Evidence for God from Science

.

(FIY: I'm really sorry for the last thread on this topic. I should have opened a new topic for my own off-topic replies to the off-topic replies by others there. In the present thread, I will stay on topic: I shall, in this thread, let off-topic replies remain un-answered by me.)

I am YEC, but I disagree with the common YEC view of vv. 3 and 14-18. That common view is that, since there is no qualification spelled out in the account as to what the 'light' is in v. 3, then this 'light' must be light, as such, rather than a lighting condition. I think it is a lighting condition, contrary to that commonly believed in YEC circles.

In the last two centuries, YEC has been challenged by a combination of (a) historically unprecedented empirical advances in physics and astronomy; (b) secular cosmological models allowed by these advances; and (c) social and institutional popularity of these secular models. Predictably, YEC now commonly includes belief that as much as the entire first several verses of Genesis 1 rightly may be construed in terms of general and cosmological physics (Morris 1974, 2005). This modern YEC physics belief regarding Genesis 1 is allowed by the fact that various key words in the account readily suggest a conceptually foundational level of physics, even a complete set of such physics (DeRemer, Amundrud, and Dobberpuhl, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21 ... _69-76.pdf).

YEC typically includes belief that Genesis 1 begins with, and proceeds upon, accounting of the terrestrial world, planet Earth. But, in the last several decades, many in the YEC community have become so focused on the potential of Genesis 1 to address the general physics of cosmology that other concerns for the account have been down-played, even rejected (DeRemer et al, above; DeRemer http://creation.com/gorman-gray-the-age ... cal-limits).

But Genesis 1 is comprised of a very limited number of words. Therefore, any focus on its potential to address the physics of cosmology must take this limit into account. Otherwise, a focus on its physics potential risks undercutting, even rejecting, the account’s potential for addressing Earth’s life-support system.


So, as I said in the wayward thread that I started on the same topic:

When I read Genesis 1:2-10, I see the creation of the geophysical portion of Earth's Hydrological Cycle. I assume that the Hydrologic Cycle is Irreducibly Complex (ID), just as is said of living organisms by my fellow YEC’s. If the Hydrologic Cycle is ID, then what is the number and kinds of most basic parts of the Hydrologic Cycle? I think there are five parts which the physical Earth itself contributes to the Hydrologic Cycle: the Day-night cycle making two parts, the air making a third part, and the land and seas making the fourth and fifth parts. If these five are the most basic geophysical parts of the Hydrologic Cycle, and if the Hydrologic Cycle is ID, then these five correspond, in a most profoundly way, to the five instances in Genesis 1 that report on the fact that God's names things (v. 5, v. 8, and v. 10).



Is the hydrologic cycle ID, or isn't it? My opinion is that that is the decisive question for how to interpret Genesis 1, including what is the 'light' of v. 3.

But, here is the problem: what is the controlling context within Genesis 1:1-18 regarding what this 'light' is in v. 3?

Is that controlling context comprised of nothing more than some or all of that text?

Or, instead, does the controlling context of those first 18 verses include, say, our God-given normal everyday sensibility for the water cycle?

Because, if any of that text, alone, provides the sole controlling context for the vv.3 and 14-18 set, then I would argue that there is no actual way to determine what that controversial set really means.

By way of analogy, the following sentence is what the common YEC position amounts to regarding 1:1-14:


"Walk, I say to you, though shalt walk, thou shalt surely walk, thou shalt surely verily walk not."



.

DanielPech wrote:.

(FIY: I'm really sorry for the last thread on this topic. I should have opened a new topic for my own off-topic replies to the off-topic replies by others there. In the present thread, I will stay on topic: I shall, in this thread, let off-topic replies remain un-answered by me.)

I am YEC, but I disagree with the common YEC view of vv. 3 and 14-18. That common view is that, since there is no qualification spelled out in the account as to what the 'light' is in v. 3, then this 'light' must be light, as such, rather than a lighting condition. I think it is a lighting condition, contrary to that commonly believed in YEC circles.

