RE: In the Beginning

[KBCid]

Suppose instead of Gen 1:1 being the first act God performed that instead it is a summary of what the text following it is going to explain in more detail. Notice how 2:4 appears to restate Gen 1:1 and resummerises the end of the story which explained how God created "the heavens and the earth".

This will not work, because verse one is tied to verse two. Genesis 1:1 is the first act of creation and it is linked by a waw disjunctive to verse two, which gives a description of the earth which was just formed. The first verse is a merism which describes the creation of the whole universe (stars, galaxies, etc).

It would seem that you feel I am making a gap argument in my post as this response is essentially the textbook reply for such an argument. You shoulld read my statement carefully. I am not positing a time argument here which is easily refuted by the waw disjunctive reply.
Gen 1:1 as I am pointing out is a summary of the actions God performed in the beginning. It is a typical manner of beginning a story by outlining what the story contains followed by more indepth descriptions of exactly what was involved sequentially to explain the various elements that the summary encompassed. The Gen 1:1 summary encompassed the entirety of the actions God performed when he created the heavens and the earth. The rest of Genesis is the story that gives a blow by blow account of God performing each of the various actions alluded to in Gen 1:1. Let us review the gap theory refutation so that you can grasp what I'm specifically pointing too;

WHAT ABOUT THE GAP THEORY?
Dr. Robert V. McCabe Professor of Old Testament
The waw disjunctive appears at the beginning of v. 2. This type of waw is also easily identifiable. It is always attached to a non-verbal form, such as a substantive, pronoun, or participle; and it stands at the beginning of a clause. For example, we could illustrate the waw disjunctive found at the beginning of v. 2 in this manner: “Waw-the-earth was….” As a waw disjunctive relates to its preceding clause, it can be used in a number of different ways, such as introducing a clause of contrast, reason, etc. In this context, the waw disjunctive is best seen as introducing an explanatory clause, and could be translated as “now” (meaning, “at the time” of its creation in v. 1), or in some similar way. When the waw disjunctive introduces an explanatory clause, it explains an item that had been introduced in the preceding verse. http://www.oldtestamentstudies.org/my-p ... ap-theory/

So if you understand the argument provided above about the waw disjunctive you would see that it can be used in a number of ways. How many ways?
1) such as introducing a clause of contrast
2) reason
3) etc. etc.
4) In this context, the waw disjunctive is best seen as introducing an explanatory clause.

Do you understand explanatory clause? look at how it is being defined here "When the waw disjunctive introduces an explanatory clause, it explains an item that had been introduced in the preceding verse."
This description of meaning for what occurs in Gen 1:2 is exactly what I am positing is happening.... Gen 1:1 is a summary or outline of what is going to be defined within the body of the text to follow it. Gen 1:2 begins with the "waw disjunctive" or "explanatory clause" which begins the explanation of the concepts that were introduced in Gen 1:1. Thus, Gen 1:1 is a descriptive overview of all the various acts that God performed over the course of time described in the creation week from day 1-6. There is no 'gap' in time from Gen 1:1 to Gen 1:2 because Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2-22 both describe the same account. A 'gap' can only occur in a sequentially described series of events and since both parts describe the same series of events then we have no gap. We have a story outline combined with an explanation of how it was performed. Here are further examples from the same site;

Another example of this use is found in Genesis 2:12.
In 2:11 Moses has recorded that the land of Havilah was known for its gold, “The name of the first [river] is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.”
He then explains the significance of the gold in v 12: “Now-the-gold of that land is good.” The “now” that introduces v. 12 is the waw disjunctive.
This same syntactical construction is also found in Jonah 3:3, “So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now-Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey.” Each of the three passages that we have examined contains the waw disjunctive when it introduces an explanatory clause.

A major error in your response to me was asserting that "Genesis 1:1 is the first act of creation". In fact, it was not the first act. It is an overview of all the acts that occured during the creating of the heavens and the earth. God created the heavens and the earth... this was the job that was accomplished. Gen 1:2-22 describes the acts that were involved to accomplish the job. So, when we read Gen 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." it properly concludes the end of the acts that were performed to finish the job of creating the heavens and earth.

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a world acclaimed Old Testament scholar...

Just as I thought, she got this idea from other Ancient Near Eastern creation myths. Many skeptics and liberals do this. They try to make the Bible mimic manmade myths. Anyone who has ever read these myths knows that Genesis is very different.

