Good site...

[thinktank]

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.

[WhiteWings]

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.

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.

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.

So 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:

[Cardinal]

 :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....

[thinktank]

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.

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.

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.

So 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?

[Molly]

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

[WhiteWings]

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.

[thinktank]

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.

[WhiteWings]

Michael Cremo is not a scientist.

Archologist.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Speaking of aliens, did you see "Ancient Aliens"?

One 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.

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.

That "explosion" took a few million years. No a few days.

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.

I've downloaded it today. Not watched it yet. I'm scared to rub against the grain you know  :winkgrin:
Cremo on YouTube

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.

Well they are direct decendants for Jesus....

That'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...)

[WhiteWings]

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:

[thinktank]

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.

[WhiteWings]

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:

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:

But 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

If he did, what would change?

Nothing. It proves or refutes nothing relavant to this discussion.

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.

It was the "Grand unification" that 'exploded' and released the four horsemen.

White 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.

Red 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.

Black 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.

Green 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:

[thinktank]

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.

White 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.

Red 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.

Black 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.

Green 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]

willieH: Hi WW...  :cloud9:

Thanks for your reply...   :wink2:

I will break up this answer in 2 parts...

I won't read the second part. (see below)

Does not matter to me... read what you wish, ignore what you don't...  :dontknow:

FIRST --- JEWISH --- That Jewish scholars "agree" does not provide a BASIS for truth.

Let'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:

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.

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.

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:

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:

They 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:

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...

I 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)

ALL 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.

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 9:17

I 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 25:31-45

Many "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 7:22-23

If 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:

[WhiteWings]

Haven'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 (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:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: PI is in the bible???

[WhiteWings]

: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.

•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
Also read the blue bits in the left column. "The first 144 digits of pi add up to 666"

[jabcat]

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).

[WhiteWings]

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...

[Molly]

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.

[jabcat]

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

[Molly]

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.

[jabcat]

Good catch.  (hey, that's a pun).  I saw the living fossil thing, but missed the connection.  ha!

otherwise, interesting stuff, eh?

[micah7:9]

"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:

[WhiteWings]

The correct spelling is haeck of a choice  :icon_jokercolor:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Another cool pix WW  :thumbsup: