Jesus, before becoming a man

[williamjordan]

I never said God required matter or space, if God required anything to exist He wouldn’t be God… The fact of the matter is Lucifer fell, along with his angels between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2..
We know when Lucifer fell he drew angels with him.. So when did he fall? Had to be before Gen 3… He’s already being called a serpent… Had to be before Gen 2 because he is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.. So on what day did Lucifer fall?
And as a matter of fact, what day was lucifer walking on the alter of God?
Ezekiel 28:14
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Of course he fell before Gen. 3, but I don't see how that requires his (Satan's) existence being before Gen. 1:1, especially when all the ancient Jewish sources seem to suggest the angelic hosts were created during some time during the 7-Day spectrum. Taken in unison with the Christian sources, and the fact that Job 38:4-7 only makes reference to the "earth," I do not find it difficult that Satan could have just as easily been created on Day 2 (like the Palestinian Targumim suggests), or Day 3, or Day 4, or Day 1, and still be cast down at some unspecified time before Gen. 2 or 3. Nothing requires Satan or any of the other angelic beings to exist prior to Gen. 1:1. Especially in light that Isaiah 44-45 says that God “alone” is the sole agent in the action of creation itself; that He “alone” (and no other) stretched out the heavens, without the assistance of anyone else. None of the angelic hosts assisted God in stretching out the heavens. Thus, to argue that the angelic hosts existed with God is anything but the point.

The fact is: The Word participated in the very work that Isaiah 44-45 solely attributes to God, something that can be said of no other god (Isaiah 44-45). That is the point. It just so happens that in Isaiah 45:4-6, God alone is credited with “forming light,” and “creating darkness.” This statement in Isaiah 45 is an immediate allusion to Gen. 1:1-3, and is something the Word Himself participates in (John 1:1-4; Targum Neofiti on Gen. 1:1-3).

Could it perhaps have been that Isaiah was not only crediting to God (who, alone is the one responsible for bringing forth) “light” and “creating darkness,” but is likewise making an assertion that is rooted in the fact that prior to “forming light” and “creating darkness” (Gen. 1:1-3), there were in fact no other heavenly celestial beings present? I think it’s a bit of both; that Isaiah’s primary argument (that God “alone” created the heavens without the assistance of others) is rooted in the fact that there were in fact no other gods present during God’s formation of the heavens—a double entendre of sorts.

Maybe someone ought to inform the apostle John that he forgot to include "angels" in his prologue, and makes no mention of their participation in creation (or "renewal").

 

[Inquisitor]

I have often said, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably isn't a cow." I am wondering if my suspicions are correct. Let's see just "what" sort of beast lies beneath, shall we?

You said that "Jesus emptied Himself completely at birth." But what does that mean exactly?

The term for "existing" in Phil. 2:6 (ὑπάρχων) is a present active participle. Most commentators point out that this speaks to "continued existence" (i.e., "existing," not "existed"). By that, it is meant that Christ "continually exists" in the "form of God" when the action of the verb in v. 7 ("He emptied Himself") took place, and even into the "now" as Paul penned the words ("who existing in the form of God," not "while existing in the form of God").

As BB Warfield explains,



In your post, you state that "Jesus completely emptied Himself." But I find it strange that you state that "Jesus emptied," when you just got done suggesting that "Jesus" is but human. This sounds somewhat Modalistic. The question that should be asked, is simply this: Who was it that performed the action of "contemplating" their equality with God (Phil. 2:6), and emptied themselves prior to "becoming in the likeness of man"? Phil. 2:7 speaks of the incarnation, but who is performing the action of the verbs prior to 2:7?

Do you believe the Word is God?

 

[Truthnightmare]

Of course he fell before Gen. 3, but I don't see how that requires his (Satan's) existence being before Gen. 1:1, especially when all the ancient Jewish sources seem to suggest the angelic hosts were created during some time during the 7-Day spectrum. Taken in unison with the Christian sources, and the fact that Job 38:4-7 only makes reference to the "earth," I do not find it difficult that Satan could have just as easily been created on Day 2 (like the Palestinian Targumim suggests), or Day 3, or Day 4, or Day 1, and still be cast down at some unspecified time before Gen. 2 or 3. Nothing requires Satan or any of the other angelic beings to exist prior to Gen. 1:1. Especially in light that Isaiah 44-45 says that God “alone” is the sole agent in the action of creation itself; that He “alone” (and no other) stretched out the heavens, without the assistance of anyone else. None of the angelic hosts assisted God in stretching out the heavens. Thus, to argue that the angelic hosts existed with God is anything but the point.

