Thoughts on the beginning

[Just_A__Follower]

The ancient Hebrew is written in a way that Genesis 1:1 is a completed Heavens and Earth and Genesis 1:2 is the beginning of restoring what had once been created.

That’s the way I read it as He created then later He restored or reformed something He had previously created. I guess all depends on how you translate the word “הָיָה” whether to “was” or “became”. Did He create the earth formless and void, which would be unusual for Him to create something that wasn’t good. Or had He already created it and over time it became void and formless? If they wouldn’t have started building that tower we wouldn’t have this translation problem .

 

[Me_Clay]

Would someone receive you into their house?

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

[Gideon300]

Welcome to CC…

In my experience, the only people (other than Hebrew scholars) who challenge the straightforward interpretation of Genesis are those who have a particular agenda; a preconceived idea for which they are seeking confirmation or justification.

I haven’t encountered the particular idea you propose, so I’ll ask this: Why do you think the text of Scripture is inadequate on this point? What leads you to consider this possibility?

This old earth/new creation theory has been around since at least the 19th century. George Pember, Scofield, Watchman Nee, Chuck Missler and Larry Ollison are among those who proposed the theory. It is an explanation as to how the earth appears to be old yet Genesis says that the human race has been around for 6,000 years.

Modern geology began in the 17th century. Unbelievers used the Genesis account to cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible.
I happen to agree with it. Isaiah 45:18 says

"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens—He is God; He formed the earth and fashioned it; He established it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Watchman Nee draws parallels with creation and the salvation of fallen man. Man was not created fallen. The earth was not created formless and empty. Man became sinful. The earth became formless and empty. God restored Himself through the New Creation in Christ. God restored the earth through His recreation process revealed in the first chapters of Genesis.

There is no agenda. The theory may be correct or not. If it is correct, geologists and others have an explanation for the apparent age of the earth. If it not correct, God's salvation plan through Christ is unaffected.

 

[Me_Clay]

This old earth/new creation theory has been around since at least the 19th century. George Pember, Scofield, Watchman Nee, Chuck Missler and Larry Ollison are among those who proposed the theory. It is an explanation as to how the earth appears to be old yet Genesis says that the human race has been around for 6,000 years.

Modern geology began in the 17th century. Unbelievers used the Genesis account to cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible.
I happen to agree with it. Isaiah 45:18 says

"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens—He is God; He formed the earth and fashioned it; He established it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Watchman Nee draws parallels with creation and the salvation of fallen man. Man was not created fallen. The earth was not created formless and empty. Man became sinful. The earth became formless and empty. God restored Himself through the New Creation in Christ. God restored the earth through His recreation process revealed in the first chapters of Genesis.

There is no agenda. The theory may be correct or not. If it is correct, geologists and others have an explanation for the apparent age of the earth. If it not correct, God's salvation plan through Christ is unaffected.

Watchman Nee is occultic.

 

[lrs68]

That’s the way I read it as He created then later He restored or reformed something He had previously created. I guess all depends on how you translate the word “הָיָה” whether to “was” or “became”. Did He create the earth formless and void, which would be unusual for Him to create something that wasn’t good. Or had He already created it and over time it became void and formless? If they wouldn’t have started building that tower we wouldn’t have this translation problem .

I can assure you as a Jew who follows the Torah as much as the Gospel "הָיָה" is a way of saying God without using the word God.

 

[homwardbound]

I’m sure there are many young earth people and others on here so I’d like to get some thoughts on what I believe. My theory is that “in the beginning” is not our beginning as far as humans. My theory is that God possibly had multiple creations before our time on earth. Maybe one of them included the dinosaurs. Maybe said creations defied Him and He wiped them out with a meteor as He did us with a flood. The way I read it is that “in the beginning” and “day one” are different times, day one being the beginning of the current creation’s(us) time. I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard this from anyone before. What are y’all’s thoughts on this?

Might want to read "The Angelic conflict" informative, at least to me. However, God made it all and has a righteous reason for it all, still loving us all from day one in the fall of the first Adam, thanks

 

[Gideon300]

Welcome to CC…

In my experience, the only people (other than Hebrew scholars) who challenge the straightforward interpretation of Genesis are those who have a particular agenda; a preconceived idea for which they are seeking confirmation or justification.

I haven’t encountered the particular idea you propose, so I’ll ask this: Why do you think the text of Scripture is inadequate on this point? What leads you to consider this possibility?

This old earth/new creation theory has been around since at least the 19th century. George Pember, Scofield, Watchman Nee, Chuck Missler and Larry Ollison are among those who proposed the theory. It is an explanation as to how the earth appears to be old yet Genesis says that the human race has been around for 6,000 years.

Modern geology began in the 17th century. Unbelievers used the Genesis account to cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible.
I happen to agree with it. Isaiah 45:18 says

"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens—He is God; He formed the earth and fashioned it; He established it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Watchman Nee draws parallels with creation and the salvation of fallen man. Man was not created fallen. The earth was not created formless and empty. Man became sinful. The earth became formless and empty. God restored Himself through the New Creation in Christ. God restored the earth through His recreation process revealed in the first chapters of Genesis.

There is no agenda. The theory may be correct or not. If it is correct, geologists and others have an explanation for the apparent age of the earth. If it not correct, God's salvation plan through Christ is unaffected.

 

[shittim]

Yes I know. There’s the fact that they differ and the fact that they were passed down orally for who knows how long until they were written that makes me wonder. The fact is we don’t know if the days were literal or metaphorical.

IF you seek Him, He will guide in in all truth, not leaning on your own understanding.

 

[Gideon300]

I know God means what He says but it what He doesn’t say(which is a whole lot) that my creative side wonders about. It’s just the what ifs that are fun for me to think about. Keeps my mind occupied while I’m at work . It’s gonna be the best episode of “how’s it made” ever when we meet. Of course I’ll probably be in such awe by His presence that I’ll ask zero questions.

You won't need to ask. We will know all things intuitively. 1 Corinthians 13:12 "Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

 

[Gideon300]

Watchman Nee is occultic.

I asked God to reveal the truth about you. Now I know - you revealed the truth yourself.

Watchman Nee was a mighty man of God, a true apostle, who suffered greatly for his faith. You are falsely accusing the brethren. No one should take note of one word that you say.

 

[Me_Clay]

I asked God to reveal the truth about you. Now I know - you revealed the truth yourself.

Watchman Nee was a mighty man of God, a true apostle, who suffered greatly for his faith. You are falsely accusing the brethren. No one should take note of one word that you say.

Utterly BS

 

[Dino246]

There is more left out of scripture than is put into it.(John 21:25) That leaves a lot of room for my imagination. Whether He did it in six days or a million years, it really doesn’t matter, and doesn’t affect my faith in Him.

It does matter, because His word says He made it in six days (Exodus 20:11). If we can't trust His word on this, why should others trust it regarding the way of salvation?

 

[Dino246]

This old earth/new creation theory has been around since at least the 19th century. George Pember, Scofield, Watchman Nee, Chuck Missler and Larry Ollison are among those who proposed the theory. It is an explanation as to how the earth appears to be old yet Genesis says that the human race has been around for 6,000 years.

Modern geology began in the 17th century. Unbelievers used the Genesis account to cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible.
I happen to agree with it. Isaiah 45:18 says

"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens—He is God; He formed the earth and fashioned it; He established it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Watchman Nee draws parallels with creation and the salvation of fallen man. Man was not created fallen. The earth was not created formless and empty. Man became sinful. The earth became formless and empty. God restored Himself through the New Creation in Christ. God restored the earth through His recreation process revealed in the first chapters of Genesis.

There is no agenda. The theory may be correct or not. If it is correct, geologists and others have an explanation for the apparent age of the earth. If it not correct, God's salvation plan through Christ is unaffected.

For some reason your post came up twice. Oh well, glitch happens!

One of the most influential geologists was Charles Lyell, who in his 1830 treatise on the subject, presented "evidence" of slow processes forming most if not all rocks and landforms. He was intentionally discrediting the long-accepted view that most landforms were evidence of the flood of Noah. That's the agenda! While people today may hold an old-earth view, I would encourage them to consider the roots of that view.

 

[Me_Clay]

I asked God to reveal the truth about you. Now I know - you revealed the truth yourself.

Watchman Nee was a mighty man of God, a true apostle, who suffered greatly for his faith. You are falsely accusing the brethren. No one should take note of one word that you say.

Yeah, god of this world, prince of this world.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

[Just_A__Follower]

It does matter, because His word says He made it in six days (Exodus 20:11). If we can't trust His word on this, why should others trust it regarding the way of salvation?

For salvation it does not matter just as it doesn’t matter if Jonah was or wasn’t physically swallowed by a fish. Whether the Lord created(which is not the word used in Ex 20) the universe in 6 days or He reformed it in 6 days it makes no difference on our salvation. But I also have an entirely different view of the Bible than most others I know so maybe that’s why it doesn’t bother me. These are just my opinions and are not intended to discourage anyone from having their beliefs.

 

[Just_A__Follower]

For some reason your post came up twice. Oh well, glitch happens!

One of the most influential geologists was Charles Lyell, who in his 1830 treatise on the subject, presented "evidence" of slow processes forming most if not all rocks and landforms. He was intentionally discrediting the long-accepted view that most landforms were evidence of the flood of Noah. That's the agenda! While people today may hold an old-earth view, I would encourage them to consider the roots of that view.

I believe we can definitely se evidence of the flood. But we can also see evidence of other life endings catastrophes such as meteor strike craters and super volcanic eruptions which we don’t read about in the Bible. This is one of the things that drove my imagination to us not being the first creation on earth. Instead of trying to fit dinosaurs into the Bible, why could they not be from a previous creation before our time? Humans being on earth for 6000-7000 years I definitely believe. Just looking at the rate of technology growth it’s would be insane to believe we sat around in caves hitting rocks together for 200,000 years and in the last few thousand we all of sudden became smart enough to go from building fires with flint to having an iPhone and self driving cars.

 

[Just_A__Follower]

I can assure you as a Jew who follows the Torah as much as the Gospel "הָיָה" is a way of saying God without using the word God.

Not sure where you got that translation but I’m guessing you’re referring to Hashem(השם) unless my dictionary is wrong.

 

[Gideon300]

The ancient Hebrew is written in a way that Genesis 1:1 is a completed Heavens and Earth and Genesis 1:2 is the beginning of restoring what had once been created.

That is my understanding also. I do not know Hebrew, but I have read commentary by those who do. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

 

[Gideon300]

Yeah, god of this world, prince of this world.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

You must be looking in the mirror. Satan is the accuser of the brethren. I don't suppose that you are Satan himself, but you sure speak as Satan does.

 

[Me_Clay]

You must be looking in the mirror. Satan is the accuser of the brethren. I don't suppose that you are Satan himself, but you sure speak as Satan does.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.