My point was not to assert that she was correct and that others are wrong. You have however eloquently established my point by your response. Ellen is a world acclaimed Old Testament scholar... and as you are attempting to point out she has reasoned incorrectly. Now you have a problem. If she is reasonably wrong and she is a world acclaimed Old Testament scholar how do you determine which world acclaimed Old Testament scholars are correct? The bottom line for you here is that the famous scholar is wrong according to your reasoning and understanding therefore the ones who are right are only right based on your reasoning and understanding and it has absolutely nothing to do with their standing as a world acclaimed Old Testament scholar. So ultimately 'we' have no relible referential sources that can be provided as backing for any specific concept of right and wrong on this subject since you have an a priori commitment that you believe allows you to determine whether an expert opinion is correct or not.

Proverbs 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Pro 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth...
Christ could not have been 'set up' or 'brought forth 'from everlasting' if time didn't exist since everlasting defines the existence of infinite time.

This is not about Christ; it is about wisdom (an attribute).
Proverbs 7:4 "Say to wisdom, "You are my sister," And call understanding your intimate friend;"

That would be true except for a few tiny little things;

Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD
Luk 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: (look here, an attribute performed an action)

1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom...
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory
Col 2:2 ...and of Christ;
Col 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Wisdom (sophia) is not distinct to the New Testament but stems from the wide use of the term in the Old Testament (hokhmah). Not only do direct references to the wisdom of Joseph (Acts 7:10), 'Moses (Acts 7:22) and Solomon (Matt. 12:42) link the wisdom ideas of the two Testaments, but much of the teaching of Jesus is couched in the well-worn forms developed by the wisdom teachers of the Old Testament. Jesus used parables, aphorisms and proverbs in a way that was long established in Israel through the wisdom movement and the traditions of the scribes. But He did so in a way that drew attention to a remarkable distinction between Himself and the scribes. The scribes and wise men of Israel sought to understand wisdom and to possess it, but Jesus spoke with authority as the Source of wisdom. After He applied the classic wisdom contrast between the wise man and the foolish man to conclude the great Sermon on the Mount, the crowds were astonished, for He taught as One who had authority and not as the scribes (Matt. 7:28-29). http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXXIII/33-4.htm

The prologue to John's gospel makes a precise identification of Christ with Wisdom, describing the Logos' Christological role (1:3), its role as the ground of human knowledge (1:9) and as the mediator of special revelation (1:14) -- the three roles of the pre-existent Logos/Wisdom. In calling Jesus God's Logos, John was affirming Jesus' eternality and ontological oneness with the Father by connecting him with the Wisdom tradition...
...The Word was in the beginning (John 1:1)
Wisdom was in the beginning (Prov. 8:22-23, Sir. 1:4, Wis. 9:9)
The Word was with God (John 1:1)
Wisdom was with God (Prov. 8:30, Sir. 1:1, Wis. 9:4)
The Word was cocreator (John 1:1-3)
Wisdom was cocreator (Prov. 3:19, 8:25; Is. 7:21, 9:1-2)
The Word provides light (John 1:4, 9)
Wisdom provides light (Prov. 8:22, Wis. 7:26, 8:13; Sir. 4:12)
Word as light in contrast to darkness (John 1:5)
Wisdom as light in contrast to darkness (Wis. 7:29-30)
The Word was in the world (John 1:10)
Wisdom was in the world (Wis. 8:1, Sir. 24:6)
The Word was rejected by its own (John 1:11)
Wisdom was rejected by its own (Sir. 15:7)
The Word was received by the faithful (John 1:12)
Wisdom was received by the faithful (Wis. 7:27)
Christ is the bread of life (John 6:35)
Wisdom is the bread or substance of life (Prov. 9:5, Sir. 15:3, 24:21, 29:21; Wis. 11:4)
Christ is the light of the world (John 8:12)
Wisdom is light (Wis. 7:26-30, 18:3-4)
Christ is the door of the sheep and the good shepherd (John 10:7, 11, 14)
Wisdom is the door and the good shepherd (Prov. 8:34-5, Wis. 7:25-7, 8:2-16; Sir. 24:19-22)
Christ is life (John 11:25)
Wisdom brings life (Prov. 3:16, 8:35, 9:11; Wis. 8:13)
Christ is the way to truth (John 14:6)
Wisdom is the way (Prov. 3:17, 8:32-34; Sir. 6:26)
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/tr ... fense.html

It would appear that wisdom is not simply an attribute in biblical terms. Christ is the embodiment of wisdom.