In the last two centuries, YEC has been challenged by a combination of (a) historically unprecedented empirical advances in physics and astronomy; (b) secular cosmological models allowed by these advances; and (c) social and institutional popularity of these secular models. Predictably, YEC now commonly includes belief that as much as the entire first several verses of Genesis 1 rightly may be construed in terms of general and cosmological physics (Morris 1974, 2005). This modern YEC physics belief regarding Genesis 1 is allowed by the fact that various key words in the account readily suggest a conceptually foundational level of physics, even a complete set of such physics (DeRemer, Amundrud, and Dobberpuhl, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21 ... _69-76.pdf).

YEC typically includes belief that Genesis 1 begins with, and proceeds upon, accounting of the terrestrial world, planet Earth. But, in the last several decades, many in the YEC community have become so focused on the potential of Genesis 1 to address the general physics of cosmology that other concerns for the account have been down-played, even rejected (DeRemer et al, above; DeRemer http://creation.com/gorman-gray-the-age ... cal-limits).

But Genesis 1 is comprised of a very limited number of words. Therefore, any focus on its potential to address the physics of cosmology must take this limit into account. Otherwise, a focus on its physics potential risks undercutting, even rejecting, the account’s potential for addressing Earth’s life-support system.


So, as I said in the wayward thread that I started on the same topic:

When I read Genesis 1:2-10, I see the creation of the geophysical portion of Earth's Hydrological Cycle. I assume that the Hydrologic Cycle is Irreducibly Complex (ID), just as is said of living organisms by my fellow YEC’s. If the Hydrologic Cycle is ID, then what is the number and kinds of most basic parts of the Hydrologic Cycle? I think there are five parts which the physical Earth itself contributes to the Hydrologic Cycle: the Day-night cycle making two parts, the air making a third part, and the land and seas making the fourth and fifth parts. If these five are the most basic geophysical parts of the Hydrologic Cycle, and if the Hydrologic Cycle is ID, then these five correspond, in a most profoundly way, to the five instances in Genesis 1 that report on the fact that God's names things (v. 5, v. 8, and v. 10).



Is the hydrologic cycle ID, or isn't it? My opinion is that that is the decisive question for how to interpret Genesis 1, including what is the 'light' of v. 3.

But, here is the problem: what is the controlling context within Genesis 1:1-18 regarding what this 'light' is in v. 3?

Is that controlling context comprised of nothing more than some or all of that text?

Or, instead, does the controlling context of those first 18 verses include, say, our God-given normal everyday sensibility for the water cycle?

Because, if any of that text, alone, provides the sole controlling context for the vv.3 and 14-18 set, then I would argue that there is no actual way to determine what that controversial set really means.

By way of analogy, the following sentence is what the common YEC position amounts to regarding 1:1-14:


"Walk, I say to you, though shalt walk, thou shalt surely walk, thou shalt surely verily walk not."



.

I will try to address this as far as Genesis 1:3-5 "And God said,Let their be light: and there was light.And God saw the light,that it was good:and God divided the light from the darkness.And God called the light Day,and the darkness he called Night.And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Darkness represents Satan's kingdom and I think it shows that darkness was already here and when God says Let their be light he is just shining a light into the darkness that represents Satan's kingdom and at the same time dividing God's kingdom from Satan's kingdom but also establishing day and night based on light and darkness in our world.Also consider 2nd Corinthians 4:6 and Acts 26:18 and Luke 10:18, I think it reiterates my point.

As far as Genesis 1:2-10 are you so sure about it being about the hydrological cycle that you have your mind made up? Or are you unwilling to consider something else than just the hydrological cycle?

The bible teaches us there are 3 heavens 2nd Corinthians 12:2 and we know the first heaven is the earth's atmosphere,the second heaven outerspace and the third heaven where God is.So why should we focus only on the first heaven in Genesis 1:2-10? We should realize the firmament has to do with all three,not just one,so yes God set up the hydrological cycle but also worked on the second and third heaven also,not just one.So think all three heavens when you read Genesis 1:2-10. I think this is enough to consider for now.

abelcainsbrother wrote: The bible teaches us there are 3 heavens 2nd Corinthians 12:2 and we know the first heaven is the earth's atmosphere,the second heaven outerspace and the third heaven where God is.So why should we focus only on the first heaven in Genesis 1:2-10?

