the
WORD? :dunno:
GOD brings forth His agenda, and said agenda IS that which shall BE... no "
Plan" of any sort is even mentioned in the
WORD... (that I have found, help me out here! Where is this "plan"?)
However,
REVELATION of the
WORD ...
IS... mentioned. And it is the REVELATION of the DECLARATION of ALL THINGS, made by
YHVH God (as noted in
Isaiah 46:10 -- Rom 4:17) -- that IS in fact what is taking place here in this realm.
Sip on this
cup of tea for a bit
---> SALVATION is not a "
plan" as theologians suggest! And there is no Scripture to note a "
plan" of Salvation! ...only the REVEALED (or UNREVEALED)
WORD of GOD... :mshock:
SALVATION is a part of the REVEALING of the
WORD of
YHVH, which contains the KNOWLEDGE of G & E... and which is a necessary REDEEMING portion of the REVELATION of that
WORD... which REINSTATES/restores the CHILDREN of
YHVH which have been PARTICIPANTS within the REVELATION of the knowledge... :nod:
The UNFOUNDED assertions that Kratos has made, were that a mysterious and unwritten, "first" set of men, and cities did not "work out" -- which is strictly imaginary, not based in the accounts found in the Scriptures...
Where is the BIBLICAL explanation of this "re-shaping", WW? How could these have existed without TIME, or LIGHT, or atmosphere, or food, all of which had
yet to be created? (in
Gen 1:3-31)
There is nothing to suggest that ANY of this took place other than in the imagination of KRATOS...
Please provide the Scriptural accounts which describe the "pre-creation" noting how these "men" preceeded the FIRST man, and existed without ANY of the elements needed to sustain men, ...and then the REASONS for the subsequent, "DO OVER"... :dontknow:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 02:08:12 PMWere Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden because Father is a "tinkering scientist" that was forced to correct unforseen events?
Was the flood a way to fix mistakes made by a "tinkering scientist"?
Was Sodom destroyed because a "tinkering scientist" lost control?
Was Jesus sent to earth to repair the damage of a "tinkering scientist"?
I think your answer to all four questions is "No!".
YES... my answer is
NO... :laughing7:
These you note above, are ALL part of the ILLUSTRATIVE Revelation of the "knowledge" of GOOD and EVIL... And ALL of these portray a PICTURE of that revelation, as well as PLAY a USEFUL PART in it... What part did the "other men, and cities" play? Wherein is the PURPOSE for them?
ALL these accounts you just named are SPECIFICALLY ...
IN... the
WORD of God... and the
WORD is that which REVEALS
YHVH --
Matt 11:27 -- and the workings of HIS heart, as HE declared it ALL --
Isaiah 46:10Whereas, this conjecture of brother Kratos, is UNFOUNDED concerning the
WORDS of Scripture, and had to be "SHAPED" by him, or maybe "RE-SHAPED" by you, in order to "be"... :dontknow:
For this account, is NOT FOUND in the
WORD... rather is born of the mind of a man named Kratos, ...and his imagination.
Kratos is suggesting that there are an additional and separate set of events In
Gen 1 and
Isaiah 45:18 -- which are differentiated and based upon the use of the words "FORMED" and "CREATED"...
FYI ...I shall continue to see this as a manufactured imagination, until you (or anyone else) can prove it to actually BE otherwise... :dontknow:
The word
FORMED (in
Isaiah 45:18) is --
#H3335 -- Yatsar -- means to form or fashion, frame, etc.
The word
CREATED (in
Gen 1:3) is --
#H1254 -- Bara -- which means - create, dispatch, and also includes feed (as
FORMATIVE processes)
Essentially these 2 words are easily attached to the Creation account of Genesis... without any MYSTERIOUS set of "men and cities" as asserted in their usage.
FORMING and
CREATING are the
same thing...
Gen 1:27 -- so God ...CREATED [H1254 - BARA]
man [#H120=adam] in His image...
Gen 2:7 -- And
YHVH ...FORMED [#H3335 - YATSAR]
man [#H120=adam] of the dust of the ground...
Well, which is it WW?
Did GOD
create man [#H120=adam] or
form man [#H120=adam]? Or is the truth they (create and form) are one and the same thing? For BOTH these words are used in attachment to ADAM [#H120=adam].
MAN -- #H120 = adam
ADAM -- #H120 = adam
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 02:08:12 PMSo why is does mentioning 'a gap' automaticly mean Father correcting His mistakes instead of just being one tiny step in the His masterplan?
I have already stated that NO "plan" is being enacted... only REVELATION of the
WORD of God, is being done.
There is no "gap"... this is only established upon ASSUMPTION instead of STATEMENT... God does not make mistakes... If He did, then He could not claim to be PERFECT which Scripture notes Him to be --
Matt 5:48If there were Scripture which actually purported multiple creations with "gaps", then I would have to consider this proposal of Kratos... but there are NOT...
Not only that, but the "MEN and Cities" that he suggested were destroyed, have NO Salvation program in place to save them... for the program of Salvation is oriented toward ADAM and all IN Adam --
Rom 5:18-20 -- If these preceeded ADAM, then they are not ...IN... adam.
Not only that, but ADAM is noted by Scripture to be the
FIRST MAN... this could not be so if the little imaginary community which Kratos claims, and that God "had to destroy" (which is NOT noted in the
WORD) had MEN living in these cities... :mnah:
Not only that, but SIN entered THE WORLD through ADAM... as is noted in
Rom 5:12 -- Why would GOD be destroying this (Kratos imagined) "CITY" of "MEN" preceeding the FIRST MAN? When SIN was stated as entering the WORLD through ADAM, and DEATH concerning ALL MEN, as well? If these "men" died, then DEATH did not enter through ADAM...
The truth is that this is a lot of baloney... and is so full of holes and descrepancies, as to appear threadbare.
The writing quoted by bro James/Jabcat by KRATOS, asserts way TOO MANY imaginations with too many HOLES in them, WW...
You are welcome to embrace them if you like... that is your affair bro... :dontknow:
Quote from: willieH on August 05, 2010, 09:46:32 AM
willieH: Hi WW... :hithere:
Quote from: willieH on August 04, 2010, 05:32:07 AM
Quote from: KratosSo to bring all verses together without contradiction. When God created the earth, He did not create it without form or as a wilderness, but He created it to be inhabited. However, after this initial creation, the eath had become uninhabitable or a wilderness and cities of some kind of men were wiped out in the process. So, God reformed what He had already created.
Whattt? Where does John get this stuff?
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 02:08:12 PMThat's very easy to answer...
Created = Make something out of nothing/not yet existing materials.
Formed = Make something out of already existing materials. => could also be reshaping like a potter makes a pot from of lump of clay
This is your observation, and you are welcome to it... I do not criticize you for it... but I definitely think it is a VERY SURFACE observation... that said...
It's not my personal observation. AFAIK (the majority of) secular/Jewish/Christian scholars see it that way. And yes, I'm sure there is at least one scholar that does not agree.
QuoteFIRST -- Kratos ADDED thought (re-shaping" is NOT part of the definition of the word YATSAR) to the word "FORMED" [yatsar]
Basicly I already answerd that above. IF the defenition of created and formed is correct the way I presented Kratos was/is right. If not then you are right.
Just a simple question. I give a potter a cube of clay. The potter makes a beautiful vase out of that clay.
Did the potter
make a vase?
Second question: Did the potter re-shape the cube into a vase.
I don't know Kratos and have no idea if there are any really deep thoughts in the post James quoted; but just purely looking at form/re-shape I would say: "Good point Kratos"
Quote(1) Kratos gives no REASON for this DESTRUCTION of these "other men" and their "cities", ...nor does he
I'm not a mindreader so :dontknow:
But I can say for sure after reading quite some "gap theory" articles that (most of) those people believe that angels/lucifer/etc lived on earth (no mankind yet). And somehow they started a war that caused massive destruction to the whole universe. Did Kratos believe that? You know him better that I do....
Quote(3) leaving out any PURPOSE that this might have serve as part of the alleged "creation/destruction/reshaping" PROCESS he proposes. :wacko2:
Can YOU enlighten us as to the PART or PURPOSE within the revealing agenda of GOD, that this UNWRITTEN assertion provides within His "revelation", WW?
I can't. There are many things I don't understand. But does that make it more or less true? So I/we not fully understanding the plan of God does only prove that we don't understand teh plan..
Quote(4) Time, the heavens, the sun, the moon, the seas, the land, food, and the animals all had yet to be created... so the "creation/destruction/reshaping" all took place before TIME and the necessary entities within it, were even EXISTENT? (pretty "HOLEY" conjecture... :pitiful:)
It had to because the war destroyed it all. The dino bones 'we' find are all pre-war. So not part of the 6-10000 year generations.
Note: Just stating how I understand the gap theory.
Quote(5) So there were "other men and cities" according to Kratos --- which had no TIME, LIGHT, HEAVENS (including the earths atmosphere), SUN, MOON, STARS, WATERS, LAND, FOOD, ANIMALS... yet they somehow they "ticked God off" enough for Him to destroy them? ... :mshock: ... ah... this sounds like a very unresearched and badly written sci-fi or fantasy story to me... :prankster:
There were no man AFAIK. There was life. How it looked like???? Likely garden of Eden like.
I'm sure your garden looks great to. But does it still look great after a nuclear strike?
QuoteSECOND --- Hope you can understand this:
That GOD created the "Creation" is a manifestation of an ETERNAL being... So the "manifestation" has to be of an ETERNAL essence, as it EMERGED from Him...
I don't understand/agree. Flood and Sodom are just two examples of "ETERNAL essence" that got destroted by the very hand of the Creator Himself.
QuoteQuote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 02:08:12 PMYou only have a point if Kratos said that God was 'forced' to do a unplanned fixing of things.
Let me stop this for just a quick minute...
Where is any suggestion of a "PLAN" noted in the WORD? :dunno:
Plan are my word. I don't think God just perfoms zillions of random actions. There is structure in it. A direction. A plan.
QuoteGOD brings forth His agenda, and said agenda IS that which shall BE... no "Plan" of any sort is even mentioned in the WORD... (that I have found, help me out here! Where is this "plan"?)
Agenda=Plan
T
Quotehe UNFOUNDED assertions that Kratos has made, were that a mysterious and unwritten, "first" set of men, and cities did not "work out" -- which is strictly imaginary, not based in the accounts found in the Scriptures...
But neither is disproved by the very incomplete Scripture. Do you for example think that the few page in the NT is all Jesus ever siad or done? It's all on need to know basis. I'm sure God did more things than we find in the Bible.
QuoteWhere is the BIBLICAL explanation of this "re-shaping", WW? How could these have existed without TIME, or LIGHT, or atmosphere, or food, all of which had yet to be created? (in Gen 1:3-31)
I think you don't understand what the gap theory is about. There was a perfect world with sun, moon, air flowers, birds, etc. It just destroyed
QuoteThese you note above, are ALL part of the ILLUSTRATIVE Revelation of the "knowledge" of GOOD and EVIL... And ALL of these portray a PICTURE of that revelation, as well as PLAY a USEFUL PART in it... What part did the "other men, and cities" play? Wherein is the PURPOSE for them?
What's the purpose of this life?
I would rather be created directly in heaven and skip this earth.
QuoteALL these accounts you just named are SPECIFICALLY ...IN... the WORD of God... and the WORD is that which REVEALS YHVH -- Matt 11:27 -- and the workings of HIS heart, as HE declared it ALL -- Isaiah 46:10
But that's NOT the point I was trying to make. I just tried to prove that destruction is not a uncommon thing in the Bible. That in itself refutes all claims that destruction of a pre-adamic world is of no use.
QuoteKratos is suggesting that there are an additional and separate set of events In Gen 1 and Isaiah 45:18 -- which are differentiated and based upon the use of the words "FORMED" and "CREATED"...
I would suggest you Google a bit for "Gap theory". It's based on more than just those two words. It's not my theory so I leave the explaining to those who looked deeper into it.
QuoteFYI ...I shall continue to see this as a manufactured imagination, until you (or anyone else) can prove it to actually BE otherwise... :dontknow:
What a suprise.
No problem you have an opinion. But it would be nice if you try to base your opinion of what 'gap theorists' believe. And not on what you think they believe.
I googled a bit but wasn't able to find any gap site. Only debunking sites.
http://www.creationdays.dk/index.phphttp://www.oldtestamentstudies.org/my-papers/other-papers/recent-creationism/what-about-the-gap-theory/http://gracethrufaith.com/?s=gap+theoryhttp://lighthousebaptistchapel.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Gap-Theory1.pdf -> page 6
funny you should list that gracefortruth website I was looking at that the other day.
If there was a pre gap creation then I would day there would not be men, but only angels and possibly dinosaurs, perhaps the angels were so big they needed dinosaurs instead of horses to ride :laughing7:. :2c:
Quote from: thinktank on August 05, 2010, 08:07:18 PMperhaps the angels were so big they needed dinosaurs instead of horses to ride
You mean Fred Flintstone was Nephlim? :mshock:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 08:26:05 PM
Quote from: thinktank on August 05, 2010, 08:07:18 PMperhaps the angels were so big they needed dinosaurs instead of horses to ride
You mean Fred Flintstone was Nephlim? :mshock:
:happygrin:
:cloud9: :grin:
willieH: Hi WW... :happy3:
I will break up this answer in 2 parts...
PART IQuoteQuote from: willieH on August 05, 2010, 09:46:32 AM
willieH: Hi WW... :hithere:
Quote from: willieH on August 04, 2010, 05:32:07 AM
Quote from: KratosSo to bring all verses together without contradiction. When God created the earth, He did not create it without form or as a wilderness, but He created it to be inhabited. However, after this initial creation, the eath had become uninhabitable or a wilderness and cities of some kind of men were wiped out in the process. So, God reformed what He had already created.
Whattt? Where does John get this stuff?
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 02:08:12 PMThat's very easy to answer...
Created = Make something out of nothing/not yet existing materials.
Formed = Make something out of already existing materials. => could also be reshaping like a potter makes a pot from of lump of clay
This is your observation, and you are welcome to it... I do not criticize you for it... but I definitely think it is a VERY SURFACE observation... that said...
It's not my personal observation. AFAIK (the majority of) secular/Jewish/Christian scholars see it that way. And yes, I'm sure there is at least one scholar that does not agree.
FIRST ---
JEWISH --- That Jewish scholars "agree" does not provide a BASIS for truth. I have proposed that several NT Scriptural notations are compromised by this "THEORY"... and these "Jewish scholars" are quite disinterested in such an observation, as they hold that the NT ...AND...
JESUS CHRIST to be blasphemous contentions.