[KBCid]

Let us not ignore anything pls. I must consider everything to hope for a proper understanding. So lets look at 1Pe 1:20 "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world...". Christ was ordained prior to the formation of the world, I have understood that quite clearly. It is quite clear that there was a time prior to the founding of the earth when Christ was with his father and it was decided that he would come to save those who would be created. The only thing not reffered to in that passage is a begining of time. There was only a reference to a begining of the earth. If you have other verses that state or infer a begining of time pls. post them.

There is that problem of English again. World (kosmos) is a reference to the whole universe, not the earth. Earth is the Greek word ge.

Yes yes, I understand you don't like english as the subject starter. That is clear. Just keep in mind that because I begin with a specific language reference doesn't mean I am limited to it. I have expected you to try and correct my opening wrongness with your specific understanding. This is one of the things I seek to understand, "how you come to your conclusions"

So here is my reply to my asserted problem. You have been quite truthful about kosmos and its meaning and I have also understood kosmos for quite awhile now and I absolutely without reservation agree with the meaning you have defined for it. However, kosmos is a greek word... Ancient hebrew has no word for the universe. I would say it may be wise to consult the original language first. Here is a good spot to begin with;

Holman Bible Dictionary
WORLD, THE

The Old Testament The ancient Hebrews had no word for the “universe.” When speaking of the totality of creation, they used descriptive phrases like “the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1 NIV), “heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:11; compare Philippians 2:10 NIV), or “the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them” (Nehemiah 9:6 NIV).
...Four Hebrew words have been translated by “world.” The word eretz (2,047 times) normally means “earth” or “land.” It is translated as “world” four times in the KJV and twice in the RSV (Isaiah 23:17; Jeremiah 25:26). Olam is translated as “world” twice in the KJV (Psalms 73:12; Ecclesiastes 3:11). Its general sense is age, or long duration. Two other rarer words appear predominantly in the poetic writings (tebel, which is synonymous with eretz, 36 times, for instance, Psalms 18:15; Job 37:12; and cheled, which is synonymous with olam, 5 times, for instance, Psalms 17:14; Psalms 49:1). The Hebrews, therefore, did not have a single concept of the world but thought of the creation in terms of its geographical and temporal extent.

Greek Thought The word kosmos (from which we get the English words “cosmic” and “cosmology”) originally described anything that was constructed or built, then its order, or by extension its ordered beauty. The world was a perfect unity, beautiful in its order. From the time of the use of kosmos to describe the world, therefore, the order of the world was primary. Precisely this concept of the world as an ordered system is absent from Hebrew thought.
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6478

[dayage]

KBCid,

I know that you are not making a Gap Theory argument, but my response applies to your interpretation. Both the Gap Theory and yours, attempt to disconnect verse one from verse two. You do not seem to understand your own sources. Dr. McCabe is arguing the same thing I am and the opposite of you.

I said that Genesis 1:1 was the first act of creation and that Gen. 1:2 describes what this newly formed earth looked like. Dr. McCabe agreed and said:
“Waw-the-earth was….” As a waw disjunctive relates to its preceding clause, it can be used in a number of different ways... In this context, the waw disjunctive is best seen as introducing an explanatory clause, and could be translated as “now” (meaning, “at the time” of its creation in v. 1), or in some similar way. When the waw disjunctive introduces an explanatory clause, it explains an item that had been introduced in the preceding verse.

You do not seem to understand what is being said by me, Dr. Rooker or Dr. McCabe. We are all saying that Gen. 1:2 is describing what the newly created earth looked like. In verse two we are told that the earth needed more work. It was dark, covered with water, had no land (formless) and had no life (void). Then God transformed the EARTH over a six "day" period. We all also said that Gen. 1:2 is directly linked to Gen. 1:1

In fact, I followed your link and it became even clearer that He says the same thing. I do not know what you were reading.
"When the waw disjunctive introduces an explanatory clause, it explains an item that had been introduced in the preceding verse. For example, “earth” is used in 1:1 and 1:2: “In the beginning God created the heavens and-the-earth. 2Now-the-earth was formless and empty.”'
"the fact that he uses a waw disjunctive to introduce an explanatory clause indicates that the point of v. 2 is to set forth what the earth was like when God initially created it—it was unformed and unfilled."

