Jal, Jac did an excellent explanation of the Hebrew.
Jac3510 wrote: But as it stands, we have a very simple picture. Three things were all true: the earth was uninhabited and uninhabitable; darkness was on the waters; and the Spirit of God hovered over the deep. That's not three things that happened one after the other. The waw doesn't permit that reading. Rather, the three ideas are connected (that's what the waw does), and in this case, the connection is conceptual, not temporal.
Conceptual is a good way to describe early Hebrew language. Temporal is a good way to describe the Classical Western thought meaning that it looks for step by step procedures to create form. We in the USA and the West, have been trained by western thought. We see the step by step procedure and see, that how this all works and say:
I have it all figured out - we have it right and there is no other meaning possible. We have arrived at truth so it’s my way or the highway as we have the steps to proof it true, so there. That western mindset is used so often to interpret Genesis.
Early Hebrew was conceptual. It looked at the whole to see how it all worked. It looked for signs, symbols, to add deeper insight from the big picture and then examined how things works. It is a descriptive language. The Apostle Paul mentions this in 1 Corinthians 1:22 NASB,"
For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom," concerning the gospel and it makes a point in the two modes of looking at the world each had at that time.
Each side is equal in uncovering truth and can reach the same conclusions, however, both mindsets acting alone can create conditions to justify the sin of hubris. The Bible helps sorts through, as well as, expose the living fruit of hubris so we who trust in him can recognize it and repent from it. Same principle applies to all the creation theories out there.
The only theory out there that does not do this is the controversial theory I mentioned. I do not recall the actual title for it as it is rare to hear anyone mentioning it so for clarity let's name it the Genesis 1 Science and Grammar theory or G1SG for short. It does not claim it is the only way, or a new only way. It looks at the conceptual nature of the Genesis account and into the layered meanings of the text to see if the laws of physics and evidences of creation seen (Romans 1:20) might possibly be seen in the creation account.
This theory allows the standard accepted interpretation of Genesis chapter One to remain that says a substance called earth was there in Gen 1:2 as formless and void. The difference is looking deeper into the conceptual picture that is being painted in each verse. The evidence for God creating out of nothing is pretty good from the bible. That explains the back drop. God Created out of nothing so then by what form was the earth formless and void can be explored rationally.
Does it mean the earth existed as a planetary formed body or not? The G1SG model looks at things like: Science of the Hebrew grammar verb before noun principle used in the account. Also Word meanings explored. Answer it could be or it may also mean the substances needed to make the earth was without form and void. Conceptual means you are looking at a picture. Where earth was to be made, that spot midst the face of the deep, as being mentioned as a point of reference.
G1SG model looks into layered meanings to explore but not use as the baseball bat to beat people over the head with to say we have it right and all others are wrong. Rather, it lets us sit back and admire God's handiwork of creation because God did it his way and not ours. It also looks into the sciences to see the nature of Genesis 1:1 God creating out of nothing would look like and look for measurable evidence in creation. Such as...
Where did atoms come from and when did all the sub particles etc and etc come from needed to form the earth? -When did that happen - does Genesis 1:1-2 reveal that at all or is creation account simply way to earth centrist to allow. What clues would God leave from the language word picture that proves He divinely inspired this to be written as it is and in the language chosen for it to be written - would these match Romans 1:20 claim?
This is an example on how the G1SG theory reasons and works. All G1SG can offer is to look further into the beauty of the tex and see God's handiwork and marvel, not to be right at all cost and cause division in the church and strife between Christians.
From G1SG theory we can explore how each verse reveals layered meanings in such away that there is no doubt that God dictated the account this way. We can see a formed earth in verse two, or we may not, at the same time as time too and be comfortable with this. It is sort of like looking at each verse as verb form before the noun and the entire sentence is Gen 2:1 being the noun. Each verse explains the actions of God until Gen 2:1 concludes. So if a planet earth as a whole is in verse two - proceeding verses explain how it got that way.
Gen 1:2 traditionally has be taught using the western model of reason concerning the words translated w
ithout form and void, yet, creating out of nothing, not so much of that action is applied to the further refine meaning of without form and void in verse two. G1SG theory explores that these words might refer to how the earth was formed. Would this mean for example, for God to create out of nothing - would this also mean that all planets also were made and fully formed as well when earth was? Answer, we don't know. What we do know is that God formed them sometime from the substances we can now measure and calculate by mathematics.
Therefore, the Gen 1:2 account indeed can point to a time these elements were created as well as pointing out what was made at the same time. G1SG then goes verse by verse and looks at the actions of God. Which sound like in Verse 3 he is mixing substances together as the symbol and metaphor for water is often used in the bible. Does this describe how the planet earth was made from these substances - yes. Do we have evidence of these substance existed - yes - atoms for example.