SECOND ---
CHRISTIAN --- As far as CHRISTIAN scholars holding this THEORY to be truth... They hold ET, Eternal Separation from God, the Rapture, the Trinity, and many other fallacies as "truth", so why not ADD one more to the list? :laughing7:
THIRD ---
SECULAR --- As far as this portion of observers... they do not begin with the guidance of GOD in attempting to understand the portrayals and documentations of the HOLY Scriptures, so I see them as even more IRRELEVANT than the first 2 groupings... (you are welcome to consider ANY, even ALL conjectures they might offer you, and I do not condemn you for it... I just see this as a distraction during the pursuit of truth)
ALL in all... IMO what we have is
3 BLIND MICE! :sigh:
ALL Holding hands with one another on this UNWRITTEN "gap" belief, ...while they actively
DISBELIEVE one anothers "
BELIEFS"... :mshock:
The
JEWS believe CHRISTIANS are
blasphemous, the
CHRISTIANS believe the
JEWS are
blind, the
SECULAR believe both of them
are nuts! :faint: :pointlaugh:
Due to their observation of what "I" personally believe (in
JESUS CHRIST and that the
NT is Scriptural documentation), and my subsequent OPPOSITION of their beliefs (that they DO NOT hold
CHRIST or the NT as valid)... makes it easy to discount them as "SPIRITUAL scholars" of
anything. :dontknow:
You are welcome to embrace anything you desire, and I hold no animosity toward you for your beliefs, which may well include the conjectures of these men/women... :cloud9:
Quote from: willieHFIRST -- Kratos ADDED thought (re-shaping" is NOT part of the definition of the word YATSAR) to the word "FORMED" [yatsar]
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMBasicly I already answerd that above. IF the defenition of created and formed is correct the way I presented Kratos was/is right. If not then you are right.
Just a simple question. I give a potter a cube of clay. The potter makes a beautiful vase out of that clay.
Did the potter make a vase?
Actually the question is that God made a vase WITHOUT CLAY, for the creation OF IT, was to follow AFTER this proposed GAP... If Scripture which is in question, is taken into consideration...
Then
WATER and
DARKNESS is all that is available to make the "vase":
Gen 1:1-2 --
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. 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.If you contend that EARTH (i.e. land,dust,etc) was available to "make" these "MEN" or the "vase"... then you must provide Scriptural proof of the AVAILABILITY of this material... :dontknow: ...Otherwise, you must insert into the WRITING of Scripture, ...THAT which is NOT PRESENT
in it. :thumbdown:
Also, the "cities" that KRATOS theorizes (and you seem to agree with), must've been FLOATING cities upon the
WATER, ...which existed completely in
DARKNESS... :laughing7:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMSecond question: Did the potter re-shape the cube into a vase.
I don't know Kratos and have no idea if there are any really deep thoughts in the post James quoted; but just purely looking at form/re-shape I would say: "Good point Kratos"
Well... I DID know Kratos... and spoke with him (if you could call it that) in person (he lived in Aberdeen, Wash and I visit this area at least once a year)... He was quite given to the wanderings of ORTHODOXY, and especially to overbearing imaginations... and was talkative to the point that my wife and mother-in-law, left after 15 minutes, of an hour visit with him.
Hey -- nobody's perfect... KRATOS did like to hear himself talk... and spoke often, and imaginitively often.
You, as I have already noted are welcome to believe otherwise, but I believe that
REASON must be applied to whatever we believe --
Isaiah 1:18 -- and MEN which study Scripture (be they Jews, Christians, or otherwise) ASSUME that a SPIRIT oriented--NON PHYSICAL existence is that which existed PRIOR to the "CREATION" coming into being... :dontknow:
That said, ...
REASON shall demand, that GOD (claiming to be UNCHANGING)... and "having to do" with the PHYSICAL actually emerging FROM HIM... means that it (the physical) was already ETERNALLY PART of the UNCHANGING being that
YHVH ...IS, which had yet to be REVEALED, ...for it (the physical) was the VEHICLE upon which the REVELATION of the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL would "ride".
The question that I see actually being in contention here, is this...
Is the CREATION, actually something that came from nothing? ...or did it in fact, emerge from a previously UNREVEALED physical source?
I do not believe that anything PHYSICAL "came from nothing"... the PHYSICAL is present in the SPIRIT and the SPIRIT is present in the PHYSICAL...
GOD is SPIRIT... and is PRESENT amongst and IN (intimately associated with) the PHYSICAL (He is EVERYWHERE, in EVERYTHING, in EVERYWHEN)... the PHYSICAL has been enjoined by the SPIRIT and become ANIMATE [living] due to that enjoining... (as in men, animals, plants, molecules, etc)... GOD does NOT CHANGE... so the PHYSICAL was PRESENT with and IN HIM forEVER, ...just UNREVEALED.
The "CREATION" is actually a REVELATION, not some drawing forth of TANGIBLE PHYSICAL things, from the "thin (unoccupied) air"... :mnah:
IOW, God did not... and the word CREATE, CREATED, CREATING, etc as found in the
WORD by
english-->hebrew definition, ...do not suggest that He brought forth "something from nothing". This is yet another ASSUMPTION made of the word "CREATE" in either english or Hebrew, which does NOT ALIGN with GOD as an UNCHANGING entity.
If "FOREVER" there was nothing PHYSICAL (even within
YHVH, though UNREVEALED)... Then a CHANGE of who and what
YHVH ...IS... took place upon the emergence of the PHYSICAL... :dontknow: FOR nothing PHYSICAL existed (supposedly).
I see this as lack of insight. :pitiful:
The PHYSICAL ...
IS... part of the SPIRITUAL... and has to do with both the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL... as well as the GLORIES of GOD... He is GLORIFIED by the Creation, is He not? And that which brings ETERNAL GLORY, must be ETERNAL as well... (has always been) :boogie:
I'll make my "break" here and continue the answer in
PART II
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
*GAP*
2And 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.
Does God create something that is without form and void and covered with darkness? I doubt it.
We see another reference to this gap.
23I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man [ADAM], and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26I 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.
27For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
--Jer 4
That's where Kratos gets his destroyed cities.
I've heard Benny Hinn preach on this as well.
:cloud9: Interesting post Willie.....I don't understand "rationally" thinking how the physical could be hidden or unrealed in the Spirit, but spiritually I "heard" it, as a witness to something He showed me about Him hiding His helpmeet, wisdom, so she would not be put to shame by carnal men. Which is why Joseph had the thought to put Mary away. Will have to think more on this. :thumbsup: Thanks.....blessings...
willieH: Hi WW... :happy3:
PART IIQuote from: willieH(1) Kratos gives no REASON for this DESTRUCTION of these "other men" and their "cities", ...nor does he
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMI'm not a mindreader so :dontknow:
But I can say for sure after reading quite some "gap theory" articles that (most of) those people believe that angels/lucifer/etc lived on earth (no mankind yet). And somehow they started a war that caused massive destruction to the whole universe. Did Kratos believe that? You know him better that I do....
Actually I did not know him to the point of being aware of all his beliefs...
The conjectures which are made in the "gap theory" are full of many holes, and have no SCRIPTURAL specification...
The discussion of "lucifer" is a whole other subject... but there is no Scripture which notes "lucifer" was an ANGEL... Nor that ANGELS ever "lived" on the earth.
Quote from: willieH(3) leaving out any PURPOSE that this might have serve as part of the alleged "creation/destruction/reshaping" PROCESS he proposes. :wacko2:
Can YOU enlighten us as to the PART or PURPOSE within the revealing agenda of GOD, that this UNWRITTEN assertion provides within His "revelation", WW?
QuoteI can't. There are many things I don't understand. But does that make it more or less true?
That you are unaware of things enjoins you to the rest of us! :grouppray: That there is NO SPECIFICATION in Scripture of this "event", nor that any "PURPOSE" for the "event" is given in Scripture, makes it strictly CONJECTURE... for the
WORD is TRUTH --
John 14:6 -- and if this "event" does not appear in the
WORD of TRUTH, ...how may it be true in conjunction/association WITH the
WORD of TRUTH? IOW... there are many things not in Scripture that are true such as '55 Chevys or the Internet, etc... but what have these to do with SPIRITUAL TRUTH or the HISTORICAL notation of it?
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMSo I/we not fully understanding the plan of God does only prove that we don't understand teh plan..
As I have already said, there is NO "PLAN"... This is the ADDITION of theologians which comprise the "foundation" of FALLACY...
Quote from: willieH(4) Time, the heavens, the sun, the moon, the seas, the land, food, and the animals all had yet to be created... so the "creation/destruction/reshaping" all took place before TIME and the necessary entities within it, were even EXISTENT? (pretty "HOLEY" conjecture... :pitiful:)
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMIt had to because the war destroyed it all. The dino bones 'we' find are all pre-war. So not part of the 6-10000 year generations.
Note: Just stating how I understand the gap theory.
Again bro... What "WAR"? Where is the mention in Scripture of this "WAR"? Where is there any evidence of a WAR having taken place on Earth prior to ADAM and the Garden? :dontknow:
Quote from: willieH(5) So there were "other men and cities" according to Kratos --- which had no TIME, LIGHT, HEAVENS (including the earths atmosphere), SUN, MOON, STARS, WATERS, LAND, FOOD, ANIMALS... yet they somehow they "ticked God off" enough for Him to destroy them? ... :mshock: ... ah... this sounds like a very unresearched and badly written sci-fi or fantasy story to me... :prankster:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMThere were no man AFAIK. There was life. How it looked like???? Likely garden of Eden like.
I'm sure your garden looks great to. But does it still look great after a nuclear strike?
No offense dear brother, but no NUCLEAR strike has taken place... neither did a "WAR" occur on Earth prior to the Creation. Only in the imagination of the "gap theorists" and Kratos.
Quote from: willieHSECOND --- Hope you can understand this:
That GOD created the "Creation" is a manifestation of an ETERNAL being... So the "manifestation" has to be of an ETERNAL essence, as it EMERGED from Him...
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMI don't understand/agree. Flood and Sodom are just two examples of "ETERNAL essence" that got destroted by the very hand of the Creator Himself.
They are elemental situations which display that EVIL must be DESTROYED... Had they not occured, then what examples would we have of DIVINITY's opposition to such conditions in which men arrive?
GOD destroys that which gives LIFE to EVIL... the ones which died in Sodom or in the Flood, met their APPOINTED Death.
Even though Noah and Lot were spared from death in these instances... BOTH Noah and Lot, eventually met their own, APPOINTMENT with DEATH... :nod:
QuoteQuote from: WhiteWings on August 04, 2010, 02:08:12 PMYou only have a point if Kratos said that God was 'forced' to do a unplanned fixing of things.
Let me stop this for just a quick minute...
Where is any suggestion of a "PLAN" noted in the WORD? :dunno:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMPlan are my word. I don't think God just perfoms zillions of random actions. There is structure in it. A direction. A plan.
God is REVEALING that which is in His heart... and known previously only by Him, as contained in HIS
WORD...
This realm is the REVELATION of that knowledge... not a "plan"... a REVELATION (revealing) of what was not previously known by any other entity other than GOD.
Quote from: willieHGOD brings forth His agenda, and said agenda IS that which shall BE... no "Plan" of any sort is even mentioned in the WORD... (that I have found, help me out here! Where is this "plan"?)
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMAgenda=Plan
Okay WW... "agenda" was not a good word to use... :blush:
Neither of these words (agenda or plan) appears in the
WORD... but as I also stated in my reply... REVELATION does, as well as the word REVEAL, in several different conjugations...
That which is REVEALED is not a "PLAN"... it is the UNVEILING of what is ALREADY THERE... :dontknow:
Quote from: willieHThe UNFOUNDED assertions that Kratos has made, were that a mysterious and unwritten, "first" set of men, and cities did not "work out" -- which is strictly imaginary, not based in the accounts found in the Scriptures...
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMBut neither is disproved by the very incomplete Scripture. Do you for example think that the few page in the NT is all Jesus ever siad or done? It's all on need to know basis. I'm sure God did more things than we find in the Bible.
Actually the Scriptures state that if the books would be written of ALL that JESUS did and said, the WORLD could NOT CONTAIN them...
But we are NOT ALLOWED by the directive OF SCRIPTURE, ...not to ADD to it or SUBTRACT from it...
If you propose something (such as this "war") as having taken place and as having to do with the account of Creation... then you are ADDING to it... no way around this.
Also, I have also pointed out that there are SEVERAL NT Scriptures which are COMPROMISED by this contention... You are welcome to recieve this into your heart, ...I shall have nothing to do with it.
Quote from: willieHWhere is the BIBLICAL explanation of this "re-shaping", WW? How could these have existed without TIME, or LIGHT, or atmosphere, or food, all of which had yet to be created? (in Gen 1:3-31)
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMI think you don't understand what the gap theory is about. There was a perfect world with sun, moon, air flowers, birds, etc. It just destroyed
There is no BASIS for ANY of this ANYWHERE, except in a theory, created by men. :rolleye:
I do not concern myself with MYTHS... (such as the "gap theory") :mnah:
I do not need to understand a MYTH, in order to profit in my beliefs. :dontknow:
I do not believe in "Ghosts" either... or that "men went to the moon"... That I also do not believe in an UNDOCUMENTED "DESTRUCTION and WAR" which is not noted ANYWHERE in History OR in the
WORD... as far as I am concerned is not a particular "shortcoming" in me.
Quote from: willieHThese you note above, are ALL part of the ILLUSTRATIVE Revelation of the "knowledge" of GOOD and EVIL... And ALL of these portray a PICTURE of that revelation, as well as PLAY a USEFUL PART in it... What part did the "other men, and cities" play? Wherein is the PURPOSE for them?
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMWhat's the purpose of this life?
I would rather be created directly in heaven and skip this earth.
You don't know yet? :omg: You are LIVING the purpose of LIFE, WW... you are a participant in the REVELATION of the WORD of God which is UNVEILING the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL... it's right there in the FIRST book of the WORD...
How can you "zero in" on that which is NOT WRITTEN, and then MISS what IS? :omg:
Quote from: willieHALL these accounts you just named are SPECIFICALLY ...IN... the WORD of God... and the WORD is that which REVEALS YHVH -- Matt 11:27 -- and the workings of HIS heart, as HE declared it ALL -- Isaiah 46:10
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMBut that's NOT the point I was trying to make. I just tried to prove that destruction is not a uncommon thing in the Bible. That in itself refutes all claims that destruction of a pre-adamic world is of no use.
There is no evidence of any "pre adamic" world... so any reference to it, is IRRELEVANT.
Quote from: willieHKratos is suggesting that there are an additional and separate set of events In Gen 1 and Isaiah 45:18 -- which are differentiated and based upon the use of the words "FORMED" and "CREATED"...
