"Kinds" in Genesis 1. Does it correlate exactly with "species" in Darwinism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter admin
  • Start date Start date
A

admin

Guest
I am interested in how the evolutionist views the word "kinds" in Genesis 1 and how it relates to "species."

In Genesis, we are told that the various animals and plants REPRODUCE according to its "kind." How does an evolutionist, who holds to Genesis 1, highlight the series of mutations from one species into another species when we are told, specifically, that kinds reproduce into the same kind.
 
Personally, I don't treat Genesis like a science textbook. :)
 
Because the evolutionary process took place before that passage in Genesis.

I don't really hold to Darwinism but do believe in the Gap Theory. We obviously don't know what took place between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, but there is room enough in there for there to be time enough for evolutionary processes, IMHO. Hence, scientific "evidences" as found in archaeology might have some merit.

IOW, we don't know what roamed the earth before it was re-formed and Adam was created.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
IOW, we don't know what roamed the earth before it was re-formed and Adam was created.

Re-formed?  Come on now.  Don't you know that God (or Satan, depending on who you ask) "salted" the earth during creation with dinosaur and plant fossils in order to tempt us to see if we would lose faith and question the bible?

 
FreeToBeMe said:
Smellin Coffee said:
IOW, we don't know what roamed the earth before it was re-formed and Adam was created.

Re-formed?  Come on now.  Don't you know that God (or Satan, depending on who you ask) "salted" the earth during creation with dinosaur and plant fossils in order to tempt us to see if we would lose faith and question the bible?

Genesis 1:1 describes the earth as uninhabitable, dark, empty of life and covered with water. If the earth wasn't re-formed sometime after Genesis 1:1, we wouldn't be able to live here. :)

(FYI, hoping you were offering sarcasm. :) )
 
Smellin Coffee said:
FreeToBeMe said:
Smellin Coffee said:
IOW, we don't know what roamed the earth before it was re-formed and Adam was created.

Re-formed?  Come on now.  Don't you know that God (or Satan, depending on who you ask) "salted" the earth during creation with dinosaur and plant fossils in order to tempt us to see if we would lose faith and question the bible?

Genesis 1:1 describes the earth as uninhabitable, dark, empty of life and covered with water. If the earth wasn't re-formed sometime after Genesis 1:1, we wouldn't be able to live here. :)

(FYI, hoping you were offering sarcasm. :) )

An introductory statement telling us that God created the Heavens and the Earth and that it was formless and empty does not necessarily mean that creation was completed in Genesis 1:1-2.  Out of curiosity, why do you believe in the Gap Theory?
 
The other passage requiring discussion is, of course, Gen 1:2; "The earth was וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ." The meaning of בֹּהוּ itself is uncertain (it appears elsewhere only in Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23, both times in context with תֹּהוּ, although it apparently signifies "emptiness" (cf. the possible Arabic cognate bahiya "was empty"). Therefore, the phrase וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2 a has been variously variously understood as a hendiadys meaning "a formless waste" (E. A. Speiser, Genesis, p. 5), "absolutely nothing whatever" (H. Renckens, Israel's concept of the Beginning, p. 84), "void and vacancy" (H. E. Ryle, The Book of Genesis, p. 4 though without complete conviction). But the traditional rendering, "without from and void" (or "unformed and unfilled," to preserve something of the euphony of the Hebrew phrase), is ably defended by W. H. Griffith Thomas in Genesis-- A Devotional Commentary, p. 29, where he writes that "the adjectives 'formless' and 'empty' seem to be the key to the literary structure of the chapter.  The record of the first three days refers to the heaven and earth receiving their 'form,' and the record of the last three days to the filling- up of their 'emptiness.' "See further R. Youngblood in JETS 16:219- 21. The" gap "or" interval "theory, which posits a millennia- long period of time implied by or in Gen 1:2 and which usually translates 1:2 by the less likely" but the earth became without from and void, "has come into increasing disfavor in recent years. Its main exegetical support, Isa 45:18, reads" (God) did not create (the earth) תֹּהוּ, "and has been interpreted to mean that therefore an original creation (described briefly in Gen 1:1) was destroyed; that the geologic ages ensued (during the" gap "); and that the new creation portrayed in 1:3 ff. was built on the wreckage of the old. But Isa 45:18, after the phrase quoted, goes on to say that God" formed (the earth) to be inhabited, "thereby assuring the reader that תֹּהוּ was not his ultimate purpose in creation. (For extended critiques of the" gap "theory, see especially O. T. Allis, God Spake by Moses, pp. 153- 159; B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, pp. 195- 210). The word תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2, likewise, refers not to the result of a supposed catastrophe (for which there is no clear biblical evidence) but to the formlessness of the earth before God's creative hand began the majestic acts described in the following verses.  As Jer 4:23 indicates, the earth always has the potential of returning to וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ if God decides to judge it.