Your position disconnects the first two verses and makes Gen. 1:1 stand alone. All three of us have shown this to be impossible.

My point was not to assert that she was correct and that others are wrong. You have however eloquently established my point by your response. Ellen is a world acclaimed Old Testament scholar... and as you are attempting to point out she has reasoned incorrectly. Now you have a problem. If she is reasonably wrong and she is a world acclaimed Old Testament scholar how do you determine which world acclaimed Old Testament scholars are correct? The bottom line for you here is that the famous scholar is wrong according to your reasoning and understanding therefore the ones who are right are only right based on your reasoning and understanding and it has absolutely nothing to do with their standing as a world acclaimed Old Testament scholar. So ultimately 'we' have no relible referential sources that can be provided as backing for any specific concept of right and wrong on this subject since you have an a priori commitment that you believe allows you to determine whether an expert opinion is correct or not.

Everything is testable. If you followed the link I gave, you would see that she agreed on the meaning of bara, but wanted to make Genesis fit the creation myths of other nation. I also showed that there was a word for separate, which was used everywhere else in Genesis one. She is wrong, because the evidence shows that she is wrong and willfully mistranslating the text.

Proverbs 8 is the attribute of Godly wisdom. It I is used by both God and man (Proverbs 8:15-16). This is not Jesus.

Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD

Verse one is about Jesus and verse two is about the Holy Spirit. Are you trying to say they are the same person?

You will have to show, in context, why these Old Testament verses are references to Jesus. Jesus, as God (as well as the Holy Spirit and the Father), contain all of these attributes and descriptions.

So here is my reply to my asserted problem. You have been quite truthful about kosmos and its meaning and I have also understood kosmos for quite awhile now and I absolutely without reservation agree with the meaning you have defined for it. However, kosmos is a greek word... Ancient hebrew has no word for the universe. I would say it may be wise to consult the original language first. Here is a good spot to begin with;

Holman Bible Dictionary
WORLD, THE

The Old Testament The ancient Hebrews had no word for the “universe.” When speaking of the totality of creation, they used descriptive phrases like “the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1 NIV),

You are funny. This is exactly what I said, "She also misses the fact that most scholars believe that "the heavens and the earth" is a merism describing a single concept (the universe)." I agree, Hebrew has no single word for universe.

Did you finally give up on "no beginning of time?"

[KBCid]

KBCid, I know that you are not making a Gap Theory argument, but my response applies to your interpretation. Both the Gap Theory and yours, attempt to disconnect verse one from verse two. You do not seem to understand your own sources...
...We are all saying that Gen. 1:2 is describing what the newly created earth looked like.

My interpretation is not a disconnection of 1 from 2. As I clearly stated vs.2 is the begining of the description of the individual acts that God performed in order to create the heavens and the earth. My reference information was intended to show that the waw disjunctive is a transition into the explanation of how God made the heavens and the earth. It is a transition from an outline of the overall job described in vs. 1 to an explanation of what he did to make the heavens and the earth. Thus, there is no disconnect between the two verses.
The difference between what you and many others have interpreted and what I have interpreted is that an assumption was made that vs. 1 describes God as creating time, space and matter in a raw form ready to be formed into specific designs. What most people fail to see is that this view is entirely imaginary. At no time anywhere in the rest of the biblical account does anyone refer to an initial creation of matter that is later formed into specific designs. The initial assumption you have made is always assumed to be part of the meaning when a later reference is made to the creation of the heavens and the earth.
If you consider what I am saying in a logical fashion you will see what I mean here. In Gen 1:1 it says specifically "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." These are two distinct structures they have very distinct organization of form. If as you believe vs. 1 implies the initiation of time, space and the raw matter used to form the heavens and the earth then vs. 1 becomes a lie because if all matter was in a state of nonform as noted in vs. 2 then in fact God did not create the heavens and the earth as they would have been simply a soup of matter awaiting an arrangement and would not at that point have been distinct forms.
So what this means is that one cannot assume in their interpretation that vs. 1 is describing an initial creative event which is then followed by other creative events.
As I am clearly pointing out here Gen 1:1 is the overview or outline of what God did... he created the heavens and the earth it is not a statement of an initial partial action. Gen 1:2 is the description / explanation of how he did what was stated in vs, 1. Thus, vs. 1 is entirely connected to vs. 2 because 1 described the formation in its entirety and 2 begins the description of the steps he took to make those two distinct formations.