The fact is: The Word participated in the very work that Isaiah 44-45 solely attributes to God, something that can be said of no other god (Isaiah 44-45). That is the point. It just so happens that in Isaiah 45:4-6, God alone is credited with “forming light,” and “creating darkness.” This statement in Isaiah 45 is an immediate allusion to Gen. 1:1-3, and is something the Word Himself participates in (John 1:1-4; Targum Neofiti on Gen. 1:1-3).

Could it perhaps have been that Isaiah was not only crediting to God (who, alone is the one responsible for bringing forth) “light” and “creating darkness,” but is likewise making an assertion that is rooted in the fact that prior to “forming light” and “creating darkness” (Gen. 1:1-3), there were in fact no other heavenly celestial beings present? I think it’s a bit of both; that Isaiah’s primary argument (that God “alone” created the heavens without the assistance of others) is rooted in the fact that there were in fact no other gods present during God’s formation of the heavens—a double entendre of sorts.

Maybe someone ought to inform the apostle John that he forgot to include "angels" in his prologue, and makes no mention of their participation in creation (or "renewal").

Satan could have been created in Genesis 2?
Ok…. Well you have kinda went off the deep end… And Im not interested in your Jewish sources, the promise was given to Israel, not Jews, you should know these things if your going to bring up Jewish sources.

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/jesus

So you are now insinuating Satan was created after mankind. OK
And your Jewish sources hold non validity with me. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Jewish belief before attempting to utilize there writings.

Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser wrote in "Judaism and the Christian Predicament" (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967) p. 59:
"This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible."
Rabbi Moshe M. Maggal, wrote:
"...you will notice the great difference between the Jewish and Christian religions. But these are not all. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other. ...we emphasized that there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian religion. There is not any similarity between the two concepts." [Rabbi Maggal (President, National Jewish Information Service) letter, 21 August 1961.]
So what is the nature of the "Jewish" god?
It is not the God of the Hebrew Bible as we have just seen by their own admission. They have no need of the concept of God as they have "killed off God" a long time ago, as James Yaffe comments:
And so it seems we must agree with Rabbi Richard Israel, who writes in Commentary's symposium on Jewish belief, "[The current discussion on] the Death of God will cause Jews to ask, `So what else is new?' The Jewish funeral was a much more private affair. We buried him quietly and in the middle of the night.'" [James Yaffe, "The American Jews" (New York: Random House, 1968), pg. 161]
James Yaffe's statement was a comment to a statement made by Rabbi Sherwin Wine of the Birmingham Temple:
"...the whole concept of God is outdated; Judaism can function perfectly well without it."
If the self-styled "Jews" have "killed off God", then what sort of "god" do they have? The Jewish God is the "Jew" as the Jewish Cabala (Kabbalah) puts it:
"The Jew is the living God, God incarnate: he is the heavenly man. The other men are earthly, of inferior race. They exist only to serve the Jew. They are the cattle seed."
In the following quote we begin to understand this "Jewish" idea of their "god" a little better as it is applied more directly to today:
"The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this "new world order" the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands." - Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, `La Revue de Paris', p. 574, June 1, 1928
Who are these self-styled "Jews" then if they are not Israelites? One American Jew woke up to the lie after living in the Israeli occupational state in Palestine. He put it this way:
"The American people have been led to believe that Jews are "God's chosen people." This myth was started by a small group of Jews. A few Jewish leaders took excerpts from the Bible and interpreted them to mean that God designated them as "chosen people."
"Leading the cry, `We are God's Chosen People,' are the Zionist/Marxist (Ashkenazi) Jews who for political purposes chose Judaism and who don't have a drop of biblical Jewish blood in them. "The Judeo-Christian ethic we hear so much about in America is a big joke - the result of an intense Zionist propaganda campaign.
"I'll toss in one last thought about the `God's chosen people' myth: God said, `Beware of those who call themselves Jews and are not, for they lie.' Could it be the Ashkenazi Jews are the people to whom God was referring?" - Jack Bernstein, The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel (California: The Noontide Press, 1984) [WBSG NOTE: Excellent book!]
Are modern Jews Israelites? Are they Hebrews? In their own writings these self-styled "Jews" tell us it is incorrect to call a contemporary "Jew" an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." Under the heading "A Brief History of the Terms for Jew," in the 1980 Jewish Almanac, is the following:
"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." - 1980 Jewish Almanac, P.3
Judaism or Pharisaism? In "The Pharisees, The Sociological Background of Their Faith," Rabbi Louis Finkelstein describes these self-styled "Jews" and their origins:
"Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the Jew studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies."
"...rabbinic Judaism, the first-born child of Pharisaism, remains a unit until this day." (p.XXI of Forward to 1st Edition, "The Pharisees," Vol. 1, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938 & Vol. 2, p. 622
Jesus had quite a verbal scathing for the Pharisees in Matthew 23. He exposed them for the sort of people they were:
"Hypocrites," "sons of hell," "blind guides," "fools," "full of robbery and self-indulgence," "whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness," "full of hypocrisy and lawlessness," "partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets," and "serpents and brood of vipers."
Not quite an endorsement by the Christian Savior. And some fools have the gall, or should we say "chutzpah," to call Jesus a "Jew!" What blasphemy!
If modern Jews are not descendants of the original Israelites, who are they? Professor of Medieval Jewish History, Abraham N. Poliak of Tel Aviv University, has stated:
"The large majority of world Jewry is descended from the Jews of Khazaria." (The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler (New York: Random House, 1976) p.226)