Your reasoning here presumes things that, in my view, are unnecessary to the basic facts that (1) God created Earth, and (2) Genesis 1 is addressed to that creation act.

And, I notice that, judging by your latter words in your post, you yourself seem to allow that the passage indeed addresses Earth's hydrologic cycle:

abelcainsbrother wrote:yes God set up the hydrological cycle but

Of course, one could simply be admitting the mere fact that God set up the hydrologic cycle, without also allowing that the passage in question actually addresses that cycle. That is, one could reject the idea that that passage addresses the hydrologic cycle at all, even while one admits that God created that cycle. So, one would be interpreting the text, as an account, without regard for what it seems to say, and instead to interpret it to be saying something else. Thus, one would be positing that the ordinary, terrestrial thing which the account seems to address (i.e. the hydrologic cycle) is a thing which oneself does not think that the account, and the account's author, in fact is aimed at addressing.

But, you also say:

abelcainsbrother wrote:As far as Genesis 1:2-10 are you so sure about it being about the hydrological cycle?

When I view the words of that question alone, that is, without the statement with which you follow that question, then all I see is a dichotomy, implied, between the propositions that:

...(a) that passage indeed addresses the hydrological cycle.

or

...(b) that passage does not address the hydrological cycle.




Therefore, judging by the total of your post, especially when you say...

abelcainsbrother wrote:are you unwilling to consider something else than just the hydrological cycle?

...the only thing that I can see to conclude as to your part is that, despite that you allow (a), you are unwilling to address (a) in its own right. That is, you seem disinclined to discuss the actual topic of my OP.

In other words, the effect, and aim, of your reply, is one that veers sharply away from the topic of my OP.

So, unless you at least clarify for me, in a second reply, that you really do allow (a), I opt not to reply further to your reply. For, as I said in the OP of the present thread, my aim in the present thread is to stay on topic.

Thank you.


.

DanielPech wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: The bible teaches us there are 3 heavens 2nd Corinthians 12:2 and we know the first heaven is the earth's atmosphere,the second heaven outerspace and the third heaven where God is.So why should we focus only on the first heaven in Genesis 1:2-10?

Your reasoning here presumes things that, in my view, are unnecessary to the basic facts that (1) God created Earth, and (2) Genesis 1 is addressed to that creation act.

And, I notice that, judging by your latter words in your post, you yourself seem to allow that the passage indeed addresses Earth's hydrologic cycle:

abelcainsbrother wrote:yes God set up the hydrological cycle but

Of course, one could simply be admitting the mere fact that God set up the hydrologic cycle, without also allowing that the passage in question actually addresses that cycle. That is, one could reject the idea that that passage addresses the hydrologic cycle at all, even while one admits that God created that cycle. So, one would be interpreting the text, as an account, without regard for what it seems to say, and instead to interpret it to be saying something else. Thus, one would be positing that the ordinary, terrestrial thing which the account seems to address (i.e. the hydrologic cycle) is a thing which oneself does not think that the account, and the account's author, in fact is aimed at addressing.

But, you also say:

abelcainsbrother wrote:As far as Genesis 1:2-10 are you so sure about it being about the hydrological cycle?

When I view the words of that question alone, that is, without the statement with which you follow that question, then all I see is a dichotomy, implied, between the propositions that:

...(a) that passage indeed addresses the hydrological cycle.

or

...(b) that passage does not address the hydrological cycle.




Therefore, judging by the total of your post, especially when you say...

abelcainsbrother wrote:are you unwilling to consider something else than just the hydrological cycle?

...the only thing that I can see to conclude as to your part is that, despite that you allow (a), you are unwilling to address (a) in its own right. That is, you seem disinclined to discuss the actual topic of my OP.

In other words, the effect, and aim, of your reply, is one that veers sharply away from the topic of my OP.

So, unless you at least clarify for me, in a second reply, that you really do allow (a), I opt not to reply further to your reply. For, as I said in the OP of the present thread, my aim in the present thread is to stay on topic.

Thank you.


.