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMI would suggest you Google a bit for "Gap theory". It's based on more than just those two words. It's not my theory so I leave the explaining to those who looked deeper into it.
I find this just as much a WASTE of my time, as doing research on GHOSTS... to read a MYTHICAL writing which has NO PROOF and NO DOCUMENTATION to verify the POSSIBILITY of its existence is already ESTABLISHED FUTILITY.
Quote from: willieHFYI ...I shall continue to see this as a manufactured imagination, until you (or anyone else) can prove it to actually BE otherwise... :dontknow:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMWhat a suprise.
No problem you have an opinion. But it would be nice if you try to base your opinion of what 'gap theorists' believe. And not on what you think they believe.
I don't CARE what they "believe" WW... They believe in a MYTH... and in composing this MYTH, think to explain the existence of DINOSAURS or pre-existent things which were PRIOR to the Creation of what actually ...IS...
You are welcome to waste your time "chasing this tail"... but don't expect me to.
There are conjectures that ALIENS are visiting the Earth from the far reaches of SPACE... SO WHAT? If they actually ARE... then where is the evidence? Until there is concreted EVIDENCE concerning these MYTHICAL "beliefs"... I shall only concern myself with the pursuit of HOLINESS and the WORD of LOVE... not the encylopedia of IDIOCY and IMAGINATION.
Anyone can create a MYTH... Did you know that there are at least a BILLION angels that can fit on the head of a pin? With room to spare? :laughing7:
I have just as much PROOF of this, as do the UFO researchers have of ALIENS, and just as much as the "GAP THEORISTS" have of their UNFOUNDED, UNWRITTEN, UNDOCUMENTED, UNPROVEN, foolishness... :dontknow:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 05, 2010, 11:17:33 AMI googled a bit but wasn't able to find any gap site. Only debunking sites.
http://www.creationdays.dk/index.php
http://www.oldtestamentstudies.org/my-papers/other-papers/recent-creationism/what-about-the-gap-theory/
http://gracethrufaith.com/?s=gap+theory
http://lighthousebaptistchapel.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Gap-Theory1.pdf -> page 6
These links are useless to me, WW.
Please provide actual PROOF that founds the "GAP theory" or this proposed "perfect earth", subsequent "war" and "destruction" as
TRUTHFUL... then get back to me... :wink1:
:Peace:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Nathan on August 05, 2010, 11:48:04 PM
I've heard Benny Hinn preach on this as well.
AH yessss... good ol' BennyH...
He "preaches" on many things, doesn't he? :help:
...willieH :laughing7:
Quote from: Molly on August 05, 2010, 11:25:19 PM
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
*GAP*
2And 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.
Does God create something that is without form and void and covered with darkness? I doubt it.
Before HIS LIGHT is applied to ANYTHING, it is FULL of DARKNESS...
Quote from: Molly on August 05, 2010, 11:25:19 PMWe see another reference to this gap.
23I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man [ADAM], and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26I 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.
27For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
--Jer 4
I don't think so...
PROBLEM ---> "Not make a FULL END"? :dontknow:
Does that mean that all this was still going on in
Gen 1:2 ---->forward?
This is still a GREAT stretch (alluding it to fall between
Gen 1:1 and
Gen 1:2) that contains words (not make a full end) which are CONTRARY to this:
Quote from: Molly on August 05, 2010, 11:25:19 PMThat's where Kratos gets his destroyed cities.
This writing in Jeremiah, is the description of GODS PEOPLE [man] ENVELOPED in evil, as the previous verse in the context speaks --
Jer 4:22While man is enveloped in EVIL... he is without form, void, and desolate... FOR man [earth] is yet to be MADE [created/formed] into the IMAGE of
YHVH (His
WORD --
Heb 1:3), which is ...INCORRUPT, IMMORTAL, and instead of void, without form, and desolate... full of LOVE and PEACE... which
PASSES KNOWLEDGE --
Eph 3:19The paradise of GOD, containing the GOODNESS of
YHVH is fled... the EARTH [man] is desolate, as are any and ALL of his associations...
...willieH :happy3:
Quote from: willieHBefore HIS LIGHT is applied to ANYTHING, it is FULL of DARKNESS...
All his creating in Gen 1 happens in the day, in the light.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said,...
--Gen 1
1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.Therefore, how or why could God create something without form and void and covered with darkness? He wouldn't. Therefore, one could conclude that something happened to bring about this state after the fact.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:--Gen 1
"replenish"H4390
מלא מלא
mâlê' mâlâ'maw-lay', maw-law'
A primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively): - accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume,
replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.
Quote from: willieHThis writing in Jeremiah, is the description of GODS PEOPLE [man] ENVELOPED in evil, as the previous verse in the context speaks -- Jer 4:22
While man is enveloped in EVIL... he is without form, void, and desolate... FOR man [earth] is yet to be MADE [created/formed] into the IMAGE of YHVH (His WORD -- Heb 1:3), which is ...INCORRUPT, IMMORTAL, and instead of void, without form, and desolate... full of LOVE and PEACE... which PASSES KNOWLEDGE -- Eph 3:19
The paradise of GOD, containing the GOODNESS of YHVH is fled... the EARTH [man] is desolate, as are any and ALL of his associations...
Yes, I could see that. Jeremiah is prophesying to Judah about what is to come because of their iniquity.
He is recounting a vision which is shown to him which sounds exactly like Gen 1:2
23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void;
and to the heavens, and they had no light.--Jer 4
"without form"H8414
תּהוּ
tôhûto'-hoo
From an unused root meaning
to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.
"void"H922
בּהוּ
bôhû
bo'-hoo
From an unused root (meaning
to be empty);
a vacuity, that is, (superficially)
an undistinguishable ruin: -
emptiness, void.
It's happened before--the tohu and bohu of Gen 1:2,-- it can happen again. The same words are used.
I have no problem with reading this completely spiritually--but I also read it literally, that is, it has a physical component. Judah was destroyed, just as Jeremiah said it would be.
The first thing God does in [re]creating the world in Gen 1 is speak light into the world. This is a divine light, not a physical light.
2And 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.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. --Gen 1
There is no darkness in God, and in a future place called mount zion or holy jerusalem, this city will come to earth and within this city God himself will be the light not just spiritually but literally, ofr the text says there will be no need for the sun or moon to light it.
So with this in mind, why does God speak light if there is no darkness to overcome?
that darkness could be
On the other side of the coin and here is my faith at, is that the when God said let there be light = Universe created, suns, stars, planets, this could be where the creation of angels is spoken:thumbsup: aren't angels called the host of heavens and there is a connection with planets and angels in many religions and writings.
when author says earth without form void = Moses looks for the earth but cannot find it, "but lord where's my house?"Moses said [amplified] :mshock:earth without form and void.
Concerning This below
23I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man [ADAM], and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26I 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.
27For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
--Jer 4
This could be a prophecy for the future, for during the great white throne judgment in the book of revelation the first earth and heavens pass away.
Another thing I would like to add here
23I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man [ADAM], and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26I 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.
27For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
--Jer 4
The first verse says the earth was without form and void. So we assume that means no earth.
But we read on and we find refernces to broken hills, wasted citys, no anmials, no men.
Thats like me saying and there was no house.
But the house had broken chairs, no beds to sleep in and nobody in the house
So that verse which say without form and void, must mean something else, it must mean that the earth is in a bad condition [without form] and useless [void].
So if we apply this to the Genesis creation, what do we have? :Book:
Look at the definitions again, TT--without form and void is tohu and bohu--
You do have an earth but it's a desolate ruin.
"without form"
H8414
תּהוּ
tôhû
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.
"void"
H922
בּהוּ
bôhû
bo'-hoo
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.
:cloud9: Willie, as astounding as it is, He was leading me into revelation of what you said in your last post, last week, when I was studying night and day.
The cares of the world became impossible to ignore, and I had to stop digging and deal with other things, but I SAW what you are saying, though in the Hebrew, with other scriptures backing up what I "saw".
As soon as the current crisis is over and I can concentrate on studies again, I'll try to add it here, or we can start a new thread. Thanks for sharing, you're my confirmation. :thumbsup: No wonder I'm going thru "hell" again.....opposition always comes to revelation. Blessings....
Quote from: willieH on August 05, 2010, 11:08:09 PMI will break up this answer in 2 parts...
I won't read the second part. (see below)
QuoteFIRST --- JEWISH --- That Jewish scholars "agree" does not provide a BASIS for truth.
Let's say they know their language.
QuoteI have proposed that several NT Scriptural notations are compromised by this "THEORY"... and these "Jewish scholars" are quite disinterested in such an observation, as they hold that the NT ...AND... JESUS CHRIST to be blasphemous contentions.
Wrong. Firstly they are very interested in what is written in their own books. Secondly their rejection of Jesus/NT has nothing to do with with those Hebrew words.
QuoteQuoteSECOND --- CHRISTIAN --- As far as CHRISTIAN scholars holding this THEORY to be truth... They hold ET, Eternal Separation from God, the Rapture, the Trinity, and many other fallacies as "truth", so why not ADD one more to the list? :laughing7:
They also hold your belief. So...
QuoteTHIRD --- SECULAR --- As far as this portion of observers... they do not begin with the guidance of GOD in attempting to understand the portrayals and documentations of the HOLY Scriptures, so I see them as even more IRRELEVANT than the first 2 groupings...
I would rank them first or second.
They translate without any religious bias.
QuoteALL in all... IMO what we have is 3 BLIND MICE! :sigh:
That's clear. I would say stop posting here. Do your own translations and then return and post your findings. You can post as many verses/words as you like from whatever Bible/lexicon/dictionary your own. But they are of zero value because all those versions are translated by blind (biased) mice.
Quote from: Molly on August 05, 2010, 11:25:19 PM
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
*GAP*
2And 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.
Does God create something that is without form and void and covered with darkness? I doubt it.
I won't use the word "certainly" here but I think God God created chaos/without form/etc
Remember that darknes preceeds light. One meaning of the Hebrew word for darkness is chaos.
Some might get confused now but I'm not a gap theorist as I wrote in my first reply.
I think it describes the scientific view on how earth 'started'.
Yes I believe secular science is correct on the history of earth/universe. But their real missing link is what started it all...
QuoteThat's where Kratos gets his destroyed cities.
Bit weird discussing Kratos posts without him being able to explain his posts.
And again I'm caught in Willies mouse trap :winkgrin:
Tony, I keep looking for the comments J. Preston Eby made on this topic, but so far haven't found them. In looking, I found the following interesting little site;
Excerpt: "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: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 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."
(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)
Contrary to popular interpretation, the above passage is NOT a reference to Noah's flood. (See Introduction Pages for specifics.) And the only other place in the Bible where the Earth was covered in waters is Genesis 1:2. The ramifications are obvious: The literal wording suggests that the "heavens and the earth, which are now" (made during the seven days) was not the first-time creation of all things as is traditionally assumed. The Word of God appears to be telling the reader there was a previous populated world on the face of this old Earth before God formed the present world of modern Man.
http://www.kjvbible.org/
Quote from: wwRemember that darknes preceeds light. One meaning of the Hebrew word for darkness is chaos.
That's a provocative statement. What do you base it on? In the process of creation, is it really possible for God to create darkness, misery, death, and chaos as a first order effect? He is a God of light, life, and order.
The evil ones, on the other hand, love this state because all their deeds are evil. They are the rulers of darkness, misery, destruction, and chaos.
Isn't it more likely that light precedes darkness?
Even science tells us that order breaks down into chaos.
But, order, life, and light are miracles.
I noticed this gap a long time ago, then left it behind. But, now I'm thinking, there might be something to it.
"darkness"H2822
חשׁך
chôshek
kho-shek'
From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively
misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 07:07:42 AM
Tony, I keep looking for the comments J. Preston Eby made on this topic, but so far haven't found them. In looking, I found the following interesting little site;
Excerpt: "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: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 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."
(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)
Contrary to popular interpretation, the above passage is NOT a reference to Noah's flood. (See Introduction Pages for specifics.) And the only other place in the Bible where the Earth was covered in waters is Genesis 1:2. The ramifications are obvious: The literal wording suggests that the "heavens and the earth, which are now" (made during the seven days) was not the first-time creation of all things as is traditionally assumed. The Word of God appears to be telling the reader there was a previous populated world on the face of this old Earth before God formed the present world of modern Man.
http://www.kjvbible.org/
wow. That's very interesting.
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 07:11:37 AM
Quote from: wwRemember that darknes preceeds light. One meaning of the Hebrew word for darkness is chaos.
That's a provocative statement. What do you base it on? In the process of creation, is it really possible for God to create darkness, misery, death, and chaos as a first order effect? He is a God of light and order.
And the evening and the morning were the 1/2/3/4/... day.
So evening is always before day.
A meaning of the Hebrew root words is also chaos and order.
You even agreed with it once Molly.
HereI know it's not in Strong but if you like I'm sure I can find an article on those words.
(Genesis uses "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." The literal meaning is "there was disorder." Day 1 to 4 is a flow from chaos to cosmos.)
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 07:07:42 AM
Contrary to popular interpretation, the above passage is NOT a reference to Noah's flood. (See Introduction Pages for specifics.) And the only other place in the Bible where the Earth was covered in waters is Genesis 1:2. The ramifications are obvious: The literal wording suggests that the "heavens and the earth, which are now" (made during the seven days) was not the first-time creation of all things as is traditionally assumed. The Word of God appears to be telling the reader there was a previous populated world on the face of this old Earth before God formed the present world of modern Man.
Gotta run now but a quick question.
The verse in which God promises Noach never to destroy earth by water again.
Does it state something like "a second time"?
Back in 40 mins
Check this out from the Christian Bible;
II Peter 3:5-7
For they want to let this escape their notice, that by God's Word there existed old heavens and earth [the first ones, the ones of the first age], and that that earth was standing together [there were no oceans] up out of water [below the surface] and with water [above in the sky]; by means of these the world that existed then, was flooded by water and destroyed. Yet by the same Word the current heavens and earth [the second ones, the ones of the second age] are being stored up for Fire, kept for Judgment Day and the Destruction of undevoted humans [in the Fire of the Second Death].
Yes, I am confirming my covenant with you. Never again will floodwaters kill all living creatures; never again will a flood destroy the earth." Gen. 9:11
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 07:40:54 AM
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 07:11:37 AM
Quote from: wwRemember that darknes preceeds light. One meaning of the Hebrew word for darkness is chaos.
That's a provocative statement. What do you base it on? In the process of creation, is it really possible for God to create darkness, misery, death, and chaos as a first order effect? He is a God of light and order.