In verse two we are told that the earth needed more work. It was dark, covered with water, had no land (formless) and had no life (void). Then God transformed the EARTH over a six "day" period.

In verse two you are assuming / interpreting that the earth needed more work because of your initial interpretation of vs. 1 as having been an initial formation of time, space and raw matter. Your initial assumption of what was meant in vs. 1 denies that God created the heavens and the earth in vs. 1. Your interpretation infers that God created an initial state of chaos which he later arranged into the specifically defined heaven and earth structures. Here is the simplest way for me to show you your error.
1) Did Gen 1:1 state specifically that God created the heavens and the earth?
2) in Gen 1:2 did the heavens and the earth exist?

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep...

Read it carefully... if the earth was without form and void then it did not yet exist and neither did the structure of the heavens.

Thus, Gen 1:1 which specifically states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." could not have happened yet since it describes two very specific created forms. So the more accurate way of interpreting Gen 1:1 is that it is the initial overview of the entirety of what God created not an initial creative act and Gen 1:2-22 defines all the steps he took to form those two designs.

Everything is testable. If you followed the link I gave, you would see that she agreed on the meaning of bara, but wanted to make Genesis fit the creation myths of other nation. I also showed that there was a word for separate, which was used everywhere else in Genesis one. She is wrong, because the evidence shows that she is wrong and willfully mistranslating the text.

I have indeed read the link and understand that humans do things for various reasons. If a world renowned scholar can form such a conclusion based on the evidences she perceived then that means that all of the scholars base their conclusions on evidence they perceive. The question I alluded to is how do YOU know which is correct? By what standard did each of the scholars come to their conclusions? How can we know that any of them are correct? Do we assume correctness if they avoid an inference of similarity between the bible and other ancient myths?

Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD

Verse one is about Jesus and verse two is about the Holy Spirit. Are you trying to say they are the same person?

You need to really think about this for a minute. Did Jesus come into being at the time "a Branch shall grow out of his roots"?.

You will have to show, in context, why these Old Testament verses are references to Jesus. Jesus, as God (as well as the Holy Spirit and the Father), contain all of these attributes and descriptions.

A simple understanding here is that wisdom is conveyed by the word. Christ is Gods living word.

I agree, Hebrew has no single word for universe. Did you finally give up on "no beginning of time?"

Then you should agree that world as used by the ancient hebrews did not include our understanding of universe. Their understanding of world was their immediate environment which is best understood as the earth. Stars were simply lights in the tent that surrounded the earth.
As you can see from the beginning of my post I have not given up on there not being a beginning of time. However, there was a beginning to measured time. There are a great many verses that must be reconciled in order for time to have a beginning and you have yet to perform that reconciliation. One of the greatest things you need to rationalize is how God can exist etrenally if time doesn't exist. This is nearly the same problematic as rationalizing how something can come from nothing.

edit;
I think Dayage that it may be wise for us to narrow our posts to a single subject as we are really burning up alot of space with our posts. I would like to focus on the genesis subject if that is ok with you and we can always return to the other subjects once we get past the first.

[RickD]

KBCid asked:

One of the greatest things you need to rationalize is how God can exist etrenally if time doesn't exist.

I don't see any problem with God being described as eternal, if He exists outside of time, and before He created time. By definition, eternal means "existing outside of time".


From the freedictionary.com:

e·ter·nal (-tûrnl)
adj.
1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See Synonyms at infinite.
2. Continuing without interruption; perpetual.
3. Forever true or changeless: eternal truths.
4. Seemingly endless; interminable. See Synonyms at ageless, continual.
5. Of or relating to spiritual communion with God, especially in the afterlife.
n.
1. Something timeless, uninterrupted, or endless.
2. Eternal God. Used with the.

[KBCid]

One of the greatest things you need to rationalize is how God can exist eternally if time doesn't exist.

I don't see any problem with God being described as eternal, if He exists outside of time, and before He created time. By definition, eternal means "existing outside of time".
From the freedictionary.com:

e·ter·nal (-tûrnl)
adj.
1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See Synonyms at infinite.
2. Continuing without interruption; perpetual.
3. Forever true or changeless: eternal truths.
4. Seemingly endless; interminable. See Synonyms at ageless, continual.
5. Of or relating to spiritual communion with God, especially in the afterlife.
1. Something timeless, uninterrupted, or endless.
2. Eternal God. Used with the.