 

[williamjordan]

Do you believe the Word is God?

He absolutely is God.

 

[williamjordan]

Satan could have been created in Genesis 2?
Ok…. Well you have kinda went off the deep end… And Im not interested in your Jewish sources, the promise was given to Israel, not Jews, you should know these things if your going to bring up Jewish sources.

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/jesus

So you are now insinuating Satan was created after mankind. OK
And your Jewish sources hold non validity with me. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Jewish belief before attempting to utilize there writings.

Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser wrote in "Judaism and the Christian Predicament" (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967) p. 59:
"This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible."
Rabbi Moshe M. Maggal, wrote:
"...you will notice the great difference between the Jewish and Christian religions. But these are not all. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other. ...we emphasized that there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian religion. There is not any similarity between the two concepts." [Rabbi Maggal (President, National Jewish Information Service) letter, 21 August 1961.]
So what is the nature of the "Jewish" god?
It is not the God of the Hebrew Bible as we have just seen by their own admission. They have no need of the concept of God as they have "killed off God" a long time ago, as James Yaffe comments:
And so it seems we must agree with Rabbi Richard Israel, who writes in Commentary's symposium on Jewish belief, "[The current discussion on] the Death of God will cause Jews to ask, `So what else is new?' The Jewish funeral was a much more private affair. We buried him quietly and in the middle of the night.'" [James Yaffe, "The American Jews" (New York: Random House, 1968), pg. 161]
James Yaffe's statement was a comment to a statement made by Rabbi Sherwin Wine of the Birmingham Temple:
"...the whole concept of God is outdated; Judaism can function perfectly well without it."
If the self-styled "Jews" have "killed off God", then what sort of "god" do they have? The Jewish God is the "Jew" as the Jewish Cabala (Kabbalah) puts it:
"The Jew is the living God, God incarnate: he is the heavenly man. The other men are earthly, of inferior race. They exist only to serve the Jew. They are the cattle seed."
In the following quote we begin to understand this "Jewish" idea of their "god" a little better as it is applied more directly to today:
"The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this "new world order" the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands." - Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, `La Revue de Paris', p. 574, June 1, 1928
Who are these self-styled "Jews" then if they are not Israelites? One American Jew woke up to the lie after living in the Israeli occupational state in Palestine. He put it this way:
"The American people have been led to believe that Jews are "God's chosen people." This myth was started by a small group of Jews. A few Jewish leaders took excerpts from the Bible and interpreted them to mean that God designated them as "chosen people."
"Leading the cry, `We are God's Chosen People,' are the Zionist/Marxist (Ashkenazi) Jews who for political purposes chose Judaism and who don't have a drop of biblical Jewish blood in them. "The Judeo-Christian ethic we hear so much about in America is a big joke - the result of an intense Zionist propaganda campaign.
"I'll toss in one last thought about the `God's chosen people' myth: God said, `Beware of those who call themselves Jews and are not, for they lie.' Could it be the Ashkenazi Jews are the people to whom God was referring?" - Jack Bernstein, The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel (California: The Noontide Press, 1984) [WBSG NOTE: Excellent book!]
Are modern Jews Israelites? Are they Hebrews? In their own writings these self-styled "Jews" tell us it is incorrect to call a contemporary "Jew" an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." Under the heading "A Brief History of the Terms for Jew," in the 1980 Jewish Almanac, is the following:
"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." - 1980 Jewish Almanac, P.3
Judaism or Pharisaism? In "The Pharisees, The Sociological Background of Their Faith," Rabbi Louis Finkelstein describes these self-styled "Jews" and their origins:
"Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the Jew studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies."
"...rabbinic Judaism, the first-born child of Pharisaism, remains a unit until this day." (p.XXI of Forward to 1st Edition, "The Pharisees," Vol. 1, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938 & Vol. 2, p. 622
Jesus had quite a verbal scathing for the Pharisees in Matthew 23. He exposed them for the sort of people they were:
"Hypocrites," "sons of hell," "blind guides," "fools," "full of robbery and self-indulgence," "whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness," "full of hypocrisy and lawlessness," "partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets," and "serpents and brood of vipers."
Not quite an endorsement by the Christian Savior. And some fools have the gall, or should we say "chutzpah," to call Jesus a "Jew!" What blasphemy!
If modern Jews are not descendants of the original Israelites, who are they? Professor of Medieval Jewish History, Abraham N. Poliak of Tel Aviv University, has stated:
"The large majority of world Jewry is descended from the Jews of Khazaria." (The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler (New York: Random House, 1976) p.226)