And the evening and the morning were the 1/2/3/4/... day.
So evening is always before day.
A meaning of the Hebrew root words is also chaos and order.
You even agreed with it once Molly. Here
I know it's not in Strong but if you like I'm sure I can find an article on those words.
(Genesis uses "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." The literal meaning is "there was disorder." Day 1 to 4 is a flow from chaos to cosmos.)
Yes, but wouldn't that make sense if he is restoring what was ruined with a new creation?
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 07:45:56 AM
Check this out from the Christian Bible;
II Peter 3:5-7
For they want to let this escape their notice, that by God's Word there existed old heavens and earth [the first ones, the ones of the first age], and that that earth was standing together [there were no oceans] up out of water [below the surface] and with water [above in the sky]; by means of these the world that existed then, was flooded by water and destroyed. Yet by the same Word the current heavens and earth [the second ones, the ones of the second age] are being stored up for Fire, kept for Judgment Day and the Destruction of undevoted humans [in the Fire of the Second Death].
wow. This is so incredible. One land mass, breaking into continents is in the Bible. :mshock: The latest scientific theories agree with God. :mshock:
:happygrin:
According to the continental drift theory, the supercontinent Pangaea began to break up about 225-200 million years ago, eventually fragmenting into the continents as we know them today. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 08:05:05 AM
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 07:45:56 AM
Check this out from the Christian Bible;
II Peter 3:5-7
For they want to let this escape their notice, that by God's Word there existed old heavens and earth [the first ones, the ones of the first age], and that that earth was standing together [there were no oceans] up out of water [below the surface] and with water [above in the sky]; by means of these the world that existed then, was flooded by water and destroyed. Yet by the same Word the current heavens and earth [the second ones, the ones of the second age] are being stored up for Fire, kept for Judgment Day and the Destruction of undevoted humans [in the Fire of the Second Death].
wow. This is so incredible. One land mass, breaking into continents is in the Bible. :mshock: The latest scientific theories agree with God. :mshock:
:happygrin:
According to the continental drift theory, the supercontinent Pangaea began to break up about 225-200 million years ago, eventually fragmenting into the continents as we know them today.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html
That's what Mr. Eby said in essence, that I noted earlier in the quote of his I haven't been able to find again. He said if these things had been known [recognized] there would have been less conflict/disagreement between religion and science.
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 08:11:06 AM
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 08:05:05 AM
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 07:45:56 AM
Check this out from the Christian Bible;
II Peter 3:5-7
For they want to let this escape their notice, that by God's Word there existed old heavens and earth [the first ones, the ones of the first age], and that that earth was standing together [there were no oceans] up out of water [below the surface] and with water [above in the sky]; by means of these the world that existed then, was flooded by water and destroyed. Yet by the same Word the current heavens and earth [the second ones, the ones of the second age] are being stored up for Fire, kept for Judgment Day and the Destruction of undevoted humans [in the Fire of the Second Death].
wow. This is so incredible. One land mass, breaking into continents is in the Bible. :mshock: The latest scientific theories agree with God. :mshock:
:happygrin:
According to the continental drift theory, the supercontinent Pangaea began to break up about 225-200 million years ago, eventually fragmenting into the continents as we know them today.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html
That's what Mr. Eby said in essence, that I noted earlier in the quote of his I haven't been able to find again. He said if these things had been known [recognized] there would have been less conflict/disagreement between religion and science.
Where did the Christian Bible get such detail for that verse?
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 07:56:37 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 07:40:54 AM
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 07:11:37 AM
Quote from: wwRemember that darknes preceeds light. One meaning of the Hebrew word for darkness is chaos.
That's a provocative statement. What do you base it on? In the process of creation, is it really possible for God to create darkness, misery, death, and chaos as a first order effect? He is a God of light and order.
And the evening and the morning were the 1/2/3/4/... day.
So evening is always before day.
A meaning of the Hebrew root words is also chaos and order.
You even agreed with it once Molly. Here
I know it's not in Strong but if you like I'm sure I can find an article on those words.
(Genesis uses "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." The literal meaning is "there was disorder." Day 1 to 4 is a flow from chaos to cosmos.)
Yes, but wouldn't that make sense if he is restoring what was ruined with a new creation?
True. Í'm not trying to defend/promote any theory. I try to collect little bits of info and base my theory on that :winkgrin:
I'm a "living epistle" and I know I have a "gap" between my ears. When I open my mouth you can peer into it.
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 08:05:05 AM
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 07:45:56 AM
Check this out from the Christian Bible;
II Peter 3:5-7
For they want to let this escape their notice, that by God's Word there existed old heavens and earth [the first ones, the ones of the first age], and that that earth was standing together [there were no oceans] up out of water [below the surface] and with water [above in the sky]; by means of these the world that existed then, was flooded by water and destroyed. Yet by the same Word the current heavens and earth [the second ones, the ones of the second age] are being stored up for Fire, kept for Judgment Day and the Destruction of undevoted humans [in the Fire of the Second Death].
wow. This is so incredible. One land mass, breaking into continents is in the Bible. :mshock: The latest scientific theories agree with God. :mshock:
:happygrin:
According to the continental drift theory, the supercontinent Pangaea
Glad someone also sees science and Bible go hand in hand.
As I quoted earlier:
QuoteNahmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" - from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning.
That's describing an event that took place a fraction of a second after (during) the Big Bang.
But where does the gap theory fits in? When the dino's got wiped out by a comet (wormwood) impact?
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 08:14:32 AM
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 08:11:06 AM
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 08:05:05 AM
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 07:45:56 AM
Check this out from the Christian Bible;
II Peter 3:5-7
For they want to let this escape their notice, that by God's Word there existed old heavens and earth [the first ones, the ones of the first age], and that that earth was standing together [there were no oceans] up out of water [below the surface] and with water [above in the sky]; by means of these the world that existed then, was flooded by water and destroyed. Yet by the same Word the current heavens and earth [the second ones, the ones of the second age] are being stored up for Fire, kept for Judgment Day and the Destruction of undevoted humans [in the Fire of the Second Death].
wow. This is so incredible. One land mass, breaking into continents is in the Bible. :mshock: The latest scientific theories agree with God. :mshock:
:happygrin:
According to the continental drift theory, the supercontinent Pangaea began to break up about 225-200 million years ago, eventually fragmenting into the continents as we know them today.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html
That's what Mr. Eby said in essence, that I noted earlier in the quote of his I haven't been able to find again. He said if these things had been known [recognized] there would have been less conflict/disagreement between religion and science.
Where did the Christian Bible get such detail for that verse?
I don't know. My guess would be, that they scoured the scriptures word by word, attempting to translate as closely as possible to the original Koine Greek. They made a general statement that in their years of effort to accurately translate, they came to believe many things they hadn't believed before. Again surmizing on my part; starting from scratch rather than working off an already biased document, they uncovered some things that are not mainstream theology. This may be one of them, i.e., piecing things together so tediously they were able to tie some things together and understand some things that many miss. :dontknow:
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 08:14:32 AMWhere did the Christian Bible get such detail for that verse?
Their site is gone; but they wrote they used the most scientific method of translation ever. I think most scholars say that of their own work work so....
They didn't just translate the Greek. They started with 1-2 (?) years of creating their own dictionary. That dictionary was also based on a wide varity ancient secular writings. That gave them a sometimes different understanding of words as the 'normal' translations.
BTW the stuff between the [...] is like commentary. It's not the equivalent of KJV's italics.
:cloud9: What happened to their site?
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 08:11:06 AMThat's what Mr. Eby said in essence, that I noted earlier in the quote of his I haven't been able to find again. He said if these things had been known [recognized] there would have been less conflict/disagreement between religion and science.
Sticking to the earth is 6000 years old view hasn't done much good for the acceptance of Christianity.
Quote from: wwBut where does the gap theory fits in? When the dino's got wiped out by a comet (wormwood) impact?
We can work on that later lol. I'm still totally freaked out. Not only are the scientists missing this, the Christians are, too. Both are arguing from erroneous assumptions.
And, those evolutionists can go pound sand.
Everyone is overlooking the ages.
Ephesians 3:21
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
(I've been working on this as a follow-up to your question Molly about the CB translator's insight...)
I bet they (the original CB translaters) could write one heck of a commentary. Although, now that I think about it, they really include "commentary" within the verses or as footnotes, as evidenced by the posted quote...I'll give another example;
I Timothy 1; Just as I encouraged you when I was going to Macedonia [N. Greece], stay with them in Ephesus* [a coastal city in Lydia (W. Turkey)], so that you might charge some of them to stop teaching anything different, and to stop paying attention to myths and endless genealogies*, for such things are making it so that there are speculations rather than presenting God's management plan which is in connection with faith.
Anyway, so verses 1-10 are on this page. At the bottom of the page are these notes;
3 Ephesus was the center of Diana worship (Pagan Gnosticism) - the religion claiming female-superiority (rather thn equality).
4 "Myths and endless genealogies" likely refers to the feminist genealogical myth of Pagan Gnosticism in which woman (Eve) was the source or originator of man (Agam) and to the series of emanations fro the goddess Diana of Pagan Gnosticism; but they can also refer to the myth and genealogies of Jewis Pharisaism.
6 "The sayings of meaningless things" refers to the many rules, myths, and allegories of the Pharisees, whose principles resulted in immorality, pretentiousenss, and belief in male-superiority (rahter than equality.)
Quick note - elsewhere they have commentary on the "women keep silent in the church" passage to include these Gnostic influences that had to with the goddess Diana and women being wrongly influenced by those teachings - i.e., that women should be in charge, rather than equality, "neither male nor female", etc...So some of their insight is a little different than most.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 08:40:23 AM
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 08:11:06 AMThat's what Mr. Eby said in essence, that I noted earlier in the quote of his I haven't been able to find again. He said if these things had been known [recognized] there would have been less conflict/disagreement between religion and science.
Sticking to the earth is 6000 years old view hasn't done much good for the acceptance of Christianity.
They are right in that it is approx 6000 years from Adam.
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 08:42:20 AM
Quote from: wwBut where does the gap theory fits in? When the dino's got wiped out by a comet (wormwood) impact?
We can work on that later lol. I'm still totally freaked out. Not only are the scientists missing this, the Christians are, too. Both are arguing from erroneous assumptions.
And, those evolutionists can go pound sand.
Everyone is overlooking the ages.
Ephesians 3:21
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Exactly.
Quote from: Cardinal on August 06, 2010, 08:39:07 AM:cloud9: What happened to their site?
Just gone. And a year before that their e-mail didn't even work.
I couldn't even contact them. James bought teh Bible for me and shipped it to me. :bowing:
They estimated the translation to take 1 year. It took them 9 years. They quit their jobs. Sold everything they have. And lived in a old car/camper. Then the sold their Bible and lexicon and break-even price because they assumed God wouldn't like it they made any profit selling His words.
As far as a I can tell they did sell very few copies.
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 08:45:26 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 08:40:23 AM
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 08:11:06 AMThat's what Mr. Eby said in essence, that I noted earlier in the quote of his I haven't been able to find again. He said if these things had been known [recognized] there would have been less conflict/disagreement between religion and science.
Sticking to the earth is 6000 years old view hasn't done much good for the acceptance of Christianity.
They are right in that it is approx 6000 years from Adam.
True. The other view of 10000 years is perhaps even better. Then Bible accounts seems to fit quite well with archeology. Like bronze age is tubal-cain (sp?)
But that's very diffrent from saying the whole universe is that age plus 6 days.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 08:46:22 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on August 06, 2010, 08:39:07 AM:cloud9: What happened to their site?
Just gone. And a year before that their e-mail didn't even work.
I couldn't even contact them. James bought teh Bible for me and shipped it to me. :bowing:
They estimated the translation to take 1 year. It took them 9 years. They quit their jobs. Sold everything they have. And lived in a old car/camper. Then the sold their Bible and lexicon and break-even price because they assumed God wouldn't like it they made any profit selling His words.
As far as a I can tell they did sell very few copies.
Only by snail mail, far as I know. Their address is
Christian Bible Society, P.O. Box 530 Mammoth Spring, AR 72554Lord willing I'm writing them a letter tomorrow to let them know there's interest on TM in their translation, etc., and maybe they would accept some help getting their translation of the Word out...
Letter is written, to be mailed later today. Requesting all information they may have, including current pricing and methods of ordering - offering to help get the word out about their translation...
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 09:05:12 AM
Letter is written, to be mailed later today. Requesting all information they may have, including current pricing and methods of ordering - offering to help get the word out about their translation...
Wonderful!
"The last glacial expansion ended about 10,000 years ago, and all civilizations evolved later."Like...6000 years ago? :Sparkletooth:
I'm not a genius, but I think just as UR does, this really would explain a lot. :bigGrin:
I certainly am comfortable sharing it as a real possibility (including to my children). There are too many people in internal conflict over this. "I am a Christian, so I've got to believe the world is only 6,000 years old. B-u-t......"
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 09:11:41 AM
I'm not a genius, but I think just as UR does, this really would explain a lot. :bigGrin:
I certainly am comfortable sharing it as a real possibility (including to my children). There are too many people in internal conflict over this. "I am a Christian, so I've got to believe the world is only 6,000 years old. B-u-t......"
As far as I can tell, Adam really is the first modern man, homo sapiens sapiens. Or why else did mesopotamian civilization spring up full blown out of nowhere after millions of years of silence?
Oh, I believe that. God is the Creator, and He created Adam, Eve, all living things just as He said. The creation account of Genesis from Adam onward is as it says (even though there may be things we don't yet understand about even that). I just believe things existed before that, then the earth became without form and void, and then there's old Adam...
Adam onward, 6-10,000 years :thumbsup:. Whatever occured in an age prior to that...to me, that's the question. We may not have all the answers to that, but it appears something had gone on, and that can go a long way toward explaining "all the really old stuff". :2c: :laughing7:
This is just a thought - since God's existed "forever", do we think He only "did something" 6,000 years ago?
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 09:06:50 AM
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 09:05:12 AM
Letter is written, to be mailed later today. Requesting all information they may have, including current pricing and methods of ordering - offering to help get the word out about their translation...
Wonderful!
The last glacial expansion
Ice = water = flood?
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 09:18:47 AM
Oh, I believe that. God is the Creator, and He created Adam, Eve, all living things just as He said. And I believe the creation account of Genesis from Adam onward is as it says. I just believe things existed before that, then the earth became without form and void, and then there's old Adam...
Have you ever read anything by the forbidden archeology guy?
It would fit in with all of this, too.
He's also on youtube.
http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/
no, but I'll look at it...
This line makes me wince..."well-documented evidence suggesting that modern man did not evolve from ape man, but instead has co-existed with apes for millions of years!"
