Genesis 1:1

Earthling · Jun 27, 2018

sojourner said:
Cherry picking isn’t helping your cause.

Cherry picking? If we are looking for cherries we pick cherries, if we are looking for figs we pick figs. We are looking for the mortality of the soul and we found it. Present your own cherries if you disagree. The soul is mortal. It dies.

Jayhawker Soule · Jun 27, 2018

<yawn>

ignore-list

</yawn>

Earthling · Jun 27, 2018

74x12 said:
Yes before the foundation of the world. The "earth" is not made until day 3. The first thing God ever says in Genesis is "Let there be Light" That was day 1. This is the "Word that was with God and was God". All things were made by him because everything was made in the Light of 6 days.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

God is Light (1 John 1:5) and Jesus is God manifest. (John 8:12) So of course the Word was with God "Let there be Light" and yet it was God also.

1. The word of God means spokesperson, representative.
2. The representative or spokesperson was the master worker under the creator. They are not the same. They are not with the ones they are.
3. Is in reference to the Word, Jesus, known as Michael in heaven.
4. We are not talking about his light we are talking about the light he created. The sun as part of the heavens.
5. Is in application to something else, not the creation of the heavens and earth. It's metaphorical, we are talking literal.

nPeace · Jun 27, 2018

74x12 said:
Yes before the foundation of the world. The "earth" is not made until day 3. The first thing God ever says in Genesis is "Let there be Light" That was day 1. This is the "Word that was with God and was God". All things were made by him because everything was made in the Light of 6 days.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

God is Light (1 John 1:5) and Jesus is God manifest. (John 8:12) So of course the Word was with God "Let there be Light" and yet it was God also.

Could you tell me how you understand Genesis 1:1, 2?

sojourner · Jun 27, 2018

RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha said:
That doesn't mean anything to me. The Bible either says that the soul, which admittedly is an unhappy translation, like hell, is mortal or immortal. If you look at the tradition, the history and how it affects translation, you see that the Bible says the soul is mortal. It dies. But theology is corrupted by the tradition. In effect, what you are saying is that the Bible says that the soul is mortal, but theology, under the influence of tradition, pagan influence like that of Plato and Socrates, transmogrifies the meaning of the Bible to indicate the soul is immortal.

Sounds clever, but it's deception. I don't go for that.

No that’s not what I’m saying at all. Texts, tradition — it’s all the same. It’s all a product of the community that produced it. The Bible is part of the tradition, and has to be regarded in that light. Remember, too, that “pagan influence” produced part of the texts, themselves, as did earlier, pagan influences produce some of the Hebrew texts. Nothing is “pure.”

Again, the Bible is not one, concise, cohesive theological construct; it is a conglomeration. So it’s really not “either/or,” but “both/and.”

74x12 · Jun 27, 2018

RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha said:
1. The word of God means spokesperson, representative.
2. The representative or spokesperson was the master worker under the creator. They are not the same. They are not with the ones they are.
3. Is in reference to the Word, Jesus, known as Michael in heaven.
4. We are not talking about his light we are talking about the light he created. The sun as part of the heavens.
5. Is in application to something else, not the creation of the heavens and earth. It's metaphorical, we are talking literal.

I was only replying to nPeace's question. I don't agree with you about Jesus, but if I were to respond it would take this thread way off topic. I'll keep your thread to it's intended purpose.

74x12 · Jun 27, 2018

nPeace said:
Could you tell me how you understand Genesis 1:1, 2?

As I stated earlier in the thread Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement. It's just stating the fact that God made the heaven and the earth. The following chapter explains how God went about doing that. So the earth wasn't made until day 3 and the heavens are made on day 2.

Genesis 1:2 is interesting it has multiple meanings. But we're talking about the literal creation here; so the meaning in my opinion is the primordial waters that God made creation from. These waters exist in my belief but we cannot see them now. They exist in another plain of existence. I don't know what to call that place.

These are the primordial waters. They existed before the universe. It's maybe as if they're the waters of possibility. There is a randomness or chaos to the picture of a great deep covered in darkness. It seems that the earth was there but it was without form and void. It took God's Word to call for possible things to exist in truth. God's Word establishes these things that only could be and makes them so that they are indeed. Maybe the analogy of things solid vs. things liquid is a good one in this case. I don't know. I'm speculating.

nPeace · Jun 27, 2018

74x12 said:
As I stated earlier in the thread Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement. It's just stating the fact that God made the heaven and the earth. The following chapter explains how God went about doing that. So the earth wasn't made until day 3 and the heavens are made on day 2.

Genesis 1:2 is interesting it has multiple meanings. But we're talking about the literal creation here; so the meaning in my opinion is the primordial waters that God made creation from. These waters exist in my belief but we cannot see them now. They exist in another plain of existence. I don't know what to call that place.

These are the primordial waters. They existed before the universe. It's maybe as if they're the waters of possibility. There is a randomness or chaos to the picture of a great deep covered in darkness. It seems that the earth was there but it was without form and void. It took God's Word to call for possible things to exist in truth. God's Word establishes these things that only could be and makes them so that they are indeed. Maybe the analogy of things solid vs. things liquid is a good one in this case. I don't know. I'm speculating.