Commentary on The Hebrew Word תֹּהוּ provided by Dr. Ronald F. Youngblood in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament published by Moody Press.
 
BandGuy said:
Smellin Coffee said:
FreeToBeMe said:
Smellin Coffee said:
IOW, we don't know what roamed the earth before it was re-formed and Adam was created.

Re-formed?  Come on now.  Don't you know that God (or Satan, depending on who you ask) "salted" the earth during creation with dinosaur and plant fossils in order to tempt us to see if we would lose faith and question the bible?

Genesis 1:1 describes the earth as uninhabitable, dark, empty of life and covered with water. If the earth wasn't re-formed sometime after Genesis 1:1, we wouldn't be able to live here. :)

(FYI, hoping you were offering sarcasm. :) )

An introductory statement telling us that God created the Heavens and the Earth and that it was formless and empty does not necessarily mean that creation was completed in Genesis 1:1-2.  Out of curiosity, why do you believe in the Gap Theory?

To me "gap" is really a misleading word used to describe such theories. There are some that see a "gap" between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis 1. Yet, that is not what all believe.

I personally do not believe that Genesis 1:1 details God original creation of all things. Thus, there is no need to see a gap between verse 1 and verse 2.
 
BandGuy said:
The other passage requiring discussion is, of course, Gen 1:2; "The earth was וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ." The meaning of בֹּהוּ itself is uncertain (it appears elsewhere only in Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23, both times in context with תֹּהוּ, although it apparently signifies "emptiness" (cf. the possible Arabic cognate bahiya "was empty"). Therefore, the phrase וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2 a has been variously variously understood as a hendiadys meaning "a formless waste" (E. A. Speiser, Genesis, p. 5), "absolutely nothing whatever" (H. Renckens, Israel's concept of the Beginning, p. 84), "void and vacancy" (H. E. Ryle, The Book of Genesis, p. 4 though without complete conviction). But the traditional rendering, "without from and void" (or "unformed and unfilled," to preserve something of the euphony of the Hebrew phrase), is ably defended by W. H. Griffith Thomas in Genesis-- A Devotional Commentary, p. 29, where he writes that "the adjectives 'formless' and 'empty' seem to be the key to the literary structure of the chapter.  The record of the first three days refers to the heaven and earth receiving their 'form,' and the record of the last three days to the filling- up of their 'emptiness.' "See further R. Youngblood in JETS 16:219- 21. The" gap "or" interval "theory, which posits a millennia- long period of time implied by or in Gen 1:2 and which usually translates 1:2 by the less likely" but the earth became without from and void, "has come into increasing disfavor in recent years. Its main exegetical support, Isa 45:18, reads" (God) did not create (the earth) תֹּהוּ, "and has been interpreted to mean that therefore an original creation (described briefly in Gen 1:1) was destroyed; that the geologic ages ensued (during the" gap "); and that the new creation portrayed in 1:3 ff. was built on the wreckage of the old. But Isa 45:18, after the phrase quoted, goes on to say that God" formed (the earth) to be inhabited, "thereby assuring the reader that תֹּהוּ was not his ultimate purpose in creation. (For extended critiques of the" gap "theory, see especially O. T. Allis, God Spake by Moses, pp. 153- 159; B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, pp. 195- 210). The word תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2, likewise, refers not to the result of a supposed catastrophe (for which there is no clear biblical evidence) but to the formlessness of the earth before God's creative hand began the majestic acts described in the following verses.  As Jer 4:23 indicates, the earth always has the potential of returning to וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ if God decides to judge it.

Commentary on The Hebrew Word תֹּהוּ provided by Dr. Ronald F. Youngblood in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament published by Moody Press.

Too many men such as Youngblood get hung up in such things. There is absolutely nothing in the Hebrew language text of the OT that would discount the idea that God didn't create the Earth/Universe before Genesis 1:1 and that Genesis 1:1 is a reference to God's present creative action in forming what we experience today. It was none the less our "beginning". Certainly not the beginning of God or any other "thing" God has chosen to do in eternity past.
 
christundivided said:
BandGuy said:
Smellin Coffee said:
FreeToBeMe said:
Smellin Coffee said:
IOW, we don't know what roamed the earth before it was re-formed and Adam was created.

Re-formed?  Come on now.  Don't you know that God (or Satan, depending on who you ask) "salted" the earth during creation with dinosaur and plant fossils in order to tempt us to see if we would lose faith and question the bible?

Genesis 1:1 describes the earth as uninhabitable, dark, empty of life and covered with water. If the earth wasn't re-formed sometime after Genesis 1:1, we wouldn't be able to live here. :)

(FYI, hoping you were offering sarcasm. :) )

An introductory statement telling us that God created the Heavens and the Earth and that it was formless and empty does not necessarily mean that creation was completed in Genesis 1:1-2.  Out of curiosity, why do you believe in the Gap Theory?

To me "gap" is really a misleading word used to describe such theories. There are some that see a "gap" between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis 1. Yet, that is not what all believe.

I personally do not believe that Genesis 1:1 details God original creation of all things. Thus, there is no need to see a gap between verse 1 and verse 2.

I think you just repeated what I basically said in your own words.  Is there something that I missed that is different or do we just agree on this issue?
 
christundivided said:
BandGuy said:
The other passage requiring discussion is, of course, Gen 1:2; "The earth was וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ." The meaning of בֹּהוּ itself is uncertain (it appears elsewhere only in Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23, both times in context with תֹּהוּ, although it apparently signifies "emptiness" (cf. the possible Arabic cognate bahiya "was empty"). Therefore, the phrase וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2 a has been variously variously understood as a hendiadys meaning "a formless waste" (E. A. Speiser, Genesis, p. 5), "absolutely nothing whatever" (H. Renckens, Israel's concept of the Beginning, p. 84), "void and vacancy" (H. E. Ryle, The Book of Genesis, p. 4 though without complete conviction). But the traditional rendering, "without from and void" (or "unformed and unfilled," to preserve something of the euphony of the Hebrew phrase), is ably defended by W. H. Griffith Thomas in Genesis-- A Devotional Commentary, p. 29, where he writes that "the adjectives 'formless' and 'empty' seem to be the key to the literary structure of the chapter.  The record of the first three days refers to the heaven and earth receiving their 'form,' and the record of the last three days to the filling- up of their 'emptiness.' "See further R. Youngblood in JETS 16:219- 21. The" gap "or" interval "theory, which posits a millennia- long period of time implied by or in Gen 1:2 and which usually translates 1:2 by the less likely" but the earth became without from and void, "has come into increasing disfavor in recent years. Its main exegetical support, Isa 45:18, reads" (God) did not create (the earth) תֹּהוּ, "and has been interpreted to mean that therefore an original creation (described briefly in Gen 1:1) was destroyed; that the geologic ages ensued (during the" gap "); and that the new creation portrayed in 1:3 ff. was built on the wreckage of the old. But Isa 45:18, after the phrase quoted, goes on to say that God" formed (the earth) to be inhabited, "thereby assuring the reader that תֹּהוּ was not his ultimate purpose in creation. (For extended critiques of the" gap "theory, see especially O. T. Allis, God Spake by Moses, pp. 153- 159; B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, pp. 195- 210). The word תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2, likewise, refers not to the result of a supposed catastrophe (for which there is no clear biblical evidence) but to the formlessness of the earth before God's creative hand began the majestic acts described in the following verses.  As Jer 4:23 indicates, the earth always has the potential of returning to וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ if God decides to judge it.

Commentary on The Hebrew Word תֹּהוּ provided by Dr. Ronald F. Youngblood in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament published by Moody Press.

Too many men such as Youngblood get hung up in such things. There is absolutely nothing in the Hebrew language text of the OT that would discount the idea that God didn't create the Earth/Universe before Genesis 1:1 and that Genesis 1:1 is a reference to God's present creative action in forming what we experience today. It was none the less our "beginning". Certainly not the beginning of God or any other "thing" God has chosen to do in eternity past.

Huh?
 
BandGuy said:
christundivided said:
BandGuy said:
The other passage requiring discussion is, of course, Gen 1:2; "The earth was וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ." The meaning of בֹּהוּ itself is uncertain (it appears elsewhere only in Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23, both times in context with תֹּהוּ, although it apparently signifies "emptiness" (cf. the possible Arabic cognate bahiya "was empty"). Therefore, the phrase וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2 a has been variously variously understood as a hendiadys meaning "a formless waste" (E. A. Speiser, Genesis, p. 5), "absolutely nothing whatever" (H. Renckens, Israel's concept of the Beginning, p. 84), "void and vacancy" (H. E. Ryle, The Book of Genesis, p. 4 though without complete conviction). But the traditional rendering, "without from and void" (or "unformed and unfilled," to preserve something of the euphony of the Hebrew phrase), is ably defended by W. H. Griffith Thomas in Genesis-- A Devotional Commentary, p. 29, where he writes that "the adjectives 'formless' and 'empty' seem to be the key to the literary structure of the chapter.  The record of the first three days refers to the heaven and earth receiving their 'form,' and the record of the last three days to the filling- up of their 'emptiness.' "See further R. Youngblood in JETS 16:219- 21. The" gap "or" interval "theory, which posits a millennia- long period of time implied by or in Gen 1:2 and which usually translates 1:2 by the less likely" but the earth became without from and void, "has come into increasing disfavor in recent years. Its main exegetical support, Isa 45:18, reads" (God) did not create (the earth) תֹּהוּ, "and has been interpreted to mean that therefore an original creation (described briefly in Gen 1:1) was destroyed; that the geologic ages ensued (during the" gap "); and that the new creation portrayed in 1:3 ff. was built on the wreckage of the old. But Isa 45:18, after the phrase quoted, goes on to say that God" formed (the earth) to be inhabited, "thereby assuring the reader that תֹּהוּ was not his ultimate purpose in creation. (For extended critiques of the" gap "theory, see especially O. T. Allis, God Spake by Moses, pp. 153- 159; B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, pp. 195- 210). The word תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2, likewise, refers not to the result of a supposed catastrophe (for which there is no clear biblical evidence) but to the formlessness of the earth before God's creative hand began the majestic acts described in the following verses.  As Jer 4:23 indicates, the earth always has the potential of returning to וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ if God decides to judge it.

Commentary on The Hebrew Word תֹּהוּ provided by Dr. Ronald F. Youngblood in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament published by Moody Press.

Too many men such as Youngblood get hung up in such things. There is absolutely nothing in the Hebrew language text of the OT that would discount the idea that God didn't create the Earth/Universe before Genesis 1:1 and that Genesis 1:1 is a reference to God's present creative action in forming what we experience today. It was none the less our "beginning". Certainly not the beginning of God or any other "thing" God has chosen to do in eternity past.

Huh?

Youngblood is appealing to the translation of the Hebrew texts of Genesis 1 to discount the "gap" theory.
 
BandGuy said:
christundivided said:
BandGuy said:
Smellin Coffee said:
FreeToBeMe said:
Smellin Coffee said:
IOW, we don't know what roamed the earth before it was re-formed and Adam was created.

Re-formed?  Come on now.  Don't you know that God (or Satan, depending on who you ask) "salted" the earth during creation with dinosaur and plant fossils in order to tempt us to see if we would lose faith and question the bible?

Genesis 1:1 describes the earth as uninhabitable, dark, empty of life and covered with water. If the earth wasn't re-formed sometime after Genesis 1:1, we wouldn't be able to live here. :)

(FYI, hoping you were offering sarcasm. :) )

An introductory statement telling us that God created the Heavens and the Earth and that it was formless and empty does not necessarily mean that creation was completed in Genesis 1:1-2.  Out of curiosity, why do you believe in the Gap Theory?

To me "gap" is really a misleading word used to describe such theories. There are some that see a "gap" between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis 1. Yet, that is not what all believe.

I personally do not believe that Genesis 1:1 details God original creation of all things. Thus, there is no need to see a gap between verse 1 and verse 2.

I think you just repeated what I basically said in your own words.  Is there something that I missed that is different or do we just agree on this issue?

Other than I don't see a "gap" between verse 1 and verse 2. I see a "gap" that is implied in that verse 1 doesn't detail the one and only creative action in the Universe..... Yes.
 
christundivided said:
BandGuy said:
The other passage requiring discussion is, of course, Gen 1:2; "The earth was וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ." The meaning of בֹּהוּ itself is uncertain (it appears elsewhere only in Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23, both times in context with תֹּהוּ, although it apparently signifies "emptiness" (cf. the possible Arabic cognate bahiya "was empty"). Therefore, the phrase וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2 a has been variously variously understood as a hendiadys meaning "a formless waste" (E. A. Speiser, Genesis, p. 5), "absolutely nothing whatever" (H. Renckens, Israel's concept of the Beginning, p. 84), "void and vacancy" (H. E. Ryle, The Book of Genesis, p. 4 though without complete conviction). But the traditional rendering, "without from and void" (or "unformed and unfilled," to preserve something of the euphony of the Hebrew phrase), is ably defended by W. H. Griffith Thomas in Genesis-- A Devotional Commentary, p. 29, where he writes that "the adjectives 'formless' and 'empty' seem to be the key to the literary structure of the chapter.  The record of the first three days refers to the heaven and earth receiving their 'form,' and the record of the last three days to the filling- up of their 'emptiness.' "See further R. Youngblood in JETS 16:219- 21. The" gap "or" interval "theory, which posits a millennia- long period of time implied by or in Gen 1:2 and which usually translates 1:2 by the less likely" but the earth became without from and void, "has come into increasing disfavor in recent years. Its main exegetical support, Isa 45:18, reads" (God) did not create (the earth) תֹּהוּ, "and has been interpreted to mean that therefore an original creation (described briefly in Gen 1:1) was destroyed; that the geologic ages ensued (during the" gap "); and that the new creation portrayed in 1:3 ff. was built on the wreckage of the old. But Isa 45:18, after the phrase quoted, goes on to say that God" formed (the earth) to be inhabited, "thereby assuring the reader that תֹּהוּ was not his ultimate purpose in creation. (For extended critiques of the" gap "theory, see especially O. T. Allis, God Spake by Moses, pp. 153- 159; B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, pp. 195- 210). The word תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2, likewise, refers not to the result of a supposed catastrophe (for which there is no clear biblical evidence) but to the formlessness of the earth before God's creative hand began the majestic acts described in the following verses.  As Jer 4:23 indicates, the earth always has the potential of returning to וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ if God decides to judge it.

Commentary on The Hebrew Word תֹּהוּ provided by Dr. Ronald F. Youngblood in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament published by Moody Press.

Too many men such as Youngblood get hung up in such things. There is absolutely nothing in the Hebrew language text of the OT that would discount the idea that God didn't create the Earth/Universe before Genesis 1:1 and that Genesis 1:1 is a reference to God's present creative action in forming what we experience today. It was none the less our "beginning". Certainly not the beginning of God or any other "thing" God has chosen to do in eternity past.
There is no such thing as "Eternity past". Only time can pass. Eternity exists outside of time.
Before you go spouting off at me about it, realize how ignorant you sounded, and that I'm just trying to help.
I'll  rephrase it: "eternity past" is an oxymoron.

Anishinaabe

 
prophet said:
christundivided said:
BandGuy said:
The other passage requiring discussion is, of course, Gen 1:2; "The earth was וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ." The meaning of בֹּהוּ itself is uncertain (it appears elsewhere only in Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23, both times in context with תֹּהוּ, although it apparently signifies "emptiness" (cf. the possible Arabic cognate bahiya "was empty"). Therefore, the phrase וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2 a has been variously variously understood as a hendiadys meaning "a formless waste" (E. A. Speiser, Genesis, p. 5), "absolutely nothing whatever" (H. Renckens, Israel's concept of the Beginning, p. 84), "void and vacancy" (H. E. Ryle, The Book of Genesis, p. 4 though without complete conviction). But the traditional rendering, "without from and void" (or "unformed and unfilled," to preserve something of the euphony of the Hebrew phrase), is ably defended by W. H. Griffith Thomas in Genesis-- A Devotional Commentary, p. 29, where he writes that "the adjectives 'formless' and 'empty' seem to be the key to the literary structure of the chapter.  The record of the first three days refers to the heaven and earth receiving their 'form,' and the record of the last three days to the filling- up of their 'emptiness.' "See further R. Youngblood in JETS 16:219- 21. The" gap "or" interval "theory, which posits a millennia- long period of time implied by or in Gen 1:2 and which usually translates 1:2 by the less likely" but the earth became without from and void, "has come into increasing disfavor in recent years. Its main exegetical support, Isa 45:18, reads" (God) did not create (the earth) תֹּהוּ, "and has been interpreted to mean that therefore an original creation (described briefly in Gen 1:1) was destroyed; that the geologic ages ensued (during the" gap "); and that the new creation portrayed in 1:3 ff. was built on the wreckage of the old. But Isa 45:18, after the phrase quoted, goes on to say that God" formed (the earth) to be inhabited, "thereby assuring the reader that תֹּהוּ was not his ultimate purpose in creation. (For extended critiques of the" gap "theory, see especially O. T. Allis, God Spake by Moses, pp. 153- 159; B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, pp. 195- 210). The word תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2, likewise, refers not to the result of a supposed catastrophe (for which there is no clear biblical evidence) but to the formlessness of the earth before God's creative hand began the majestic acts described in the following verses.  As Jer 4:23 indicates, the earth always has the potential of returning to וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ if God decides to judge it.

Commentary on The Hebrew Word תֹּהוּ provided by Dr. Ronald F. Youngblood in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament published by Moody Press.

Too many men such as Youngblood get hung up in such things. There is absolutely nothing in the Hebrew language text of the OT that would discount the idea that God didn't create the Earth/Universe before Genesis 1:1 and that Genesis 1:1 is a reference to God's present creative action in forming what we experience today. It was none the less our "beginning". Certainly not the beginning of God or any other "thing" God has chosen to do in eternity past.
There is no such thing as "Eternity past". Only time can pass. Eternity exists outside of time.
Before you go spouting off at me about it, realize how ignorant you sounded, and that I'm just trying to help.
I'll  rephrase it: "eternity past" is an oxymoron.

Anishinaabe

Nonsense. Eternity is NOT the absence of time. The endless measure of time. The Eternal past doesn't cease to exist. In of itself. It is eternal.

I might sound ignorant to you but ignorance in often in the "eye of the beholder".
 
christundivided said:
prophet said:
christundivided said:
BandGuy said:
The other passage requiring discussion is, of course, Gen 1:2; "The earth was וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ." The meaning of בֹּהוּ itself is uncertain (it appears elsewhere only in Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23, both times in context with תֹּהוּ, although it apparently signifies "emptiness" (cf. the possible Arabic cognate bahiya "was empty"). Therefore, the phrase וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2 a has been variously variously understood as a hendiadys meaning "a formless waste" (E. A. Speiser, Genesis, p. 5), "absolutely nothing whatever" (H. Renckens, Israel's concept of the Beginning, p. 84), "void and vacancy" (H. E. Ryle, The Book of Genesis, p. 4 though without complete conviction). But the traditional rendering, "without from and void" (or "unformed and unfilled," to preserve something of the euphony of the Hebrew phrase), is ably defended by W. H. Griffith Thomas in Genesis-- A Devotional Commentary, p. 29, where he writes that "the adjectives 'formless' and 'empty' seem to be the key to the literary structure of the chapter.  The record of the first three days refers to the heaven and earth receiving their 'form,' and the record of the last three days to the filling- up of their 'emptiness.' "See further R. Youngblood in JETS 16:219- 21. The" gap "or" interval "theory, which posits a millennia- long period of time implied by or in Gen 1:2 and which usually translates 1:2 by the less likely" but the earth became without from and void, "has come into increasing disfavor in recent years. Its main exegetical support, Isa 45:18, reads" (God) did not create (the earth) תֹּהוּ, "and has been interpreted to mean that therefore an original creation (described briefly in Gen 1:1) was destroyed; that the geologic ages ensued (during the" gap "); and that the new creation portrayed in 1:3 ff. was built on the wreckage of the old. But Isa 45:18, after the phrase quoted, goes on to say that God" formed (the earth) to be inhabited, "thereby assuring the reader that תֹּהוּ was not his ultimate purpose in creation. (For extended critiques of the" gap "theory, see especially O. T. Allis, God Spake by Moses, pp. 153- 159; B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, pp. 195- 210). The word תֹּהוּ in Gen 1:2, likewise, refers not to the result of a supposed catastrophe (for which there is no clear biblical evidence) but to the formlessness of the earth before God's creative hand began the majestic acts described in the following verses.  As Jer 4:23 indicates, the earth always has the potential of returning to וָבֹהוּ תֹּהוּ if God decides to judge it.

Commentary on The Hebrew Word תֹּהוּ provided by Dr. Ronald F. Youngblood in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament published by Moody Press.