I appreciate that he doesn't believe the silliness that man evolved from monkeys. But the other view is, some things existed prior to the Adamic creation that were not man as we currently exist. Something more akin to "animal" life perhaps, i.e., there is no missing link. It's two different creations - that's the "missing link". :happy3:
So what do you make of man co-existing with apes for millions of years? I'm not sure that fits very well with Adam, "created in our image"...
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 09:18:47 AMAdam onward, 6-10,000 years :thumbsup:. Whatever occured in an age prior to that...to me, that's the question. We may not have all the answers to that, but it appears something had gone on, and that can go a long way toward explaining "all the really old stuff".
Maybe a good starting point is looking at so Jewish sites. For Christians the universe is 6000 years old. So I expect no info there. But as I wrote earlier Jews speak of "this world" and a "world of old".
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 09:28:51 AM
This line makes me wince..."well-documented evidence suggesting that modern man did not evolve from ape man, but instead has co-existed with apes for millions of years!"
I appreciate that he doesn't believe the silliness that man evolved from monkeys. But the other view is, some things existed prior to the Adamic creation that were not man as we currently exist. Something more akin to "animal" life perhaps, i.e., there is no missing link. It's two different creations - that's the "missing link". :happy3:
So what do you make of man co-existing with apes for millions of years? I'm not sure that fits very well with Adam, "created in our image"...
Take a look at the evidence he has. It's fascinating.
His point is that the scientific establishment has been covering up this evidence for 100 years [at least], and any scientist that tries to reference it is blackballed and fired.
Because if man and ape co-existed millions of years ago--there goes evolution down the tubes. And if evolution goes down the tubes, their assault on religion goes down the tubes.
You have no idea how important it is to them that we do not believe in God, or that man was created in God's image.
PS his artifacts show a high level of civilization if memory serves me.
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 09:28:51 AMSo what do you make of man co-existing with apes for millions of years? I'm not sure that fits very well with Adam, "created in our image"...
Image is shadow. Or more exactly a shadow in a outline of light.
QuoteI appreciate that he doesn't believe the silliness that man evolved from monkeys. But the other view is, some things existed prior to the Adamic creation that were not man as we currently exist.
Makes me think again of a certain view that man both have an animal an human spirit.
Just a thought: What if creation of Adam was inserting a human spirit in an animal/sub-human?
I have to add I don't believe in Darwinian evolution. So it conflicts a bit. But perhaps the view can be of some help.
Another thing I would like to add is that I see no blasphemey in calling an ape/pig/butterfly/etc a image of God.
We are bit more advanced than an ape. How much? 100 IQ points? Does that really make a difference when comparing to God with infinite IQ points?
It's a bit like a scientist says he got proof the sun is half inch closer to earth than previously assumed. :winkgrin:
Hmmm, I'll look at it more...
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 09:33:55 AM
Take a look at the evidence he has. It's fascinating.
Molly I think you will like this book. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution)
QuoteHis point is that the scientific establishment has been covering up this evidence for 100 years [at least], and any scientist that tries to reference it is blackballed and fired.
Life existed a billion or so years earlier that always thought. May seem nothing but it's a huge problem for them.
Species also emerged 'instantly'. Google "Cambrian explosion". Those facts/links are found and proven. They conflict with Darwinian evolution that is still looking for the first link...
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 09:23:20 AM
Quote from: jabcat on August 06, 2010, 09:18:47 AM
Oh, I believe that. God is the Creator, and He created Adam, Eve, all living things just as He said. And I believe the creation account of Genesis from Adam onward is as it says. I just believe things existed before that, then the earth became without form and void, and then there's old Adam...
Have you ever read anything by the forbidden archeology guy?
It would fit in with all of this, too.
He's also on youtube.
http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/
Do you own one of his books? I'm going to buy one but am not sure go for the abridge or unabridged (scholary edition)
The point has been made that, in museums throughout the world, there is physical evidence of man's presence in every geological epoch (of modern archeology.) The way that Hindus deal with it is to assert mankind is 58 million years old.
Quote from: reFORMer on August 06, 2010, 05:13:03 PM
The point has been made that, in museums throughout the world, there is physical evidence of man's presence in every geological epoch (of modern archeology.) The way that Hindus deal with it is to assert mankind is 58 million years old.
Not sure about the 58 million years but according to them life started 2 billion years ago. http://www.mcremo.com/vedic.htm
Molly: This is a site of the author you mentioned.
I often wonder if many religions have a similar source and/or complement each other. Maybe once many believed the same thing but over time things went off-track.
But still have a spark of truth that other/the religion lost. Just look at the OT. Do you really think there isn't anything else that could have been written?
Did Jesus only do/say the few things mentioned in NT?
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 02:07:11 AM
Look at the definitions again, TT--without form and void is tohu and bohu--
You do have an earth but it's a desolate ruin.
"without form"
H8414
תּהוּ
tôhû
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.
"void"
H922
בּהוּ
bôhû
bo'-hoo
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.
That's what I was saying. I was saying that other people assume that void and without form means no earth, but I explained how that would make no sense.
The Earth's desolate, that's what I meant I said "useless", the earth's purpose being to produce grass etc, which without grass would be useless, but during the original creation, the grass/vegetation would not have been commanded by God yet to "be", so the earth would be without form and void or useless, not worthy to be inhabitable, a bit like mars.
Apart from Genesis 1.2 let there be light there is no other passage which demonstrates the creation of the universe, yet there are verses where, the gospel says that by the word he created the world's with an s.
So where is the universe created, even the solar system if this verse be not that.
So if that verse be the creation of the universe, which is something God has just revealed to me and I haven't even realized it yet, hallelliwia, but if that verse be the creation of the universe, then it cannot mean it is a command to restore light[God] to the darkness=[rebellion of angels].
Coupled with the fact that God said behold all things he made were good, before the event of fall of Adam and temptation of the serpent.
Quote from: thinktank on August 06, 2010, 06:41:33 PM
That's what I was saying. I was saying that other people assume that void and without form means no earth, but I explained how that would make no sense.
The Earth's desolate, that's what I meant I said "useless", the earth's purpose being to produce grass etc, which without grass would be useless, but during the original creation, the grass/vegetation would not have been commanded by God yet to "be", so the earth would be without form and void or useless, not worthy to be inhabitable, a bit like mars.
Possible. Also possible it that it was still a molten mass that wasn't cooled down into a solid planet.
QuoteApart from Genesis 1.2 let there be light there is no other passage which demonstrates the creation of the universe, yet there are verses where, the gospel says that by the word he created the world's with an s.
Can you give me the verses TT? I only verses I found are translated wrong. Worlds=Ages
KJVHeb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
KJVHeb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
QuoteSo where is the universe created, even the solar system if this verse be not that.
Note#1:
the first, second, third, ... is not a accurate translation.
A would be a better translation.
Note#2: Day is plural.
/edit :2c:
:cloud9: He reconciled this for me a long time ago, in showing me the 6 days of creation before Adam, and the now 6 days after, going on 7. I assumed there had to be a pre something for the some of the natural things to be so old, as in the formation of it, but not the "dressing" of it. Blessings....
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 07:02:14 PM
Quote from: thinktank on August 06, 2010, 06:41:33 PM
That's what I was saying. I was saying that other people assume that void and without form means no earth, but I explained how that would make no sense.
The Earth's desolate, that's what I meant I said "useless", the earth's purpose being to produce grass etc, which without grass would be useless, but during the original creation, the grass/vegetation would not have been commanded by God yet to "be", so the earth would be without form and void or useless, not worthy to be inhabitable, a bit like mars.
Possible. Also possible it that it was still a molten mass that wasn't cooled down into a solid planet.QuoteApart from Genesis 1.2 let there be light there is no other passage which demonstrates the creation of the universe, yet there are verses where, the gospel says that by the word he created the world's with an s.
Can you give me the verses TT? I only verses I found are translated wrong. Worlds=Ages
KJVHeb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
KJVHeb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.QuoteSo where is the universe created, even the solar system if this verse be not that.
Note#1: the first, second, third, ... is not a accurate translation. A would be a better translation.
Note#2: Day is plural.
/edit :2c:
It could mean a molten rock, without form and void, so the question, is it Mars or Venus?. Since women are reportedly from venus, that argument you make must be illogical. :icon_jokercolor:
That hebrew verse was the one I was thinking about but here are some more verses
Colossians 1;16,17
Ephesians 3'9
Romans 1:20
So to me there is no reason why God would hide away from us the creation of the universe, particularly as we now have access to equipment, that verifies there is a universe out there. Where else in Genesis is a universe, planets, hosts mentioned?
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 05:34:10 PM
Quote from: reFORMer on August 06, 2010, 05:13:03 PM
The point has been made that, in museums throughout the world, there is physical evidence of man's presence in every geological epoch (of modern archeology.) The way that Hindus deal with it is to assert mankind is 58 million years old.
Not sure about the 58 million years but according to them life started 2 billion years ago. http://www.mcremo.com/vedic.htm
Molly: This is a site of the author you mentioned.
I often wonder if many religions have a similar source and/or complement each other. Maybe once many believed the same thing but over time things went off-track.
But still have a spark of truth that other/the religion lost. Just look at the OT. Do you really think there isn't anything else that could have been written?
Did Jesus only do/say the few things mentioned in NT?
Michael Cremo is not a scientist. His co-author is a scientist but he's a PHD mathematician. Both are Hindu's. Cremo is now calling himself a Vedic Creationist.
All of that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they have uncovered and documented a systematic suppression of scientific discoveries of the last 150 years that have been suppressed because they disprove the theory of evolution. Nobody ever thinks of science as suppressing and even lying about scientific findings. We have been taught that scientists are the high priests of truth in the modern era. But, even in recent years we have seen the same thing going on with 'Global Warming'. Like they supported the Piltdown man hoax for 50 years to bolster their made up Darwinism, so are they today manufacturing data to support their made up 'Anthropogenic [man-made] Global Warming.' They have been exposed on both counts--but it doesn't matter--they have the money and they have the agenda and they just keep pushing toward their nefarious goals which have nothing to do with a search for truth. Truth is their enemy.
So is mankind. And, so is our God.
Cremo's contribution is to bring these findings to the light of day and allow scientists some breathing room, however small, to speak the truth. He has also allowed us, the layman, to get a glimpse of it. Beyond that, Cremo has his own theories and religious belief system which is not relevant to the actual documentation of the artifacts themselves. My prediction is that they will now use Cremo to promote their alien agenda.
One thing we know from Genesis is that God created biological life discretely and all at once, not in an evolutionary manner. That is the true import of the 6 days of creation--from the smallest to the largest biological life form it all happened simultaneously, which the Cambrian explosion data now validates. Man deserves to take his place there, too, according to Cremo and others. We also see in Genesis 2 that God can create in any order he wishes, as in Gen 2 he creates Adam before he creates the animals, and he creates the animals before he creates Eve. So there you go.
Here is a documentary produced by NBC in the late 90's on many of Cremo's findings which they tried to prevent from being shown. Can you imagine that? They even appealed to the FCC. When you consider all the garbage they throw up on tv 24 hours a day, why is this one documentary suddenly so threatening? Without the internet, which they are currently doing their best to control and even take down, you would never see it.
For what it's worth, all of this control seems to be coming out of England. It is the British Empire which is still in control imo, not any 'American Empire.' We are just their flunkies.
That's my rant and I'm stickin' to it. :2c:
http://krishnatube.com/video/269/The-Mysterious-Origins-of-Man
Quote from: thinktank on August 06, 2010, 07:49:20 PM
That hebrew verse was the one I was thinking about but here are some more verses
Colossians 1;16,17
Ephesians 3'9
Romans 1:20
Can you quote from your translation? I don't seen world
s mentioned in those verses.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 08:55:13 PM
Quote from: thinktank on August 06, 2010, 07:49:20 PM
That hebrew verse was the one I was thinking about but here are some more verses
Colossians 1;16,17
Ephesians 3'9
Romans 1:20
Can you quote from your translation? I don't seen worlds mentioned in those verses.
Basically they say that Jesus created all things. So to me there's no difference between, say the worlds and all things.
Quote from: Molly on August 06, 2010, 08:21:16 PMMichael Cremo is not a scientist.
Archologist.
QuoteWhat is relevant is that they have uncovered and documented a systematic suppression of scientific discoveries of the last 150 years that have been suppressed because they disprove the theory of evolution.
I have to admit I haven't read any of his books but does he disprove evolution? I've read bit and pieces in Amazon.com reviews but he seems to focus more how old humankind is. (much older than the mainstream assumption)
QuoteCremo's contribution is to bring these findings to the light of day and allow scientists some breathing room, however small, to speak the truth.
His site speaks in terms as taking the scientific world by storm etc. I'm not claiming I've read every book, far from it, but I never heard of him/his research before. So the scientic community is asleep again or it never became mainstream.
QuoteHe has also allowed us, the layman, to get a glimpse of it. Beyond that, Cremo has his own theories and religious belief system which is not relevant to the actual documentation of the artifacts themselves. My prediction is that they will now use Cremo to promote their alien agenda.
Speaking of aliens, did you see "Ancient Aliens"? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZYYmOgdVdI)
QuoteOne thing we know from Genesis is that God created biological life discretely and all at once, not in an evolutionary manner.
You must have a different translation then. I see no proof for or against evolution.
QuoteThat is the true import of the 6 days of creation--from the smallest to the largest biological life form it all happened simultaneously, which the Cambrian explosion data now validates.
That "explosion" took a few million years. No a few days.
QuoteHere is a documentary produced by NBC in the late 90's on many of Cremo's findings which they tried to prevent from being shown. Can you imagine that? They even appealed to the FCC. When you consider all the garbage they throw up on tv 24 hours a day, why is this one documentary suddenly so threatening? Without the internet, which they are currently doing their best to control and even take down, you would never see it.
I've downloaded it today. Not watched it yet. I'm scared to rub against the grain you know :winkgrin:
Cremo on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=forbidden+archeology&aq=0)
QuoteFor what it's worth, all of this control seems to be coming out of England. It is the British Empire which is still in control imo, not any 'American Empire.' We are just their flunkies.
Well they are direct decendants for Jesus....
QuoteThat's my rant and I'm stickin' to it. :2c:
I wouldn't dare to disagree with you Molly. You know that!
(well maybe a little bit...)
Quote from: thinktank on August 06, 2010, 09:05:27 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 08:55:13 PM
Quote from: thinktank on August 06, 2010, 07:49:20 PM
That hebrew verse was the one I was thinking about but here are some more verses
Colossians 1;16,17
Ephesians 3'9
Romans 1:20
Can you quote from your translation? I don't seen worlds mentioned in those verses.
Basically they say that Jesus created all things. So to me there's no difference between, say the worlds and all things.
For me there is.
Things could indeed mean a zillion universes and planets etc.
But things can also mean: sun+plants+....+man+TT
:JCThink: TT can you say "Hissshh" 3x? :laughing7:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 09:20:37 PM
Quote from: thinktank on August 06, 2010, 09:05:27 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 08:55:13 PM
Quote from: thinktank on August 06, 2010, 07:49:20 PM
That hebrew verse was the one I was thinking about but here are some more verses
Colossians 1;16,17
Ephesians 3'9
Romans 1:20
Can you quote from your translation? I don't seen worlds mentioned in those verses.
Basically they say that Jesus created all things. So to me there's no difference between, say the worlds and all things.
For me there is.
Things could indeed mean a zillion universes and planets etc.
But things can also mean: sun+plants+....+man+TT
:JCThink: TT can you say "Hissshh" 3x? :laughing7:
Fall down and worship me and I guarantee you this.
In 3 seconds you will fall on your knees, crying in repentance to God. :laughing7:
But I don't know what you mean, that God could create a zillon universes. If he did, what would change?
Let there be light would still be those universes being created.
The big bang theory, I think is based upon this initial explosions of God's light and all encompassing power, as his majesty and perfection brings about the creation of the universe.
Quote from: thinktank on August 06, 2010, 09:51:29 PMFall down and worship me and I guarantee you this.
In 3 seconds you will fall on your knees, crying in repentance to God. :laughing7:
Friendly advise TT :winkgrin: never post such things unless you know teh person on the other end of the line isn't build like a M1 :bgdance:
QuoteBut I don't know what you mean, that God could create a zillon universes.
All things could mean several universe. Or pre and after gap worlds.
But also simply flowers+birds+moon+etc
QuoteIf he did, what would change?
Nothing. It proves or refutes nothing relavant to this discussion.
QuoteLet there be light would still be those universes being created.
The big bang theory, I think is based upon this initial explosions of God's light and all encompassing power, as his majesty and perfection brings about the creation of the universe.
It was the "Grand unification" that 'exploded' and released the four horsemen.
QuoteWhite horse: bow and crown. Gravitation. Long range and powerful
Gravity curves spacetime. The bow is a long distance weapon and Gravity is a long distance force. Gravity rules the universe and the white horseman wears a crown.
QuoteRed horse
A great sword for a strong force (and, hence, a small one for the weak force, see below). The sword is a proximity weapon and the Strong Force works only within the nucleus.
QuoteBlack horse
Electromagnetism works with balancing charges. The voice orders three measures of cow-food per one measure of man-food. The nucleus consists of one proton (=three quarks that listen to the Strong Force) per one electron.
QuoteGreen horse:
A small sword for a weak force (compared to the big sword for the Strong Force). The sword is a proximity weapon and the Weak Force works only within the nucleus. This horseman trails death. The Weak Force is responsible for all nuclear decay in the universe.
One funny fact (boring to others): When you look at the standard model you will notice the Big Bang tells a little story about the tribes of Israel.
If you are a little techinical minded I can upload a 106 page e-book. No worries large print and lots of pix :winkgrin:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 10:17:46 PM
Friendly advise TT :winkgrin: never post such things unless you know teh person on the other end of the line isn't build like a M1 :bgdance:
:bigGrin:
M1's are a bit old hat these days, it's good to talk :Sparkletooth:
The big bang theory, I think is based upon this initial explosions of God's light and all encompassing power, as his majesty and perfection brings about the creation of the universe.
It was the "Grand unification" that 'exploded' and released the four horsemen.
QuoteWhite horse: bow and crown. Gravitation. Long range and powerful
Gravity curves spacetime. The bow is a long distance weapon and Gravity is a long distance force. Gravity rules the universe and the white horseman wears a crown.
QuoteRed horse
A great sword for a strong force (and, hence, a small one for the weak force, see below). The sword is a proximity weapon and the Strong Force works only within the nucleus.
QuoteBlack horse
Electromagnetism works with balancing charges. The voice orders three measures of cow-food per one measure of man-food. The nucleus consists of one proton (=three quarks that listen to the Strong Force) per one electron.
QuoteGreen horse:
A small sword for a weak force (compared to the big sword for the Strong Force). The sword is a proximity weapon and the Weak Force works only within the nucleus. This horseman trails death. The Weak Force is responsible for all nuclear decay in the universe.
One funny fact (boring to others): When you look at the standard model you will notice the Big Bang tells a little story about the tribes of Israel.
If you are a little techinical minded I can upload a 106 page e-book. No worries large print and lots of pix :winkgrin:
[/quote]
Haven't heard that version of the horsmen before, I think everyone has a different opinion on the four horsmen. But one thing about opinions is that they are either, the interpretation of what the scripture means or one uses that ullistration to convey another truth. A lot here tend to do that, but I prefer to keep things in context so as to avoid confusion, not that I don't sometimes use a passage to ullistrate something, other than what the passage meant, for it is the wisdom of the spirit.
I might check that ebook out, and I like me pix :winkgrin:
willieH: Hi WW... :cloud9:
Thanks for your reply... :wink2:
Quote from: willieH on August 05, 2010, 11:08:09 PMI will break up this answer in 2 parts...
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 06:35:58 AMI won't read the second part. (see below)
Does not matter to me... read what you wish, ignore what you don't... :dontknow:
Quote from: willieHFIRST --- JEWISH --- That Jewish scholars "agree" does not provide a BASIS for truth.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 06:35:58 AMLet's say they know their language.
The language idioms, as well as regional inflections and "slang", ...CHANGE during the course of time. Moderns can gain a good idea of what is said in Ancient literature... but cannot completely derive exact interpretation... this is WHY we need the guidance of GOD, which ...in
HIS LOVE and SPIRIT, as well as REASON... which brings the Scriptures into harmony...
A perfect example is "EBONICS" in English... a caucasion (such as myself) can sit in the midst of English words being spoken between 2 black people, and become completely confused as to what is conveyed between these two black people... and please do not pretend to tell me otherwise, for I have blacks within my fam! :laughing7:
Many centuries removed from now (this present time) will note an even GREATER confusion, should the people of that era, try to understand the same conversation that I could not, even though I was IN the ERA and SPOKE the language, in which it was spoken! :mshock:
Quote from: willieHI have proposed that several NT Scriptural notations are compromised by this "THEORY"... and these "Jewish scholars" are quite disinterested in such an observation, as they hold that the NT ...AND... JESUS CHRIST to be blasphemous contentions.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 06:35:58 AMWrong. Firstly they are very interested in what is written in their own books. Secondly their rejection of Jesus/NT has nothing to do with with those Hebrew words.
That is true from
JEWISH perspective... even though this "holding of hands" with the
CHRISTIAN and
SECULAR communities (which entitle themSELVES as "scholars") within this COMMON observation, would appear to promote dissensions within them because of that "newly found comradery"... :laughing7:
But I stand by what I said... The
"JEWISH" perspective, could not even see the SAVIOR, which was OFTEN prophesied, and which was the BASIS of the Scriptures they held/hold so dear, even unto this day!
So why should I endorse their "understanding" of ANYTHING concerning the Scriptures? :dontknow: Because it is holding hands with, and in harmony with the Christian and Secular communities? :Whistle:
You are welcome to determine "RIGHT" and/or "WRONG", based upon the common "agreements" of these "scholarly" ...
"3 Blind Mice" if you like... not me.
I shall find my own way (right or wrong) according to the guidance I recieve from above, and the research that I, in faith to
CHRIST, dedicate in submission to that guidance. Not upon 3 (self proclaimed "scholarly") factions of MEN which ALL potentially hold HEARTS which are DECEITFUL ABOVE ALL THINGS --
Jer 17:9 :mnah:
If indeed I am "WRONG" about a given thing, I will be in quite a LARGE COMPANY, which likely will include yourself, and your pointing (that I am "WRONG") finger! :pointlaugh:
FYI... It is a foolish thing to note another as "WRONG", for such a determination/conclusion can only be made via using/employing the measure of your OWN observation, ...in comparison to MINE. (that I am ---> :blush: WRONG, and therefore, ...YOU... are, ah... oh yeah, ---> otherwise :first:)
I may be VEILED which is quite possible concerning
this or that, and have indeed found that I
was during my course of 34 years of study, ...This is because I OPENLY admit to
"looking through the glass darkly"... however... irregardless of an admission of same, ...your own vision is still every bit as hindered by these very same
parameters as is mine... :dontknow:
Quote from: willieHSECOND --- CHRISTIAN --- As far as CHRISTIAN scholars holding this THEORY to be truth... They hold ET, Eternal Separation from God, the Rapture, the Trinity, and many other fallacies as "truth", so why not ADD one more to the list? :laughing7:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 06:35:58 AMThey also hold your belief. So...
I did not say that Christianity is devoid of any harmony with my beliefs... I just listed a number of things which are COMMONLY believed by many (in a general sense), which are FALSE and UNBIBLICAL... That does not mean that we so not share ANYTHING in common.
For instance, ...I believe
JESUS CHRIST is the SAVIOR as do they... they just see the final result of that SAVING work as LESSER than do I... :dontknow:
Quote from: willieHTHIRD --- SECULAR --- As far as this portion of observers... they do not begin with the guidance of GOD in attempting to understand the portrayals and documentations of the HOLY Scriptures, so I see them as even more IRRELEVANT than the first 2 groupings...
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 06:35:58 AMI would rank them first or second.
They translate without any religious bias.
Though you are welcome to (and probably shall) disagree...
"Ranking" them is not the point... :dontknow: Even though they [SECULAR] do not employ "religious bias"... they also do not "employ" the GUIDANCE of the HOLY SPIRIT... :dontknow:
So a "ranking" them above believers which have been EMPOWERED by the Holy Spirit to CALL
JESUS LORD --
1 Cor 12:3 -- and have thereby been affected by the SPIRIT of GOD... as "ABOVE"... to me, is a miscalculation of the three... That is, dependent upon whether or not your "ranking" of the "SECULAR scholars", is indeed higher than the "Christian" scholars... (you did not disclose which, if either, the SECULAR might exceed)
Quote from: willieHALL in all... IMO what we have is 3 BLIND MICE! :sigh:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 06, 2010, 06:35:58 AMThat's clear. I would say stop posting here. Do your own translations and then return and post your findings. You can post as many verses/words as you like from whatever Bible/lexicon/dictionary your own. But they are of zero value because all those versions are translated by blind (biased) mice.
I do not
need to "translate" anything... GOD is IN CONTROL of His
WORD... and it is HE which decides who shall or shall not be inspired to embark upon TRANSLATING it...
ALL I
need to do, is to seek the SPIRIT of God to lead me into the TRUTH, and INVESTIGATE the available translations, not just ACCEPT what they "say"...
Which can be done within the observation and SCRUTINY of the writings provided by ALL THREE, employing the tools provided, in conjunction with the GUIDANCE of GOD... :dontknow:
The reason I have named these "3 Blind mice" is due to their individual CLAIM to call the others "WRONG", using
their own findings as the measure of the OTHERS, such as
YOU have done with me. :sigh:
I QUESTION those findings... and QUESTION the claims they make of each other... That does not mean that I shall "throw the baby out with the bathwater"... Or that ALL they have embarked upon is of THEIR DOING... Just as, it was GOD which raised PHARAOH to do what he "did"... all the while PHARAOH certainly thought that his decision (not to free the slaves) was his "own idea" --
Rom 9:17I am building a fence in my back yard using recycled materials... I discard the rusty nails, and rotten wood... but NOT the materials that are STILL in good condition, and USEFUL to be utilzed further!
There are SECULAR entities that actually DO more of the admonition of
CHRIST, than do the "churchgoers" who give of their excess, and who claim His name...
And even though they (the SECULAR) do not DO unto others by claiming motivation from the name of
CHRIST... they DO of an UNSELFISH motivation, which in the end...
IS what
CHRIST noted to be the point --
Matt 25:31-45Many "BELIEVERS" which think to DO the work of
CHRIST, yet are in the midst of crediting themselves for the "good" they have done, shall find that work named as INIQUITY --
Matt 7:22-23If we are wise, we shall withhold the judgment of any, which notes SELF as RIGHT and others WRONG (i.e. YOU & Me), and instead, DO in UNSEEN SILENCE, the works of righteousness, before the one which is present in all things, that HE can observe that
adornment of SELF was not involved in the process where we have been found, "DOING GOOD"... or "being right"...
:Peace: my brother! :icon_rr:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: thinktank on August 06, 2010, 11:14:13 PMHaven't heard that version of the horsmen before, I think everyone has a different opinion on the four horsmen.
I think "opinion" is a wrong word. Whatever the main teaching of the four horsemen is ,this is
not it. I would call it a hidden gem that doesn't have any Christian teaching. But it's nice to know and is a tiny bit of extra proof for the Bible. Understand what I mean?
Download here (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/923646527/e671f7df1def2b7b209794eb4f91b7ff) (The link automatically expires in 7 days)
Page 97 is what you likely want to see first. Depending how much you know about the Big Bang you need to read earlier pages too. I think there are also a few other little facts that gives tiny better understanding of the difference between Hebrew (action) vs English (looks)
Did you know the number Pi is in the Bible with 20 (?) digit accuracy?
Another little example that has zero influence on salvation but still nice to know... ==> :2c:
:cloud9: PI is in the bible???
Quote from: Cardinal on August 07, 2010, 04:37:07 AM
:cloud9: PI is in the bible???
KJV1Ki 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
Quote•The Bible is full of codes! This number 3 was only for dummies. Really clever people would recognize that the word for measuring line is usually (q-w), while in 1 Ki 7:23 it's (q-w-h). Now establish the numerical value of each word: q+w = 100+6 = 106; q+w+h = 100+6+5 = 111. Now divide 111 by 106 and multiply the outcome with the 3 for dummies. What do you get: 3,1415094339622641509433962264151! Hah! Holy is the Lord!
The Lord is holy, for sure, but this pi isn't. The outcome of this little (and delightful) trick deviates from the real value of pi from the fifth decimal digit on and is just as wrong as 3 or 27,5. For its time it would have been an uncanny achievement, if.....