I haven't went off on the deep end. The point is: It is you who has gone off on the deep end, because not only have I used the ancient Jewish sources, but they are all on my side. And so is Augustine. And so are those early Church writers, which I referenced earlier. They are all in opposition to anyone who suggests angels existed prior to Gen. 1:1.

The only ancient source that agrees with you are later Jewish sources (like the Palestinian Targumim), and it only agrees with you in part. The Targumim in reference says it is angels that assisted God in the earth's creation, but that same Targumim also says the angels came into existence on Day 2 of creation.

Maybe you should try citing sources that have some relevance to the topic, like Rabbi Yochanan, another ancient Jewish source that disagrees with you.

I do not see where the issue is. You keep mentioning Gen. 2 and Gen. 3. Why, when all this time, I have been stating that Satan (and angels) existed prior to Gen. 2 and 3? It doesn't make any sense at all. I am just saying they didn't exist prior to Gen. 1:1, which is a position solely reserved for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as made clear in Jn. 1:1-3.

 

[kalymmenon]

You'll have to read some apocryphal scriptures.

 

[williamjordan]

You'll have to read some apocryphal scriptures.

I am very familiar with the apocrypha. Perhaps it would be of help for you to cite those "apocryphal scriptures" that you're alluding to. You won't find them. And maybe you should take sight of the fact that I already cited the "apocryphal scriptures" in support of my position. Rewind several posts.

It is not helpful for you to just cite the "apocryphal scriptures" (which are very broad) and not specify precisely the "scriptures" you are talking about, especially when those "scriptures" have already been referenced in posts prior. That is an example of "copping out," and is of something of no value.

 

[Mem]

It seems the question that remains to be answered is, "Are there any created beings that have been given the power of creation." Man 'creates' things but only manipulating what has already been created and has yet to figured out how to 'breath life' into anything to make it a "living soul."

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

from word Go, we see the WORD before He was made flesh.

In Exodus, we find He is Elohim [singular], I AM TO BE, LORD, YHWH, MOST HIGH GOD, Yahweh.

In Genesis we see Him as an Angel, as Melchizedek, as the LORD [Sodom].

In Joshua, He was the Commander of God's Army.

In Daniel, He was the 4th Man + the Man in the River.

The Bible literally describes Him as the ARM of God. God wants something done, the WORD shows up on the scene. Even at His Ascension, as the WORD made flesh, He is ""at or on"" the Right Hand of God.

He is the Physical Image to the Invisible Image of God.

He is the Source, Creator, the ONLY GOD who Professed to [[[KNOW]]] the End from the Beginning because He is the Alpha and Omega.

The literal "Entire" Bible, aside from it being both a factual Lineage Record and Historical Events keeper, is ALL about the WORD in ALL of His Capacities and how He fulfills the Will and Purpose of God.

 

[kalymmenon]

I am very familiar with the apocrypha. Perhaps it would be of help for you to cite those "apocryphal scriptures" that you're alluding to. You won't find them. And maybe you should take sight of the fact that I already cited the "apocryphal scriptures" in support of my position. Rewind several posts.