I think it does not include just the hydrological cycle.All I was doing is trying to show you that it applies to more than that as I already explained about three heavens.You seem to believe it only applies to the first heaven and the hydrological cycle and this seems to be the interpretation that seems the most right to you.I was just trying to let you consider another interpretation that might help you have better understanding.It was not meant to cause an argument or offend you.I know that when we are confronted with another understanding that is new to us it can seem wrong at least at first until we consider it to see if there is truth in it.So it probably seems wrong to you,but maybe if you do consider it? You just might gain better understanding.

abelcainsbrother wrote:...I think it does not include just the hydrological cycle. All I was doing is trying to show you that it applies to more than that as I already explained about three heavens. You seem to believe it only applies to the first heaven and the hydrological cycle and this seems to be the interpretation that seems the most right to you. I was just trying to let you consider another interpretation that might help you have better understanding. It was not meant to cause an argument or offend you. I know that when we are confronted with another understanding that is new to us it can seem wrong at least at first until we consider it to see if there is truth in it. So it probably seems wrong to you, but maybe if you do consider it? You just might gain better understanding.

Well said...
-
-
-

Does the planet Mars have Hydrological Cycle?

How about Mercury? Does the Moon?

i.e. the Hebrew concept of water comes from the Letter MEM. It has a meaning deeper than physical H2O. It represented chaos, immensity beside just only meaning of simple H2O of a rapid flowing stream/flood, or well, or calm lake or salt water. There are shades of meaning for water in biblical Hebrew which had aprox only 8,200 words compared to English which has over 300,000 words. Likewise, the same word would be used to express more than one mechanical one size fits all definition.

Apply the representation of letter Mem, which letter is used in the spelling of the Hebrew word water in the Genesis text and you might see something rather different...

Gen 1:6-8, NASB, "Then God said, "Let there be an expanse (firmament), in the midst of the waters (chaos, immensity), and let it separate the waters (immensity) from the waters (chaos)." 7 God made the expanse (firmament - symbolizes order), and separated the waters (immensity) which were below the expanse (firmament) from the waters (chaos) which were above the expanse (firmament) and it was so. 8 God called the expanse (firmament and note it also can symbolize order stability) heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day."

From Heaven comes stability, firmament... to the House God creates.

Now read:

Isa 45:6-8 NASB, I am the LORD, and there is no other....7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. 8 "Drip down, O heavens (note from heaven comes order, stability), from above, And let the clouds pour down righteousness; Let the earth open up and salvation bear fruit, And righteousness spring up with it. I, the LORD, have created it.

You see, the ancient Hebrew way of interpreting the world was not based on the ideas of Western Literalsim and form. It was based on the idea, what makes things functionally good - how does it effect the whole from the part?

YEC position doe not consider this point of view at all but rather the western Greek/Roman western idea of form and rather a black and white literal logic tree for figuring things out.

When you also include the symbol meanings in the text as the Hebrews of old would have read them, you see a different picture emerge describing how God will make all things functionally good from the stability that Heaven brings.

If you don't believe me, then read Revelation 21:1,2,3,4,5

Rest my case...
-
-
-

I edited this into the above post of mine for clarity:

B. W. wrote:...i.e. the Hebrew concept of water comes from the Letter MEM. It has a meaning deeper than physical H2O. It represented chaos, immensity beside just only meaning of simple H2O of a rapid flowing stream/flood, or well, or calm lake or salt water. There are shades of meaning for water in biblical Hebrew which had approx only 8,200 words compared to English which has over 300,000 words. Likewise, the same word would be used to express more than one mechanical one size fits all definition.

The Holman Bible Dictionary mentions that in Genesis creation account use of water: as a symbol of instability before the completion of creation (Gen 1:2).

Hence one goes back to the meaning of the letter Mem to figure out from verse two the meaning of water in verses 6-8.

Hebrew basic spelling of water is: ַמִים in the account various prefix letters are attached to the spelling as well but that is a grammar study not necessary here.

You have the open letter Mem, the letter Yod, and the closed letter Mem. For more on the open and closed letter Mem see this website:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Gramma ... m/mem.html

The letter mem is the letter pictograph of water. Its number value is 40. Its meaning is immensity (like the immensity of a ocean or vastness seen in the night sky, it also means calamity, chaos as how rushing water changes a landscape. It means also denotes calm water that brings life or water in general per context it is found in. It more aptly denotes a time of trial and testing to remove imperfections, like how water is used to cleanse impurities or metals turned to liquid to purify them. The meaning of the letter MEM is also found the Hebrew word for water - mayim.