Thou shalt be careful of thy references .... The "exist outside of time" reference in the free dictionary appears to be a relatively new addition to the meaning of eternal and since we are ultimately refering to hebrew we are obligated to see what the word references are and what the original translators intended. Otherwise we will have the evolution definition thing going on all over again. Note first how this new meaning is absent from websters definitions;
Everlasting
1: lasting or enduring through all time : eternal
2a (1) : continuing for a long time or indefinitely
3: wearing indefinitely <everlasting twill pants>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/everlasting

ETERNAL
1a : having infinite duration : everlasting <eternal damnation>
b : of or relating to eternity c : characterized by abiding fellowship with God
2a : continued without intermission : perpetual <an eternal flame> b : seemingly endless <eternal delays>
4: valid or existing at all times : timeless <eternal verities>

ETERNITY
1: the quality or state of being eternal
2: infinite time <lasting throughout eternity>
4: the state after death : immortality
5: a seemingly endless or immeasurable time
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternity

INFINITE
1: extending indefinitely : endless <infinite space>
2: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible <infinite patience>
3: subject to no limitation or external determination
4a : extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large
b : extending to infinity <infinite plane surface>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infinite

Note also that the original hebrew has no word for "outside of time" and most of the time eternal is used in reference to ages which is measurable time.

when used of the past, there are only a few instances where the the word *olam* takes on the meaning of eternal. The following scriptures show this: Genesis 6:4; Deuteronomy 32:7; 1 Samuel 27:28; Ezra 4:15,19; Job 22:15; Proverbs 22:8; 23:10; Isaiah 51:9; 58:12; 61:4; 63:9,11; Jeremiah 6:16; 18:15; 28:8; Jonah 2:6; Micah 7:14; Malachi 3:4, as well as many others. Indeed, it is only in reference to Yahweh's past existence that it takes on the meaning of eternal past. (Psalm 90:2) "Even then, it still expresses the idea of continued, measurable existence, rather than a state of being independent of time considerations." -- "Lexical Aids to the Old Testament", under #5769, Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible. http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=458.0;wap2

So if there was no concept of "outside of time" to the ancient hebrews, then might I ask why is it one of yours?

[RickD]

Just one example is Genesis 21:33:33 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God.

`owlam

The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Strong's Number: 5769
Original Word Word Origin
~lw[ from (05956)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
`owlam TWOT - 1631a
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
o-lawm' Noun Masculine
Definition

long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
ancient time, long time (of past)
(of future)
for ever, always
continuous existence, perpetual
everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

So if there was no concept of "outside of time" to the ancient hebrews, then might I ask why is it one of yours?

Because God created time, He transcends time. Everything except God was created, and that includes time. Nothing existed before God. I don't understand the point of arguing this.

[KBCid]

Because God created time, He transcends time. Everything except God was created, and that includes time. Nothing existed before God. I don't understand the point of arguing this.

There is no reason to argue. If you don't wish to discuss this subject I'm fine with that.

[RickD]

Because God created time, He transcends time. Everything except God was created, and that includes time. Nothing existed before God. I don't understand the point of arguing this.

There is no reason to argue. If you don't wish to discuss this subject I'm fine with that.

I don't mean argue, as in a verbal fight. I mean debate. Do you disagree with what I said about God being eternal, and that nothing existed before God? Maybe I shouldn't assume that you believe God is outside of time, and He existed before anything else. That's simply what I mean by "outside of time". Do you disagree with that?

[RickD]

KBCid wrote:
It is one thing to assert that a being lives forever or has always existed and quite another to assert that a being existed / exists outside of time. If you assert that God exists beyond time are you asserting that time is not percived by him? Do his thoughts not happen in an orderly fashion one after another? or do you assert that all his thoughts happen at once? If we are made in his image and our thoughts occur in an orderly fashion does this not allow the inference that he is this way also.

Getting back to this. I don't think God has thoughts, like we have thoughts, perhaps.

[KBCid]

I don't mean argue, as in a verbal fight. I mean debate. Do you disagree with what I said about God being eternal,

God is eternal, he has always existed and will always exist. He is the uncaused cause.

and that nothing existed before God?

I'm quite sure nothing preceeded God the father.

Maybe I shouldn't assume that you believe God is outside of time, and He existed before anything else. That's simply what I mean by "outside of time". Do you disagree with that?