It is not helpful for you to just cite the "apocryphal scriptures" (which are very broad) and not specify precisely the "scriptures" you are talking about, especially when those "scriptures" have already been referenced in posts prior. That is an example of "copping out," and is of something of no value.

Well, if you mean 'man' as in grown human adult, you simply search for things written of his childhood.
If you mean 'man' as in mankind, it's like asking "When does an orange tree become an orange tree?"

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Well, if you mean 'man' as in grown human adult, you simply search for things written of his childhood.
If you mean 'man' as in mankind, it's like asking "When does an orange tree become an orange tree?"

is this related to topics about the "life" we don't read about of Jesus from Ages 12 to 30?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Satan could have been created in Genesis 2?

Why discuss the Bible if you don't know enough of it to be competent at it?

God, His Heavenly Home, Temple, Streets of Gold, Angels [Good and Fallen] "existed" LONG before Genesis 1:1 and this [current] Universe and Earth were Spoken into Existence.

In fact, there was even 8 [EIGHT] specific Councils [created before Genesis 1:1] where God and His Angels, He calls, His Son's or Sons of the Most High God, convene about Things even though God is Sovereign and makes His OWN Decisions:
^
WHY, are these Councils Necessary?

Look at How the WORD made flesh chose 12 Disciples. He, GOD, made a Council and again, AMONG HIS OWN CREATION.
[in the O.T. the 12 Tribes had leaders who were a Council with Moses]


So much we discover in the Old Testament, we "later" understand why certain things were formatted when Jesus was on Earth and did similar things in the ways of mankind [as He did in Heaven].

3 times from Kings, Chronicles, to even JOB, we see the LORD on His Throne and the Angels gathered...including Satan.

There's another Council we see in Deuteronomy 32, Psalms 82, Isaiah and Ezekiel speak about the WAR Council.

And here on Earth, Churches set up with a COUNCIL, called the Board, like Jesus set-up with His Disciples, and that format has been adopted in many forms since then.

You should CARE about the HEBREW, IT WAS THE LANGUAGE GOD SPOKE and how YOUR BIBLE is SUPPOSED to READ [the SAME as the Hebrew]!

 

[williamjordan]

It seems the question that remains to be answered is, "Are there any created beings that have been given the power of creation." Man 'creates' things but only manipulating what has already been created and has yet to figured out how to 'breath life' into anything to make it a "living soul."

The question is not even if there are created beings that have the power to create. The question is, whose creation is Genesis'? And this was the whole point of Post 161, 141, 142, 143. Creation does not belong to angels, nor were they involved in the process of "creation." And whatever "angel" is trying to convince you otherwise, you need to kindly remind them of their rank and status in the creation: Col. 1:16-17, Heb 1:1-13

 

[Mem]

The question is not even if there are created beings that have the power to create. The question is, whose creation is Genesis'? And this was the whole point of Post 161, 141, 142, 143. Creation does not belong to angels, nor were they involved in the process of "creation." And whatever "angel" is trying to convince you otherwise, you need to kindly remind them of their rank and status in the creation: Col. 1:16-17, Heb 1:1-13

I understand your argument. However, if it can be established that none, apart from God Himself, have the power of creation then the discussion whether angels had any part of creation besides passively witnessing it can either be dismissed as a vain pursuit, or taken up as a valid possibility.

 

[williamjordan]

I understand your argument. However, if it can be established that none, apart from God Himself, have the power of creation then the discussion whether angels had any part of creation besides passively witnessing it can either be dismissed as a vain pursuit, or taken up as a valid possibility.

A "possibility" that is nowhere warranted in the text. It is a "possibility" only of the imagination. It's time we get our heads out of the clouds, and back into reality: What does the text say? That's the issue. No one has been able to prove that angels were present prior to Gen. 1:1, and unless there is ample reason to suggest it, then why even bring it up? It's not a "possibility," because the text does not say it is a "possibility."

 

[williamjordan]

People have got to remember that angels are the product of the verb ("created") in Col. 1:16-17, hence, the "powers," "rulers," "authorities." What do you think those "powers," "rulers," and "authorities" are exactly, if not the angelic hosts? They were not "passively" present at their creation. Heads out of the clouds.