More I look at this model the more I see God creating intelligently as well as leaving evidence his intelligent design in these verses within the layered meanings in the text of Gen 1:6,7,8. Now If I read the word translated water only as physical h2o, well when did these atoms come into being from out of nothing or maybe water is used as a symbol/metaphor instead? Since the 2'nd Creation Day concerns forming heaven, then, where does God dwell?
And since the meaning of the second Hebrew Letter BET means house and then Heaven created on the 2nd day, what is God revealing. Next what order in Genesis 1:1 does it say what was created first? It mentions plural heavens not heaven. God created for himself a place to live for his creation first from substances known and some still unknown to us. Wow the glory of God's handiwork awes me!
On day three you see God making another heaven, which deals with earth and forming land. Again the word land has many ways it can be applied. It can mean land mass, land as dirt, a country, or imply the earth as well - as in this good earth - as when a farmer holds a hand of soil. Sometime God made landmass and these can be called planets too. If so either the earth was already in place could be the idea day three or it can also refers to the time when God made the landmasses together as a planet all at the same time: action is being describe leading to Gen 2:1
How did God collect the seas and the landmass into their places? From what did he make these from. Can this be measured? All this can be seen it the layered meanings of the word picture being painted as God unites a platform for life to spring from so that life can be be maintained. Do we see measurable evidence of this on earth?
You decide. What is seen from day three is earth forming and the ingredients for life being applied in a steady intelligent manner.
At least G1SG theory, as I nicknamed it, allows for free flow of ideas. It serves its purpose as a theory to further test and explore and debate and howl against. If howl against then at least human pride is revealed so the howlers can repent in due time. It is the only platform by which just lets you admire God alone for his own handiwork of creation instead of bowing to the pride of men wanting to be right at all cost.
Again look at what Jac brings out to help you, Jal, which is correct concerning the Hebrew words - without form and void:
Jac3510 wrote:Let's start with the phrase תהו ובהו. Notice first this is not preceded by את. We wouldn't expect that because the verb היתה does not have a direct object. What follows would be a predicate adjective, which is what we get in תהו ובהו. But notice these two words are joined together again with the ו, just like השמים ואת הארץ were. It's hard to miss the word-play here. These words rhyme and it makes for pretty reading if you say it out loud: TOE-hoo wa-BOE-hoo. The meanings are closely related and picture the initial creation as a chaotic wasteland, completely barren and uninhabitable. (For your devotional purposes, that would have meaning to Hebrews when just outside the cities, the wilderness was really inhospitable to life!)
Areas inhospitable to life!
If a planet mass does not exist, then that sure is inhospitable to life! If it exist and lacks means to support life it is also inhospitable to life. Whichever case it may be in Gen 1:2, at one-time God created the planet out of nothing still stands as well as the actions to describe how earth become the earth as we know it today.
No way does this prove a Gap between verse one and verse two. It just points to the actions of How God created this landmass called earth in a measurable and intelligent manner.
Proverbs 3:19,20,
The LORD by wisdom founded the earth, By understanding He established the heavens. 20 By His knowledge the deeps were broken up And the skies drip with dew. NASB
Last thoughts or musings:
One line of Gap theory states at some time angels lived on earth, however, angelic beings were fashioned to be with God and were made as spiritual beings. God destroying earth to punish or make fallen angels does not make sense nor does a pre-adam race of beings either that would become demons (some Gap'ers teach this but not all).
The Genesis account is simply revealing how God created the heavens and the earth from the perspective of the location of earth within the entire universe on the days earth was created. The flow of Genesis chapter one points to God alone changing a completely barren and uninhabitable waste to life as that is part of God's nature - that is what he does.
People are free to believe in GAP and it is still a theory among several. Yes, God did make angelic beings. When he did so and how is not a perspective seen from earth nor is it recorded how angelic beings were created just that they were. If Gap theory helps you honor and know God better, so be it. Helps you to counter secular humanistic views on creation - so be it. But let’s avoid the strife and the desire to right all cost as that creates division and hubris to justify hubris.
Jal... I am pointing this out for you to consider. You come across as hostile and create conditions for others to respond hostile. Treat Gap as a theory, test it, actually learn basic Hebrew and Greek and look at the context of a verse before making judgments and coming across as heck bent to correct everyone. Such mannerisms chase people away. Look at ACB he is gracious about his Gap position but stands to it nevertheless which admirable and fine with me. But to come across as a bully, Jal, as you do, that is another matter altogether.
-
-
-
Im sure it makes you uncomfortable as can be to have your precious nonsene