By now you should not have to make an assumption. I'm fairly certain that I have been clear about the specific points I have brought. From what I have read in the biblical text God experiences time, it simply has no effect on his persistant existence. The debate is open as to whether He existed before anything else since part of the anything is considered space and time and really, are space and time actual things? So on some points I do disagree on others I entirely agree.
I am doing my best not to read into scripture anything other than what it clearly defines and it is not easy to separate where the text leaves off and meaning beyond the text begins. This is why I wish to understand how others get the beliefs they have. I am counting on scripture itself to tell the truth.

[RickD]

I'm quite sure nothing preceeded God the father.

Are you saying that the triune God hasn't existed eternally?

[dayage]

KBCid,

Ok, I see where part of the problem is.
1) Genesis one is not just the creation of raw material. It is the whole time frame in which God brought about the whole universe. In otherwords, from the singularity (13.7 bya) all the way down to the early earth (4.566 bya). So, space, stars, galaxies and planet earth were created during Gen. 1:1. This is why earlier I pointed out that "In the beginning" is always used for a period of time and not just an instant of time. Genesis 1:1 is a merism. It would be like me saying that I am having a party, I want you to invited young and old. "Young and old" here is a merism meaning all ages (everyone). I am not excluding the middle aged.

2) In verse two, the earth being formless, is a reference to there not being any land or mountians. It was just a "smooth" water world. God changed this on day three. Each of our sources said, and what I was saying, is that Genesis 1:2 is describing what the earth (not raw material), which was created in verse one, looked like. In fact, that is what science says the early earth looked like.

3) I would like to point out that the initial conditions found in Gen. 1:2 include the fact that the Holy Spirit is hovering or moving over the surface of the waters. Because of this, we should understand everything that follows from His perspective. In other words, He is looking around, above, and below the water’s surface. He is not at some point beyond earth. Further support for the earth's surface being the frame of reference comes from days 4 and 5. The lights can only act as signs from the viewpoint of the earth. Likewise, when it says that the birds fly "above the earth, across the face of the sky (expanse of the heavens)," this is from an earth bound view. The "face of the sky," is the cloud layer as seen by the observer below it.

4)

My reference information was intended to show that the waw disjunctive is a transition into the explanation of how God made the heavens and the earth. It is a transition from an outline of the overall job described in vs. 1 to an explanation of what he did to make the heavens and the earth. Thus, there is no disconnect between the two verses.

As I pointed out, this is not allowed by the Hebrew. Each of our sources agreed that Gen. 1:1 was the first act, not a "title." Gen. 1:2 is a description of the newly created earth. I guess you could search for a new reference, because the one you used disagrees with what you are saying.

[KBCid]

It is one thing to assert that a being lives forever or has always existed and quite another to assert that a being existed / exists outside of time. If you assert that God exists beyond time are you asserting that time is not perceived by him? Do his thoughts not happen in an orderly fashion one after another? or do you assert that all his thoughts happen at once? If we are made in his image and our thoughts occur in an orderly fashion does this not allow the inference that he is this way also.

Getting back to this. I don't think God has thoughts, like we have thoughts, perhaps.

I have to agree that we most likely don't think exactly like him as we are limited in understanding but, I would appeal to you that we are made in their image. We are imbued with the breath of life which only God can give and he did state we are gods. So based on that alone I feel that separate unique thoughts require time. for me a good clincher on this point is that God tells us directly that he has thoughts. Isa 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
See he has thoughts... plural ... and as dissimilar as they may be from ours the fact is he asserts he has them. There are also other verses that speak about Gods having many thoughts;

Psa 40:5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.
Psa 92:5 O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep.
Psa 139:17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

I can only base an assumption of truth on the backing of the scriptures here. The other point that should be considered is that the only thing between us and God himself is the indwelling of the holy spirit. When that day comes that all are judged there will be those who will live and interact with God and his son... it would be fairly tuff for us to do that if time didn't exist.

Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

Time has to always exist in order for God to share his existence with us. For those who are saved they will experience an existence that will be quite similar to his. Each of us unique individuals, each of us interacting over an endless time along with all those who already share an intimate existence with him;

Rev 5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands...
Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven...

[dayage]

One more thing. The earth of day 3 are the landmasses that exist on the earth (planet). The heavens of day two is the open atmosphere of the planet earth.