 

[Truthnightmare]

People have got to remember that angels are the product of the verb ("created") in Col. 1:16-17, hence, the "powers," "rulers," "authorities." What do you think those "powers," "rulers," and "authorities" are? They are angelic hosts. They were not "passively" present at their creation. Heads out of the clouds.

You refuse to address points that are laid out in scripture… this according to scripture would deem you willfully ignorant.

2 Pet 3:5-13
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

On what day did 2 Peter 3-5-13 take place?

Jer 4:22-
22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Here you see a second Scriptural witness to Genesis 1:2, this lets you know that we are talking about the destruction of the first earth age. This destruction was brought about by water, just as with Noah's flood, but should not be confused by Noah's flood; they were two different events.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

This is thought by some (including us) to be the cause of the earth being off-kilter. It is a fact that the earth spins on an axis that is 23½ degrees of center, and also that True North and Magnetic North are several degrees apart; the number of degrees varies depending where on earth you take the measurement.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

We see in verse 25 above: "there was no man" and "all the birds of the heavens were fled", that we are not talking about Noah's flood here. For Noah, his family, as well as sets of every flesh animal, including birds, passed through the flood!

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

The truth is very simple… In the begging God created the heavens and the earth.
Then at some point the protecting cherub Lucifer who was suppose to be guarding the mercy seat decided he wanted to sit in it, ultimately wanting to become God.
This lead to war, a war that took place between Gen 1:1 and 1:2

So God destroyed the earth age, this was covered in Jeremiah.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

We also see that the first earth age was inhabited, and even had cities: "all the cities thereof were broken down". Are thee any remains of these cities left today? Well there is some work being done on the ocean floor, but the results are not in. There seem to be city grids well beneath the ocean surface in one place. This is possible as with the destruction of the first earth age in Genesis 1:2(a) (i.e., the first half of verse) "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep", and the subsequent rejuvenating of it in Gen 1:2(b) "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" there may well have been a massive shift of the land masses.

27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

God said that the ruin of that first earth age wasn't the end; Thus we have this second earth age in which we live now.

 

[williamjordan]

You refuse to address points that are laid out in scripture… this according to scripture would deem you willfully ignorant.

2 Pet 3:5-13
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

On what day did 2 Peter 3-5-13 take place?

Jer 4:22-
22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Here you see a second Scriptural witness to Genesis 1:2, this lets you know that we are talking about the destruction of the first earth age. This destruction was brought about by water, just as with Noah's flood, but should not be confused by Noah's flood; they were two different events.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

This is thought by some (including us) to be the cause of the earth being off-kilter. It is a fact that the earth spins on an axis that is 23½ degrees of center, and also that True North and Magnetic North are several degrees apart; the number of degrees varies depending where on earth you take the measurement.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

We see in verse 25 above: "there was no man" and "all the birds of the heavens were fled", that we are not talking about Noah's flood here. For Noah, his family, as well as sets of every flesh animal, including birds, passed through the flood!

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

The truth is very simple… In the begging God created the heavens and the earth.
Then at some point the protecting cherub Lucifer who was suppose to be guarding the mercy seat decided he wanted to sit in it, ultimately wanting to become God.
This lead to war, a war that took place between Gen 1:1 and 1:2

So God destroyed the earth age, this was covered in Jeremiah.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

We also see that the first earth age was inhabited, and even had cities: "all the cities thereof were broken down". Are thee any remains of these cities left today? Well there is some work being done on the ocean floor, but the results are not in. There seem to be city grids well beneath the ocean surface in one place. This is possible as with the destruction of the first earth age in Genesis 1:2(a) (i.e., the first half of verse) "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep", and the subsequent rejuvenating of it in Gen 1:2(b) "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" there may well have been a massive shift of the land masses.

27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

God said that the ruin of that first earth age wasn't the end; Thus we have this second earth age in which we live now.

This is simple: Head out of the clouds, and back onto the text. Where are the angels, and what is their role? Remember, (your words) "the truth is very simple." You are "taddling" on yourself, tsk, tsk. What do the words say?

 

[williamjordan]

You are failing to address the obvious elephant in the room: In the original creation account (the first heaven and the first earth), where were the angels? Heb. 1:10 is speaking of the first heaven and the first earth, hence, the word "perish." Where were the angels? The second creation is not what is under discussion, the first one is. That's where you need to redirect your attention, duh.

 

[williamjordan]

Is Job 38:4-7 a reference to the second creation, or to the first? You need to be very careful with your answer, because it could really demonstrate an error in your entire thesis.