Too many men such as Youngblood get hung up in such things. There is absolutely nothing in the Hebrew language text of the OT that would discount the idea that God didn't create the Earth/Universe before Genesis 1:1 and that Genesis 1:1 is a reference to God's present creative action in forming what we experience today. It was none the less our "beginning". Certainly not the beginning of God or any other "thing" God has chosen to do in eternity past.
There is no such thing as "Eternity past". Only time can pass. Eternity exists outside of time.
Before you go spouting off at me about it, realize how ignorant you sounded, and that I'm just trying to help.
I'll  rephrase it: "eternity past" is an oxymoron.

Anishinaabe

Nonsense. Eternity is NOT the absence of time. The endless measure of time. The Eternal past doesn't cease to exist. In of itself. It is eternal.

I might sound ignorant to you but ignorance in often in the "eye of the beholder".
You made it worse.
Eternity is where God dwells. 
Time is where we dwell.
Eternity doesn't move, progress, etc. 
Isa 57:15
15 For thus saith the high and lofty One
that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy;
I dwell in the high and holy place,
with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit,
to revive the spirit of the humble,
and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Rev 1:8
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
2Pe 3:8

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Rom 1:20
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Eph 3:9-11
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Here is a list of three anti-attributes, things were are not, that God is:
1Ti 1:17
17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Einstein discovered the relativity of time to speed, specifically of light.
He discovered that if one could move fast enough, time would cease to exist. To that, I say this:
1Jo 1:5
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.

And this:
Rev 21:23
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it:for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.



Anishinaabe

 
prophet said:
You made it worse.
Eternity is where God dwells. 
Time is where we dwell.
Eternity doesn't move, progress, etc. 
Isa 57:15
15 For thus saith the high and lofty One
that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy;
I dwell in the high and holy place,
with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit,
to revive the spirit of the humble,
and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Do you see a definition of Eternity in this verse? Explain.

Rev 1:8
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
2Pe 3:8

I had a length discussion about this verse years ago in the Bible.org forums. They eventually locked down the thread because they realized what they were saying was total nonsense.

Lets be very clear. The way your using this verse is just down right silly. The very words of our Master says that Christ is the beginning and the end. You can't take such a statement as God "IS" something and somehow say that GOD isn't something. God is Time. He is not the absence of time. (what you're trying to say Eternity means). Time is part of His very character. Just like God is LOVE.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This verse only speaks of the experience of time. It does not REMOVE time altogether. Get a grip man. I know you're not accustom to really think about something before you try to say it.... But give it a try. Don't let someone else dictate your theology. You already done that too often with the KJVO crowd.

Rom 1:20
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I don't see anything this verse that I've contradicted in what I've said.

Eph 3:9-11
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Even more reason to see that Eternity isn't the absence of anything.

Here is a list of three anti-attributes, things were are not, that God is:
1Ti 1:17
17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

I hope you realize that God isn't entirely invisible. He's just not seen through carnal things. So much for your use of the statement.

Einstein discovered the relativity of time to speed, specifically of light.
He discovered that if one could move fast enough, time would cease to exist. To that, I say this:
1Jo 1:5
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.

Einstein got it wrong. There are many many physicist that believe that Time is not tied to the speed of Light. That Time exists apart from its "experience". Time goes on even in the absence of light. If you "TRAVEL"..... ever how FAST..... you're still are "traveling". You are MOVING. Don't insult my intelligence by saying you're not.

And this:
Rev 21:23
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it:for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Amen. I don't see how that relates to anything I've said.

 
admin said:
I am interested in how the evolutionist views the word "kinds" in Genesis 1 and how it relates to "species."

In Genesis, we are told that the various animals and plants REPRODUCE according to its "kind." How does an evolutionist, who holds to Genesis 1, highlight the series of mutations from one species into another species when we are told, specifically, that kinds reproduce into the same kind.

A book I'm reading right now apart from anything I might read for these discussions pointed something out yesterday. Genesis doesn't say that everything would reproduce "according to its kind" but that everything living thing [mentioned] was created "according to its kind" with one exception, mankind...who was created in the image of God "after Our likeness". This just puts a whole new emphasis on the uniqueness and vocation of mankind (in a larger theology of creation as a whole).

So I re-iterate: maybe we interpret Genesis based on the eternal principles it is clearly teaching and stop reading Genesis like a science book.
 
christundivided said:
prophet said:
You made it worse.
Eternity is where God dwells. 
Time is where we dwell.
Eternity doesn't move, progress, etc. 
Isa 57:15
15 For thus saith the high and lofty One
that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy;
I dwell in the high and holy place,
with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit,
to revive the spirit of the humble,
and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Do you see a definition of Eternity in this verse? Explain.

Rev 1:8
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
2Pe 3:8

I had a length discussion about this verse years ago in the Bible.org forums. They eventually locked down the thread because they realized what they were saying was total nonsense.

Lets be very clear. The way your using this verse is just down right silly. The very words of our Master says that Christ is the beginning and the end. You can't take such a statement as God "IS" something and somehow say that GOD isn't something. God is Time. He is not the absence of time. (what you're trying to say Eternity means). Time is part of His very character. Just like God is LOVE.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This verse only speaks of the experience of time. It does not REMOVE time altogether. Get a grip man. I know you're not accustom to really think about something before you try to say it.... But give it a try. Don't let someone else dictate your theology. You already done that too often with the KJVO crowd.

Rom 1:20
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I don't see anything this verse that I've contradicted in what I've said.

Eph 3:9-11
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Even more reason to see that Eternity isn't the absence of anything.

Here is a list of three anti-attributes, things were are not, that God is:
1Ti 1:17
17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

I hope you realize that God isn't entirely invisible. He's just not seen through carnal things. So much for your use of the statement.

Einstein discovered the relativity of time to speed, specifically of light.
He discovered that if one could move fast enough, time would cease to exist. To that, I say this:
1Jo 1:5
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.

Einstein got it wrong. There are many many physicist that believe that Time is not tied to the speed of Light. That Time exists apart from its "experience". Time goes on even in the absence of light. If you "TRAVEL"..... ever how FAST..... you're still are "traveling". You are MOVING. Don't insult my intelligence by saying you're not.

And this:
Rev 21:23
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it:for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Amen. I don't see how that relates to anything I've said.
Einstein is wrong, The Bible is wrong, I'm  wrong, CU is right.  Got it.

Anishinaabe

 
prophet said:
christundivided said:
prophet said:
You made it worse.
Eternity is where God dwells. 
Time is where we dwell.
Eternity doesn't move, progress, etc. 
Isa 57:15
15 For thus saith the high and lofty One
that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy;
I dwell in the high and holy place,
with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit,
to revive the spirit of the humble,
and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Do you see a definition of Eternity in this verse? Explain.

Rev 1:8
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
2Pe 3:8

I had a length discussion about this verse years ago in the Bible.org forums. They eventually locked down the thread because they realized what they were saying was total nonsense.

Lets be very clear. The way your using this verse is just down right silly. The very words of our Master says that Christ is the beginning and the end. You can't take such a statement as God "IS" something and somehow say that GOD isn't something. God is Time. He is not the absence of time. (what you're trying to say Eternity means). Time is part of His very character. Just like God is LOVE.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This verse only speaks of the experience of time. It does not REMOVE time altogether. Get a grip man. I know you're not accustom to really think about something before you try to say it.... But give it a try. Don't let someone else dictate your theology. You already done that too often with the KJVO crowd.

Rom 1:20
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I don't see anything this verse that I've contradicted in what I've said.

Eph 3:9-11
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Even more reason to see that Eternity isn't the absence of anything.

Here is a list of three anti-attributes, things were are not, that God is:
1Ti 1:17
17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

I hope you realize that God isn't entirely invisible. He's just not seen through carnal things. So much for your use of the statement.

Einstein discovered the relativity of time to speed, specifically of light.
He discovered that if one could move fast enough, time would cease to exist. To that, I say this:
1Jo 1:5
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.

Einstein got it wrong. There are many many physicist that believe that Time is not tied to the speed of Light. That Time exists apart from its "experience". Time goes on even in the absence of light. If you "TRAVEL"..... ever how FAST..... you're still are "traveling". You are MOVING. Don't insult my intelligence by saying you're not.

And this:
Rev 21:23
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it:for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Amen. I don't see how that relates to anything I've said.
Einstein is wrong, The Bible is wrong, I'm  wrong, CU is right.  Got it.

Anishinaabe

I explained to you exactly why I wrote what I wrote..... and all you have to say is this? Typical. I shouldn't even have wasted my time.
 
Back
Top