So you believe we should go beyond scripture to establish scripture?
According to scripture, that's not right. “Do not go beyond what is written.” 1 Corinthians 4:6
That leads us to doing what scriptures condemn - 2 Peter 3:16

Unless you can find other scriptures that support such a view, it is in fact going beyond the scriptures, and becomes a twisted view of scripture.

The following verses show that these water are not what you project.
Genesis 1:6-10

An honest consideration of scriptures should lead us to understand the scriptures as there are, and not seek to interpret them to fit a doctrine - don't you think?

The second verse says, the earth was void, and there was darkness.
Then God said, 'Let light come to be.' So if the word is the light, that would mean the word came after the earth was created. Which is not scriptural - true?

rosends · Jun 27, 2018

nPeace said:
Here? Welcome
Here? Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno - Wikipedia
Where?

Sorry -- here.

74x12 · Jun 27, 2018

nPeace said:
So you believe we should go beyond scripture to establish scripture?
According to scripture, that's not right. “Do not go beyond what is written.” 1 Corinthians 4:6
That leads us to doing what scriptures condemn - 2 Peter 3:16

Unless you can find other scriptures that support such a view, it is in fact going beyond the scriptures, and becomes a twisted view of scripture.

The following verses show that these water are not what you project.
Genesis 1:6-10

An honest consideration of scriptures should lead us to understand the scriptures as there are, and not seek to interpret them to fit a doctrine - don't you think?

The second verse says, the earth was void, and there was darkness.
Then God said, 'Let light come to be.' So if the word is the light, that would mean the word came after the earth was created. Which is not scriptural - true?

You're right about one thing. I believe I do go beyond scripture when I talk about primordial waters and it does make sense. I could be wrong. I've never seen these waters personally. However it's your choice to believe that or not. You don't have to believe it.

Genesis 1:6-10 is clearly talking about the land coming out of the oceans.

The earth was void yes. The scriptures interpret themselves. There is no need for us to redefine the word "earth" when the scripture does it for us.

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

So earth = dry land. Not a planet.

As for the earth being void. I'll say that it was. It was underwater at the very least! So of course it was void. There was no earth! It was underwater and formless. The earth did not really exist until the dry land appeared. It may have been mud at the bottom of the ocean but there was no dry land.

If you don't believe anything else I say then please prayerfully consider that John chapter 1 is unveiling the mystery of Genesis 1:3. That's important. What else I've said is unimportant in comparison. And no I'm not the first person to say so. It's an open secret.

nPeace · Jun 27, 2018

rosends said:
Sorry -- here.

Thanks
Uh, dude, I can't read Hebrew.

rosends · Jun 27, 2018

nPeace said:
Thanks
Uh, dude, I can't read Hebrew.

Oh. But you were making an argument based on understanding Hebrew words! That doesn't seem to make sense.

nPeace · Jun 27, 2018

74x12 said:
You're right about one thing. I believe I do go beyond scripture when I talk about primordial waters and it does make sense. I could be wrong. I've never seen these waters personally. However it's your choice to believe that or not. You don't have to believe it.

I follow Jesus Christ, and his apostles. They say don't, I don't. My choice seems to be in line with scripture - Go's word - which we should follow... if we want his approval.
2 Timothy 3:16, 17
16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: 17 that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

74x12 said:
Genesis 1:6-10 is clearly talking about the land coming out of the oceans.

The earth was void yes. The scriptures interpret themselves. There is no need for us to redefine the word "earth" when the scripture does it for us.

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

So earth = dry land. Not a planet.

As for the earth being void. I'll say that it was. It was underwater at the very least! So of course it was void. There was no earth! It was underwater and formless. The earth did not really exist until the dry land appeared. It may have been mud at the bottom of the ocean but there was no dry land.

If you don't believe anything else I say then please prayerfully consider that John chapter 1 is unveiling the mystery of Genesis 1:3. That's important. What else I've said is unimportant in comparison. And no I'm not the first person to say so. It's an open secret.

Can you see anyone you are communicating with right now? No?
Then they don't exist. You are communicating with nobody. It's only when you get up from the computer, and actually meet these persons in public, that they exist...............................
Does that sound reasonable to you 74x12?

Definitely, it appears to me, you are quite happy to support teachings of men, rather than scripture.
The scriptures gave us a warning at 1 Timothy 4:1
But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons

By insisting on our own ideas, rather than be guided by God's inspired word is this not what is happening to many?

nPeace · Jun 27, 2018

rosends said:
Oh. But you were making an argument based on understanding Hebrew words! That doesn't seem to make sense.

I was not.
My assignment was based on the fact that the difference in usage of the Hebrew words suggests that the words had different "meanings".
I see no reason to complicate things. That's unnecessary.

Earthling · Jun 27, 2018

74x12 said:
As I stated earlier in the thread Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement. It's just stating the fact that God made the heaven and the earth. The following chapter explains how God went about doing that. So the earth wasn't made until day 3 and the heavens are made on day 2.

Genesis 1:2 is interesting it has multiple meanings. But we're talking about the literal creation here; so the meaning in my opinion is the primordial waters that God made creation from. These waters exist in my belief but we cannot see them now. They exist in another plain of existence. I don't know what to call that place.

These are the primordial waters. They existed before the universe. It's maybe as if they're the waters of possibility. There is a randomness or chaos to the picture of a great deep covered in darkness. It seems that the earth was there but it was without form and void. It took God's Word to call for possible things to exist in truth. God's Word establishes these things that only could be and makes them so that they are indeed. Maybe the analogy of things solid vs. things liquid is a good one in this case. I don't know. I'm speculating.

That's fine. I don't agree with you but that's okay. It isn't about being right or wrong or in agreement, it's about what's in your heart. If you are earnestly looking for the accurate truth God knows it, even if you are wrong. Trust me from personal experience. I've been wrong many, many times. We get dogmatic and we sometimes get emotionally fixated on being right, and that's okay too, it's human nature.

The Bible doesn't tell me this but I am most certain that upon resurrection, no one is going to be denied only because they interpreted the Bible incorrectly. Because none of us would be resurrected and Jehovah wouldn't have mercy. As long as you listen for God and not for the traditions of men, then you are heading in the right direction.

74x12 · Jun 27, 2018

RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha said:
That's fine. I don't agree with you but that's okay. It isn't about being right or wrong or in agreement, it's about what's in your heart. If you are earnestly looking for the accurate truth God knows it, even if you are wrong. Trust me from personal experience. I've been wrong many, many times. We get dogmatic and we sometimes get emotionally fixated on being right, and that's okay too, it's human nature.

The Bible doesn't tell me this but I am most certain that upon resurrection, no one is going to be denied only because they interpreted the Bible incorrectly. Because none of us would be resurrected and Jehovah wouldn't have mercy. As long as you listen for God and not for the traditions of men, then you are heading in the right direction.

Thank you. I appreciate it. I've been wrong many times as well. That's just it. If we remain teachable (against the wishes of our ego) If we pray and seek God for discernment of scriptures; then He is faithful to teach us. However we need to receive the Comforter who God will send in Jesus name. The Spirit of truth. And God is willing to teach us this also.

74x12 · Jun 27, 2018

nPeace said:
I follow Jesus Christ, and his apostles. They say don't, I don't. My choice seems to be in line with scripture - Go's word - which we should follow... if we want his approval.
2 Timothy 3:16, 17
16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: 17 that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

No offense, but I don't believe that you properly understand or properly utilize 1 Corinthians 4:6; bearing in mind the important context.

nPeace said:
Can you see anyone you are communicating with right now? No?
Then they don't exist. You are communicating with nobody. It's only when you get up from the computer, and actually meet these persons in public, that they exist...............................
Does that sound reasonable to you 74x12?

Definitely, it appears to me, you are quite happy to support teachings of men, rather than scripture.
The scriptures gave us a warning at 1 Timothy 4:1
But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons

By insisting on our own ideas, rather than be guided by God's inspired word is this not what is happening to many?

If God says the "dry land" is the earth; then why would I say "No the (wet) ocean floor is the earth." Why would I go against God? When you're reading your modern science book then go ahead call the planet "earth". But when I'm reading the scriptures I remember the earth is defined by God as "the dry land".

Genesis 1:3 is truly about Jesus but only those who God has shown can receive a revelation. One can receive nothing unless it's given to them from heaven. So, it's best for us to agree to disagree.

rosends · Jun 27, 2018

nPeace said:
I was not.
My assignment was based on the fact that the difference in usage of the Hebrew words suggests that the words had different "meanings".
I see no reason to complicate things. That's unnecessary.

You made an argument about the use of Hebrew words, but you don't know Hebrew. That's sort of strange. But whatever floats your boat...it does make any discussion of the actual biblical text difficult.

Thief · Jun 27, 2018

RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha said:
Okay, but that doesn't mean anything to me, I don't understand what it means. Can you explain?

in the beginning.....

God and the void were as one
all was uniform....without form
and darkness was upon the deep

but to say ....I AM!
you need something to show for it

and I believe the pronouncement to be synonymous to
Let there be light

the darkness was broken
light is therefore an aberration

Altfish · Jun 28, 2018

RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha said:
At the time man did know what was being talked about. It only changed because of misconceptions after the fact, and those misconceptions are easily correctable. Have been for at least 100 years, but people tend to prefer the traditions of men over the truth.

But, if I asked 100 Christians on this forum to interpret, I would get probably 95 different interpretations. How do you know your interpretation is correct?
When I read any modern science book, it is clear, precise and understood by all. If there is any misunderstanding, it is revised, reissued and clarified.

Genesis 1:1

David Henson

-- untitled --

David Henson

Veteran Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

David Henson

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Rogue Theologian

Veteran Member