3 more pages on Pi in the Bible can be found HERE (http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html)
Also read the blue bits in the left column. "The first 144 digits of pi add up to 666"
Found this tonight from A.E. Knoch;
The first physical disruption is recorded in the forefront of revelation, after the creation of the heavens and the earth, by which the earth became a chaos and vacant. "As for the earth, it came to be a chaos and vacant, and darkness was over the surface of the abyss" (Gen.1:2a). This primeval cataclysm is referred to in the Scriptures as if it were the most important event in the past history of the earth, second only to its destruction by fire in the future. Other vital events are dated either before or from the disruption. Before it the Father loved the Son (John 17:24). Then it was that He chose us in Christ (Eph.1:4). Then also Christ, as the flawless and unspotted Lamb was foreknown (1 Pet.1:19-20). From the disruption the Lambkin was slain (Rev.13:8). There is the shedding of blood, beginning with Abel (Luke 11:50-51), besides the making ready of the kingdom (Matt.25:34). The apostle Peter explains the relation of the earth to the cosmic arrangements upon its surface by calling the latter a "world." He speaks of the earth cohering out of water and through water, by the Word of God; through which the then world, being deluged by water, perished. This is accurately described by the phrase "the disruption of the world." The earth itself was not disrupted, only the system upon it. The same was true of the ancient world of Noah's day (cf 2 Pet.2:5; 3:6). Then, of course, it included all land life, as well as mankind, with the exception of those in the ark.
We do not know the underlying cause that produced the two deluges which disrupted the earth in the past. Some of the contributing causes are revealed. In the past the [water] stored in the earth played a large part in the catastrophe. The corresponding future disasters will be due, in part, at least, to the fact that the earth now is stored with fire (2 Pet.3:7). Volcanoes are clear evidence that the fire is there. I have visited Vesuvius, and have seen what it did to Pompeii when it buried it under ashes many feet deep. We are not told that the subterranean fire will burst forth during the judgement period, which corresponds with the second deluge, but fire is used to dissolve the present earth before the new creation (2 Pet.3:10; Rev.21:1).
LXX
1 In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.
2 But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.
==> Sounds very different from "became"
Young
1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth--"
2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, "
==> Still creating. Preparing sounds like: Prepare for something (life)
==> Less direct than LXX but no "became"
==> When I combine those two verses I 'cleary' see: During the early period of God's creation earth was waste and void.
Assuming a correct translations both take away much foundation for the gap theory...
Genesis 1:2
"and the earth"
H776
ארץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.
"was"
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.
"without form"
H8414
תּהוּ
tôhû
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.
"and void"
H922
בּהוּ
bôhû
bo'-hoo
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant, [slave]
being made in human likeness.
--Phil 2:7
[made himself] "nothing"
G2758
κενόω
kenoō
ken-o'-o
From G2756; to make empty, that is, (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify: - make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.
G2756
κενός
kenos
ken-os'
Apparently a primary word; empty (literally or figuratively): - empty, (in) vain.
As we were lowered so did he lower himself. He put himself in our place so that he could drag us back to his place. Belief is what gets us there.
Matthew 9:22
But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
Reading this, my thoughts turned again to some sort of "prior creation", i.e., before the disruption in early Genesis and the "gap theory"... unless science (satan) is pulling our leg, some of this stuff sounds ancient. IT'S ALSO BEAUTIFUL AND FASCINATING!
Thoughts?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20110107/wl_yblog_upshot/scientists-explore-the-breathtaking-blue-holes-of-the-bahamas
You gotta love these guys. They find a creature which is unchanged in 300 million years, and, instead of saying, this proves evolution is bunk, they say, we've found a 'living fossil.' lol
So now I have the choice between being a monkey's uncle or a living fossil.
Good catch. (hey, that's a pun). I saw the living fossil thing, but missed the connection. ha!
otherwise, interesting stuff, eh?
"So now I have the choice between being a monkey's uncle or a living fossil."
Heck of a choice! Heck of a choice! :mshock:
The correct spelling is haeck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing) of a choice :icon_jokercolor:
:cloud9: Another cool pix WW :thumbsup:
Quote from: WhiteWings on January 08, 2011, 08:51:39 PM
The correct spelling is haeck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing) of a choice :icon_jokercolor:
more like hack of a choice.
The exactness of Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryos has caused much controversy among Intelligent design proponents recently and Haeckel's intellectual opponents in the past. Although the early embryos of different species exhibit similarities, Haeckel apparently exaggerated these similarities in support of his Recapitulation theory, sometimes known as the Biogenetic Law or "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Let's say his pictures showed a lot of 'creative design,' in the fine tradition of Piltdown man.
Quote from: jabcat on January 08, 2011, 10:48:16 AM
Reading this, my thoughts turned again to some sort of "prior creation", i.e., before the disruption in early Genesis and the "gap theory"... unless science (satan) is pulling our leg, some of this stuff sounds ancient. IT'S ALSO BEAUTIFUL AND FASCINATING!
Thoughts?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20110107/wl_yblog_upshot/scientists-explore-the-breathtaking-blue-holes-of-the-bahamas
Adam was not the First Man
By
Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet
Many people have become agnostics because of the supposed conflict between the Bible and science. In truth, there is no conflict at all between a correct translation of the Bible and really proven science, not just unproven theories. One of these supposed conflicts is between the fact that science knows that human beings have lived on the earth far longer than the few thousand years covered by the Bible and the common belief that the Bible says that Adam was the first man. Yes, I know that most of the preachers say that, but the Bible doesn't! It merely says that Adam was the first WHITE man. Let's look at the record.
The many mistranslations in the King James versions obscure much of the truth. For example, Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep." In the Hebrew it says, "Now the earth had become chaotic and empty."
(See Rotherham's Emphasized Bible) That is, some early catastrophe had wrecked the earth, which was not "without form and void" before that. This was a judgment of God on earlier civilizations, for their wickedness. Jeremiah 4:23-27 gives a vision of it. "I beheld the earth and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens and they had no light. I beheld the mountains and lo, they trembled and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld and lo, there was no man and all the birds of the heavens were fled. 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. For thus hath the Lord said, 'The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.'" Therefore we do find buried ruins of cities older than Adam and skeletons which can be dated by the carbon 14 process as many as thousands of years older. But, the Bible itself tells us about this.
Next the Bible tells us about the creation of men, in the plural, in Genesis 1:26-28, saying, "Male and female created He THEM" (1:27), and God told these people, "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" (1:28). "Plenish" is an obsolete English word meaning "to fill"; and you cannot replenish what was never plenished, or filled, before. In the next chapter, Genesis 2 we find THE ADAM (in the singular) created. The Hebrew word, "aw-dawm" (rendered "Adam" in English) is from a root word meaning "to show blood in the face" or "of a ruddy complexion", a word obviously not applicable to the dark races, which we also know from scientific evidence to be much older than the White Race.
Bible scholars know that Genesis 3:20 - "And Adam called his wife's name 'Eve': because she was the mother of all living" - is a later interpolation, which was not in the earlier manuscripts. (See Moffatt's translation.)
The Fourth chapter of Genesis records the birth of Cain and Abel; in the Hebrew, the wording suggests that they were twins. No other child of Eve is mentioned until the birth of Seth, when Adam was 130 years old, certainly long after the birth of Cain and Abel, which most scholars say was over 100 years earlier. Yet, when Cain killed Abel, and in punishment was driven out of the land, he complained to God that "any one that findeth me shall slay me." Genesis 4:14. Upon being sent away, Cain found many other people, for Genesis 4:17 records that Cain not only married a wife, but built a city. You don't build a city for just two people. These were the pre-Adamite races, mentioned in the latter part of Genesis 1.
The "Garden of Eden" was not a plantation of ordinary trees and shrubs. God did nothing so foolish as to make a special creation, just to have a man to wield shovel and pruning shears, when He already had millions of pre Adamites available for that type of work. We are told that the "Garden of Eden" contained "the tree of the knowledge (or experience) of good and evil". No tree of the forest has any knowledge or experience of either good or evil. Ezekiel 31, says "Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches and a shadowing bough and of an high stature; Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field and his boughs were multiplied and his branches became long; all the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. THE CEDARS IN THE GARDEN OF GOD could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; NOR ANY TREE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD WAS LIKE UNTO HIM IN HIS BEAUTY. I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: SO THAT ALL THE TREES OF EDEN THAT WERE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD ENVIED HIM". Obviously, the trees in the Garden of God in Eden were "family trees" of races and nations who admired and envied the early Assyrian Empire. These made up the "garden" that Adam was to cultivate. That is, Satan had been what we might call the Super- intendant of this planet, to rule it in obedience to God's will, until he forfeited that position by rebellion against God. Adam was sent to take his place. It was Adam's job to rule the various nations and races of the earth as God's representative here, educating them in God's laws and enforcing obedience to those laws. These other races and nations had been here long before Adam.
Therefore the Bible makes it unmistakably clear that we are not all descended from Adam and Eve, for there were other races on earth, already old, already numerous, when Adam was created. Among these other races there are the several who are simply pre-Adamic and one at least, which is Satanic. If you will read the third chapter of Genesis, you will notice that, immediately after the fall of Adam, when God required them to answer what they had done, God condemned Satan. The word mistranslated "serpent" is the Hebrew word "naw-khash", which literally means "enchanter" or "magician" and, no doubt Satan still possessing angelic powers, was able to be an enchanter or magician. It is certain that the one who seduced Eve was no mere scaly snake wriggling along on the ground. Yes, I said "seduced" Eve, for that is what she admitted in the original Hebrew. Cain was the son of that seduction. The Bible uses the word "begat" with monotonous regularity but, the first time the Bible ever says that Adam ever "begat" anyone is Genesis 5:3 where it says, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness,
after his image: and called his name Seth. But to get back to Genesis 3:15, God said to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between THY SEED and HER SEED." The same Hebrew word for "seed" is used in both cases. Satan was to have just as literal "seed", or descendants as Eve. God's own word being pledged to this, we must expect to find it actually happening and we do. Jesus Christ, Himself, tells us of it.
In Matthew 13:38-39, explaining the Parable of the Tares Among the Wheat, Jesus says, "The field is the world; the good seed are the children OF THE KINGDOM: but THE TARES ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE: THE ENEMY THAT SOWED THEM IS THE DEVIL." Again, in John 6:70-71, Jesus had been talking with His twelve deciples and we read: "Jesus answered them, 'Have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil?' He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray Him being one of the twelve." And again you should read carefully the eighth chapter of John, where Jesus told those who hated Him, "Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do." He was not being vulgarly abusive in either of these cases, for He never resorted to name calling so His statement was precisely accurate. He did call some of them "serpents, children of vipers" which again, was accurate. Long before this, they had adopted the serpent as a symbol of Satan. That is why their tradition had given the word naw-khash" the translation "serpent", when it really means "enchanter". Jesus therefore was telling them that they were of their father the devil (or serpent, if they preferred that word). In this He was simply stating a biological fact with scientific precision and identifying the persons of this ancestry.
Whenever someone tells you that the Bible is in conflict with what modern science has proved true, don't you believe it. The things that many preachers teach are in conflict with scientific truth, as we all know, but these preachers are equally in conflict with the Bible. Go back to the Bible, not to any man made doctrines and double check it for accuracy of translation. You will find that what the Bible really says, in its original languages, is accurate with a precision our scientist have not yet achieved.
WW, this sounds like a Calvinist?
CHB
Dunno. I didn't post the article as a pro UR article but a pro gap theory article.
I think that although the guy might have some otherwise nutty things to say, his thoughts on Adam and the "gap theory" are indeed very interesting.
Similar to the spirit REturns to God who gave it (can't return to somewhere you've never been) his thoughts on REplenish the earth (rather than 'plenish') is a :thumbsup:.
What stick out in that piece was that he said Adam/Eve was the first white man. This is not scriptural, I am not going to bother accuse him of that overused phrase, that is unskillfully used today, often against good hearted folk, that simply are looking at the truth of the matter. But Only God knows the heart and I believe that we are all biased towards our own race, or country, in some shape way or form, but politics and political correctness pretends that this bias does not exist. First by admitting that we all have this bias, will help us to see more clearly and also for us to have realistic expectations of what to expect from other races. I.e don't expect someone from a different culture to treat you with the same respect as those from the same culture. With this advice in mind, it will helps us to go around with joy, no longer going to and fro, expecting other people groups to treat one as king, but to be realistic about how one is going to be treated. But of course we should not let oursleves be treated as dogs, but to have respect for ourselves.
I'd like to discuss more about what he said, but I'll leave it at this for now.
Quote from: jabcat on April 27, 2011, 08:17:17 PM
I think that although the guy might have some otherwise nutty things to say, his thoughts on Adam and the "gap theory" are indeed very interesting.
Similar to the spirit REturns to God who gave it (can't return to somewhere you've never been) his thoughts on REplenish the earth (rather than 'plenish') is a :thumbsup:.
KJV is one of the few translations that use replenish. Probebly because it's the oldest translation. Replenish used (also) to mean fill.
Main Entry:re£plen£ish
Pronunciation:ri-*ple-nish
Function:verb
Etymology:Middle English replenisshen, from Anglo-French repleniss-, stem of replenir to fill, from re- + plein full, from Latin plenus — more at FULL
Date:14th century
transitive verb
1 a : to fill with persons or animals : STOCK b archaic : to supply fully : PERFECT c : to fill with inspiration or power : NOURISH
2 a : to fill or build up again *replenished his glass* b : to make good : REPLACE
intransitive verb : to become full : fill up again
–re£plen£ish£able \-ni-sh*-b*l\ adjective
–re£plen£ish£er noun
–re£plen£ish£ment \-nish-m*nt\ noun
Main Entry:re£plen£ish
Pronunciation:r**plenish, r**p-, esp in pres part -n*sh
Function:verb
Etymology:Middle English replenisshen, replenissen, from Middle French repleniss-, stem of replenir to fill, supply abundantly, from Old French, from re- + -plenir (from plein full, from Latin plenus) * more at FULL
transitive verb
1 a : to fill with persons or animals : people or stock *be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth— Gen 1:28 (Authorized Version)* b archaic : to supply fully : equip completely : PERFECT *his hive had so long been replenished with honey— William Wordsworth* *the most replenished villain in the world— Shakespeare* c : to fill with some quality or source of inspiration or power : provide with intellectual or spiritual sustenance : NOURISH *the American mind should cease to replenish itself with the mighty wonders of Europe— Van Wyck Brooks* d : to fill completely : occupy or pervade all parts of *their vacant heart replenished with a child— Robert Browning* *she saw the blood his cheeks replenish— Shakespeare*
2 a : to fill up again *she kept his glass replenished— Charles Dickens* *the heavy demands for his legal services that promised to replenish his exchequer— A.C.Cole* *remains below the surface until he needs to replenish his lungs with another gulp— John Tassos* b : to build up again : RENEW, RESTORE *he replenished the fire and drew up close to it— T.B.Costain* *the plants are still growing, and replenishing their food reserves— Farm Journal* *the supply of oil will have replenished itself— American Guide Series: Pennsylvania* c : to supply again : REFIT *finds it cheaper and faster to replenish its ships while under way— George Weller* d : to make good : REPLACE *how fast have the shipyards T been able to replenish these losses— Fortune*
3 : to add replenisher to (as a photographic developer or fixing bath)
intransitive verb : to become full : fill up again
replenish, v.