The Hebrew word for water - mayim uses both the open and closed letter mem, which is important as it helps refine meaning by context it is used in. Genesis 1:1-8 lays the context that nothing existed until God spoke brooding from the immensity - waters - as in some sort of vastness we have no comprehension of.

The bible speaks of this vastness: Isa 48:13; Job 11:7-9, Job 38:4-11; Psa 102:25-26, Psa 104:2-3; Pro 8:26-28, Pro 30:4

It is interesting that the letter Yod is used in the spelling of water in Hebrew. Yod means arm, hand who does work. Its number value is 10 which means words that bring order, responsibility, the testimony of the Law (which was to bring order and stability.

So you have the picture that God will use trials/test to bring the his works/words of truth to make order and stability from out of chaos calamity to bring things to His completion concealed from us at the moment. Isa 45:6,7,8 reveal the same principle.

Why I brought this up is simple that the Torah is a Jewish book and to use only western mindset in interpreting mechanically will cause folks to miss what is being convey that actually attaches to other parts of the bible even before the other parts were even written!

So in Genesis 1:6-8 the context of water should be defined as expressing Immensity and chaos/calamity Babylonian creation myths suggest gods created out of literal saltwater and from pure water, etc from the abzu (great deep). Now the bible warns not to mix paganism with the bible in the Torah and elsewhere. Therefore, one cannot interpret the Genesis account as a creation myth borrowed from Babylonian creation myths.

So to treat the meaning of water as only literal water as in h2o in Genesis 1:1-8 creation account verses, one is accidentally pointing to pagan creation myths without even knowing it. Moses, who took dictation from God on this was inspired to combat the Pagan creation myth of the gods involved in creation (note: the same god's in Egypt who are the same in the Canaanite, Babylonian pantheon as well as Hindu, Greek/Roman, Germanic, Nordic etc and etc albeit all go by different names and variations in the story line. God is setting the record straight). Only He created out of nothing and not from an abzu a deep reserve of h2o water as the pagan stories go.

The Genesis inspired by God account combats this notion by its use of words and letters. This is missed in modern western eyes. In Genesis account God alone creates out of nothing. From the immensity of God himself he created out of nothing and not from an abzu.

From Genesis chapter one, God's acts of creating there came periods of stability (light) and periods of (Instability/chaos/stirring together) darkness - evenings and morning periods.

From the account it appears that God took created elements he made out of nothing forming a vast immensity (waters) of something (elements, atoms as we call them but - who knows?) and again from the division of these, God created a particular domain to live in to establish his order/plans/etc. He separated the elements making stable (expanse/firmament) out of the unstable (waters - elements - unstable or chaos as in stirring them up).

Gen 1:6,7,8 NASB, Then God said, "Let there be an expanse (firmament), in the midst of the waters (chaos, immensity), and let it separate the waters (immensity) from the waters (chaos)." 7 God made the expanse (firmament - symbolizes order), and separated the waters (immensity) which were below the expanse (firmament) from the waters (chaos/instability) which were above the expanse (firmament) and it was so. 8 God called the expanse (firmament) heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

From this - it appears God created his house to reign from first on the second day. However others say this was the earth but if there was nothing when God created, then the earth would not be here yet. Some Bible Commentaries suggest Gen 1:2 could either mean the earth was non-existent or that it once existed. Not my point to split hairs over this but rather show the Hebrew line of thought to explore these verses.

Psa 33:14; Isa 57:15, Isa 66:1 reveals what about God making his habitation?

The picture conveyed in verse 6-8 is that God will bring to completion stability from Heaven and stop the disorder of the testing/refining of creation one day in our future. See Col 1:20 and Rev 21:1,2,3,4

Again - this expresses periods - long periods out of our concept of time to complete. In order to make perfection complete one must first remove the dross. God is revealing this in the creation account as per Isa 42:9 mentions. However, we have too much imperfections still that cloud us from seeing/hearing the ways of God...

Basally, God is revealing something far deeper in the Genesis creation account than mere debate on 24 hour solar days... or if the earth was already here in verse 2 or was actually without form and void of existence meant in verse Gen 1:2.

I suggest to consider the word imagery noted in the use of a language that used approx 8200 words and same words could denote a wide range of meaning to convey truth. From the language and context it appears to me God created out of nothing - something.The earth was not yet formed and God used stages to construct the universe. Light, Darkness, immensity of basic elements, and from these makes his home to rule his order from in the construction of the universe, by blending and mixing the elements he made together.

Suggest you read Genesis 1:1-8 again...

Lastly, I am sharing how the ancient Hebrew mindset thought things through to find out how it works. It is not a linear step by step western form but rather points out that God will bring what is Functionally Good from Heaven to refine and bring stability to make all peaceful and beautiful at his own time in our future so as to reveal:

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure (joy) they are and were created. Rev 4:11 KJV
-
-
-

Now that I confused everyone, let me continue to rock our boat...

Gen 1:9,10 NASB, Then God said, "Let the waters (Immensity) below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters (chaos/rushing together this water). He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

The context shifts and we have literal water created. Again this verse flies in the face of the Egyptian/Babylonian creation stories the ancient Hebrews recently freed from Egyptian slavery would have known. You have the picture of God making his house first to rule order from and then forming earth - look again our translations follows the Hebrew Dry Land appeared and from this God called dry land earth.

Some contend the land was already there, yet, since God created ex-nilho, earth would not have been made, just consider this is all I ask. Indulge me to attempt to show how this functionally works. It kind of sounds like God made the substance, dry land and then from this substance, made the planet earth and then united the Hydrogen and 2 parts Oxygen to form the seas on the planet earth and then uniting life to it ... just saying... not a thus sayeth the Lord but something to consider... After all to some, I am the dimmest of wits in a package of light bulbs.

Gen 1:11-13 NASB, Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

When you realize that the Hebrew language used the same words to have a wide range of uses of meanings to convey a truth per context how that word was used. Water has more meaning then just a literal narrative meaning of H2O in all cases it is used in Genesis 1:1-13, so does dry land, etc and etc...

Here is a brief synopsis for the first three days of creation. Note that Hebrew letters have have meaning and also have a number values. These number values each have meanings too. Each day of creation matches its corresponding numeric meaning as well as the letter meaning, bet some of you did not know this.

Synopsis:

Day one (Aleph): God himself is sole creator, creating out of nothing. He created Light that was good and darkness (disorder). God's Light dispels disorder. God is the sole author of creation and eternity.

Day Two (Bet): God builds a home in the heavens to rule his ordering of light and dankness from first. He divides it from other things because he is Holy, that is part of his nature. He uses elements to divide firmament (stability/order) from what brings (chaos/disorder/stirring things up). God makes a habitation to reside in to carry out his plans/purposes.

Day three (Gimmel): God moves to unite things together forming dry land/earth and uniting other elements to make the seas upon the earth, so life can unite to earth. God's desire/plan is unite all things to his order/rule by removing disorder needed to make all things pure.

Day four (Dalet): God displays his creative workings making all the stars and moons and sun to provide the ability for his creative acts to flourish. He set forth ordered season and times on earth setting forth the pathway of motion of times, paths/courses of the planet/moon. God sets in motion and orders his creative works to follow ordered pathways and the entry way of time as we know it.

Day five (Hey): A revelation of life forms appear on earth and in its seas and rivers lakes, streams, ponds and land. These live by the grace of God and are cared for by the order God set forth from days 1 thru 5. He blesses, so by God's grace life begins in earnest on earth. God gives the revelation of Grace and his judgments stand. On day 5 his judgment was of blessing.

Day six (Vav): God makes more animals and attaches these to man's care whom he also creates. Man walked with God and was in fellowship with God and thus attached to God's order/ways. Man became a caretaker and granted ability to exercise God's order on earth. God Blesses man and woman. The idea of day six is one of man and woman being attached to God them and each other as extensions of God's care taking / tending hands - God's representative governing order on earth.