I.I In pa. pple., denoting a condition or state.
1.I.1 Fully or abundantly stocked with things or animals (†also sometimes extended to persons). ? Obs. (very common c 1535–1660, in a great variety of contexts.)
b.I.1.b Provided, furnished, or supplied with something. Also without const. ? Obs.
†2.I.2 Filled, fully imbued, pervaded or possessed, with some quality or condition. Obs.
3.I.3 Physically or materially filled with some thing or things, people, etc. Also (in later use) without const.
†4.I.4 Full, made full, of something. Obs.
†b.I.4.b Possessed of something. Obs. rare—1.
II.II In ordinary transitive uses.
†5.II.5 To make full of, to fill, to stock or store abundantly with, persons or animals. = fill v. 5.
†b.II.5.b To provide fully with something. Obs.
†6.II.6 To occupy (a place) as inhabitants or settlers, to inhabit; to people. Obs.
b.II.6.b To occupy the whole of (a space or thing); = fill v. 7. Now rare.
†7.II.7 To fill with food; to satisfy, satiate. Also transf. and fig. Obs.
†8.II.8 To fill (a place or space) with something. = fill v. 1. Obs.
†b.II.8.b To fill (a person, the heart, etc.) with some feeling or quality. Obs.
†c.II.8.c To fill (the mind) with some occupation.
9.II.9 To fill up again; to restore to the former amount or condition.
†b.II.9.b To fill up (a vacant office). Obs. rare.
III. 10.III.10 intr. To become filled; to attain to fullness; to increase. rare.
Hence reˈplenishing vbl. n.
28 And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the seas and flying creatures of heaven, and all the cattle and all the earth, and all the reptiles that creep on the earth.
28 And God blessed them, and God said to them––Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it,––and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the bird of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth on the land.
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 @, and over the fowl @ of the air @, and over every living thing @ that moveth @ upon the earth @.
28 And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over every living thing that is creeping upon the earth.'
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moves upo
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, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
28 And God gave them his blessing and said to them, Be fertile and have increase, and make the earth full and be masters of it; be rulers over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing moving on the earth.
28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish 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 moves upon the earth.
28 And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the seas and flying creatures of heaven, and all the cattle and all the earth, and all the reptiles that creep on the earth.
28 And God blessed them, and he said, "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the flying creatures of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every animal that moveth on the earth.
28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.
28 And Elohim blesses them and Elohim says unto them, Bear fruit; and abound and fill the earth and subdue: and subjugate over the fish of the sea and over the flyers of the heavens and over every live being creeping on the earth.
28 And God Elohim blessed them, and God Elohim said unto them, Be fruitful Bear fruit , and multiply abound , and replenish fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion subjugate over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl flyers of the air heavens , and over every living thing live being that moveth creepeth upon the earth.
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, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
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, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
28 And I, God, said, Let them have dominion over the fishes 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.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every beast that moves upon the earth.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground."
28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Quote from: thinktank on April 27, 2011, 08:20:52 PM
What stick out in that piece was that he said Adam/Eve was the first white man. This is not scriptural,
I'm not sure. It's not really about scripture but translation/interpretation of a word. Some (not only that person) think one of the meanings is to blush. I know quite a few black/brown people but never saw them blush. But neither do I think they where very pale skinned. They are born in what's now Iraq.
So quite possibly they looked like the average (wo)man that lives in that region. Living outdoors my guess is they where tanned whites :laughing7:
Quoteand I believe that we are all biased towards our own race, or country, in some shape way or form, but politics and political correctness pretends that this bias does not exist. First by admitting that we all have this bias, will help us to see more clearly and also for us to have realistic expectations of what to expect from other races.
In this case political correct thinking is wrong.
Obviously Adam and Eve where of a certain race. They weren't black and white at the same time. Unless they were zebra's :winkgrin:
Purely looking at the people of the region and assuming nothing drastically happened to the skin color I would say they were closer to white than black.
I very well understand that offends many. It means blacks at that time where not human. But the same problem arrises if they were black then the all other skin colors were not human. So I think we should step over the rascism thing because whatever skin color we choose it's always offending billions of other colors....
If you guys what more of this if you can find "Shepard's Chapel" Brother Murray our of Gravette, Arkansas. Its a satalite station.
This teaching..... "It is certain that the one who seduced Eve was no mere scaly snake wriggling along on the ground. Yes, I said "seduced" Eve, for that is what she admitted in the original."
That the serpent had sexual intercourse with the woman. Dont take my word for it, start looking into it. And they are not the onyl ones and most are racist and bigots. Im not judging Im just giving some FYI.
re: OP (creation.org site)
I recall arguing about todays question with some who thought I was misconstruing a "social" Darwinism...
"The Darwinian roots of the Nazi legal system"
http://creation.com/darwinian-roots-of-nazi-legal-system (http://creation.com/darwinian-roots-of-nazi-legal-system)
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 27, 2011, 09:07:43 PM
Quote from: thinktank on April 27, 2011, 08:20:52 PM
What stick out in that piece was that he said Adam/Eve was the first white man. This is not scriptural,
I'm not sure. It's not really about scripture but translation/interpretation of a word. Some (not only that person) think one of the meanings is to blush. I know quite a few black/brown people but never saw them blush. But neither do I think they where very pale skinned. They are born in what's now Iraq.
So quite possibly they looked like the average (wo)man that lives in that region. Living outdoors my guess is they where tanned whites :laughing7:
Quoteand I believe that we are all biased towards our own race, or country, in some shape way or form, but politics and political correctness pretends that this bias does not exist. First by admitting that we all have this bias, will help us to see more clearly and also for us to have realistic expectations of what to expect from other races.
In this case political correct thinking is wrong.
Obviously Adam and Eve where of a certain race. They weren't black and white at the same time. Unless they were zebra's :winkgrin:
Purely looking at the people of the region and assuming nothing drastically happened to the skin color I would say they were closer to white than black.
I very well understand that offends many. It means blacks at that time where not human. But the same problem arrises if they were black then the all other skin colors were not human. So I think we should step over the rascism thing because whatever skin color we choose it's always offending billions of other colors....
Scientists have discovered a gene that controlls skin pigment. This gene controls the skin pigment, so it is activated in hot or cold temperatures. So Adam and Eve would have had all the gene combinations neccessary to create, the various colour combinations we have today. E.g blond hair, brown eyes, black skin etc.
But let's take into account that there are many black, asian and of all colour groups that worship Jesus. So if there are humans not made in the image of God and are more similar to intelligent gorrillas, or simply evolutionists human idea according to the evolutionist scientist, then how come these other races, worship Jesus?
Quote from: micah7:9 on April 27, 2011, 09:11:58 PM
If you guys what more of this if you can find "Shepard's Chapel" Brother Murray our of Gravette, Arkansas. Its a satalite station.
This teaching..... "It is certain that the one who seduced Eve was no mere scaly snake wriggling along on the ground. Yes, I said "seduced" Eve, for that is what she admitted in the original."
That the serpent had sexual intercourse with the woman. Dont take my word for it, start looking into it. And they are not the onyl ones and most are racist and bigots. I'm not judging Im just giving some FYI.
The problem today is that just about anybody can be called a bigot or a racist, it is very easy thing to say. It is also not fair on the people being accused. Back in the day a racist was someone who would kill other people because of their skin colour, but now it seems everyone is racist, bigot etc. As a Christian I'm sure you have been accused of being a bigot, without even opening your mouth. These words are strong words, because of their history and shouldn't be used casually. I mean flipping heck, even the word trinity here is enough to get people upset, and this is without history of blood shed and violence, so if that word cannot be used casually, then I'm sure casually accusing people of racism can be avoided to. Even though personally I wish that word wasn't used, because technically it describes someone who is in favour of their own race. In my opinion those people who killed and murdered other races, should not have been called racists, but something more technically correct, such as race murderers. Because technically according to the word we are all racists, in favour of our own race, or country, so techically Obama is a racist, because he favours Americans above other countries, but historically according to the word he is
not a racist, because he has not murdered or treated other races as dogs.
Exactly. Racist once meant something. Today it's so abused it no longer means anything. Today mentioning that Adam had a certain color is enough to be accused being a Hitler fanboy. Here the situation is this: As you might have guessed I white. Blond and bue eyes. When I say I prefer black girls I'm cool. But if a say I prefer white girls I'm a racist. Frankly speaking linking Darwinism to Nazi idea's is insane and fighting religious/political battles of the lives of millions of butchered people.
On topic now.
Obviously Adam and Eve had a certain color. There is no way around that. If they really are the very first people no race is insulted because there was just 1 race. If there were more people then that doesn't automaitically mean there are more races because if they all live in the same region. Maybe the first man simply means the first man who learned about the true God. The Bible frequently calls people beasts. The sinners that live outside the gates are called dogs.
So the seperation between man and beast perhaps is based of knowing God instead of race?
Even more on topic. I posted the article for the gap theory bits....
http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v10/i1/gaptheory.asp
http://www.creationdays.dk/
Sorry but the sites are all black and white :laughing7:
Death Before Sin?
Theologically, there is also a very grave difficulty with the 'gap' theory. The Bible says there was no sin or death until man brought them into the world. According to the 'gap' theory, however, there had already been billions of years of suffering and death in the world, represented by the fossils and the sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust, which are supposed now to identify the geological ages. According to the 'gap' theory, at the end of the geological ages Satan sinned and was cast to the earth and then there was a great cataclysm, so that the geological ages with billions of years of suffering and death took place before Satan sinned and certainly before man sinned.
The Bible, on the other hand, says specifically that 'by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin' (Romans 5:12), so that there was no death in the world until man brought sin into it. The 'gap' theory would require billions of years of suffering in the world before man or even Satan had sinned, and that means that God Himself would be directly responsible for sin in the world. God could not be the author of sin. So the 'gap' theory is precluded theologically.
written by Answersingnesis
--------------------------------
TT
There is a problem with this theory. This theory states that Adam's sin was that brought death into the world.
This might be true, however it deos not mean that Adam was the first to sin. Jesus said the devil sinneth for the begining and is the father of lies.
Since God is truth, then the devil walked away from that truth to embrace lies. Since Jesus said he is the father of lies, then I conclude that the devil sinned before Adam. As Jesus also states, whosoever sineth is of the devil, because the devil sinneth from the begining.
So if Adams sin brough death into the world, then I conclude that the devils sin brought darkness into the world in Genesis 1.2.
But God renewed the earth, thereafter, until the day Adam sinned and once more brought the earth into decay.
which would be fine if there were an ENTITY called satan--- the first sin was MAN who through his mind SATAN did sin--- I hear all this jumping in and out of Bodies but then we read ths-- Its Not what """"""""""ENTERS"""""" a man which DEFILES him its what comes OUT --- so one could supress what goes in , so SIN isnt BIRTHED---- ?:icon_flower:
oh and theres that one in James when a MAN sins HE is TEMPTED by HIS OWN lusts-- ? :icon_flower:
Hopefully as far away as possible. Resist the devil and he will flee. The battle belongs to the Lord.
:2c: OR maybe resist the CARNAL pull of your carnal mindWHICH is Death :icon_flower:
Quote from: thinktank on April 29, 2011, 12:16:21 AMDeath Before Sin?
Didn't animals and plants die? What kind of death we are speaking of? Natural of spiritual?
QuoteTheologically, there is also a very grave difficulty with the 'gap' theory. The Bible says there was no sin or death until man brought them into the world.
What verse does state that?
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 29, 2011, 08:35:34 AM
Quote from: thinktank on April 29, 2011, 12:16:21 AMDeath Before Sin?
Didn't animals and plants die? What kind of death we are speaking of? Natural of spiritual?
First the spiritual death, the devil himself and probably any dominon he had, which might have been earth, would be affected by his darkness. So the natural decay would follow after the spiritual decay.
However, I must be honest that I am not sure if plants, insects, and animals are something God keeps alive for eternity.
Imagine if grass never died, it would be a jungle in no time. That's why Adam's job was to tend the garden.
Now most gardeners usually cut their grass. So we can see a form of death happening even in the garden itself. Also I don't think Adam was constantly scanning the ground for any ants that he might accidentily step on.
We see resurected perfect Jesus eating fish. So some form of death I conclude is acceptable to God in the animal, insect and plant way of life.
Howver I don't think, God would allow even animals to suffer sickness and disease and ill health, but rather allows these creations to die and live again as part of a healthy eco system, but not for them to suffer pain and disease, as the bible says that creation itself groaneth for the sons of God.
QuoteTheologically, there is also a very grave difficulty with the 'gap' theory. The Bible says there was no sin or death until man brought them into the world.
What verse does state that?
I assume/know they take it from the Adam verse
QuoteThe resurected Jesus ate fish in the "old/current earth"
I know of no verse that states there was no death. There is a verse that warns Adam that he will die if he eats from the tree.
a] The verse is about Adam. So other lifeforms (outside the garden) possibly just died
b] Maybe Adam would have died of old age anyway. The warning was just about spiritual death.
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 29, 2011, 09:03:48 PM
QuoteThe resurected Jesus ate fish in the "old/current earth"
I know of no verse that states there was no death. There is a verse that warns Adam that he will die if he eats from the tree.
a] The verse is about Adam. So other lifeforms (outside the garden) possibly just died
b] Maybe Adam would have died of old age anyway. The warning was just about spiritual death.
Interesting wings. Because Adam could have eaten the tree of life and live forever and even after he sinned.
So without the tree of life to sustain his body Adam would have died in any case.
Quote from: thinktank on April 29, 2011, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 29, 2011, 09:03:48 PM
QuoteThe resurected Jesus ate fish in the "old/current earth"
I know of no verse that states there was no death. There is a verse that warns Adam that he will die if he eats from the tree.
a] The verse is about Adam. So other lifeforms (outside the garden) possibly just died
b] Maybe Adam would have died of old age anyway. The warning was just about spiritual death.
Interesting wings. Because Adam could have eaten the tree of life and live forever and even after he sinned.
So without the tree of life to sustain his body Adam would have died in any case.
See here is an assumption "Adam could have eaten" the Lord God was in full control, there is no "could haves pr wouild haves"
I suppose life is easier if you think like that. But I see it to simple to describe the complexity of the lords ways. I beleive that there is a truth to what youu are saying, but also it misses some vital elements of the Lords ways, to make it complete.