Day seven (Zaryin): Sabbath Rest. After plowing as in bringing forth and creating the universe, God rest within His creation. The stage is set for perfection to grow forth God's harvest (Matthew 13:37-43) which comes by much refinement as the cycle of light and darkness continues until the crop is ready and the final Sabbath begins when disorder needed for perfection finally ends. Revelation 21:1,2,3,4

The ancient Hebrew line of thought is expressed in Proverbs 25:2, It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. NKJV

God desires a person to search things out.

I hope this helps more than confuses people as it is far different from the usual diatribe of the Creation day debate.

Note, in the Hebrew way of reason, it is not important that Genesis 1:1-13 concerns an existing earth in verse 2 or no earth in verse 2. What is important, is that God created the earth and heavens and that is in them and from his acts of Creation he reveals himself and a small part of his plan to make all things new.

In this way, one draws close to side with the wonder of God while the debate drives people to side with man. In this, dysfunction of human pride is revealed and God's cure for it so needed - himself!

Have a nice day all...
-
-
-

I am trying to covey the old Hebrew way of figuring things out in the bible by using Genesis. This method uncovers things and leads one to rely on the Lord.

So here is the modern western line of thinking on Genesis 1:1-13 painted in the most simplistic of way for space and time sake:

West:

Now God created all things out of nothing, but earth was formed because God hovered over the waters when the earth was without form and void.

However due to verses 3-13, we see that water covered the earth and since the words translated without form and void are rare words not seldom used, we cannot garner if these words mean literally without form or void or the earth was a wasteland. However it must mean the earth was there because the text solely deals with the creation of the earth and there was water mentioned and God hovering over it.

Now if there is water, then the earth was being formed, After all, water, is mentioned in verses 6,7 in overkill fashion and so water was on the earth and God must of made the atmosphere around the earth to keep the water on earth and formed heaven too above the earth. Then God made dry land appear from the waters on the earth, etc and etc.

So Walhalla, I have it all figured out, now, nothing to discuss, after all I am an expert with credentials verifying my superior mind.

To this Hebraic thought would respond with a question:

Yes, God created all things out of nothing but if out of nothing then how could the earth be in any form in verses 2 before verse three when God created Ex nihilo by saying, "Let there be light"?

The westerner would say: Because water is mentioned and water is on earth… so the earth was there without substance on it and nothing formed yet as per verse 1. Now in verses 3-13 we clearly see the progression of God having water on the earth as it helped shape it and dry lad appeared…too...

...that ex nihilo began in verse one and not verse three so that the progression was that God had already created earth

Hebraic would quip:

So the earth was already there before God created all Ex nihilo? How can that be if earth was without form /void?

Western:

Because of it says God hovered over something… and there was water, and this Hebrew this word means this and that word means that… blah balah blah… about verse one and this about verse 2 and three....

Hebraic: ex nihilo is found in verse 3 not verse 2. Then would cite - Job 38:4-11

And say have a nice day… all in hopes the west would ask more questions to uncover a matter rather than dictate an answer as well as that God reveal the man’s pride. A man wise in his own eyes, well, there is more hope for a fool than him. If he is humble, he will ask questions to uncover truth.

If humble, the westerner would ask, "what do you think or I see what you are saying – or how do you handle the water issue, after all, to be true to God on must adhere to the literal (black and white) interpretation so one does not undermine God’s authority. After all Genies creation account is a narrative…"

Hebraic would cite - Job 38:4-11 again to test the westerner true motive for seeking truth. If the westerner is sincere he would discuss how with limited number of approx. 8200 words in the old Jewish vocabulary Moses wrote in, that, the same word was used to illustrate different things per context it is written in defines it.

He would explain the use and spelling of the Hebrew word for water and have the guy begin to see something only God can reveal to him.

Both would discuss a variety of things like: Did the big bang first produce, atoms, sub atomic particles, elements? Would not these things be immense considering the size of the universe? How would God proceed working with these…. To create the earth and then all the celestial bodies mentioned on day four of creation?

From this more discussion where truth is learned from each other so that near the end of the conversation one last comment made to the westerner: Read Genesis chapter one again and tomorrow tell me what you see in a day or two.

Next time they met, they would ask questions and continue to uncover what God concealed and thus uncover the truth and if they need to repent of pride.
-
-
-