[_ Old Earth _] Except that it didn't...

[Free]

Well, FREE, the way I came to believe that about creation (i.e. recreation) is by looking to the future prophecied in the bible mirrors what happened in the past, and the past mirrors the future. The bible is a coded book rich with ideas and symbolism regarding the events throughout the ages. There's a repetitious pattern foreshadowing the next age. It is often said (insightfully BTW) that Revelation is Genesis in reverse.

In some ways perhaps but not in others. There has only ever been one creation, if we want to actually consider what the Bible teaches, and there will be one fulfilment of God's purpose for creation. To say more than that is to go beyond Scripture.

But if we miss the biblical thought and patterns in prophecy, then subjects like this become 'stand alone' without an apparent relation to the rest of God's plan. This is to say, He just decided to create things this way, sort of forgotten about it and then moved on. No. Instead this 'creation' has everything to do with the end as well.

Of course it's all tied together, I haven't suggested otherwise.

To be more specific, the reason for the "waste and desolation" and subsequent "recreation" is because Lucifer was originally given authority over this earth, messed up, so then God decided to create a being in his image to take over. This was meant to begin with, but until then Lucifer had control. Likewise, man in his fallen state had dominion, but as with Lucifer it has to be destroyed again and a new heaven and earth. So unless that prophetic pattern is seen, then a person will say (as you did) that "there certainly is no reason to then posit that the Genesis account is some sort of recreation. To do so opens the door to an endless cycle of creation/recreation." No, not endless, but perhaps a few times until things are right. The bible tells us how many times, and why.

This is completely unbiblical. There is no support for such beliefs.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Yeah, Free, you just don't get the full bible story at all. Sorry. I can't help that.

 

[Knotical]

Yeah, Free, you just don't get the full bible story at all. Sorry. I can't help that.

Do you have biblical proof for your assertion that Free is basically rebuking?

 

[tim-from-pa]

Do you have biblical proof for your assertion that Free is basically rebuking?

Which assertion? I think you mean the one about Satan having control over this earth (actually he still does due to sin where man lost it and sold out to him, and the bible calls Satan the god of this world). Ezekiel 28 answers that one. How about the "waste and desolation" part? That is from the Hebrew where it usage connotes chaos and judgement. Judgement of what? Adam was not here yet. Again, Ezekiel 28. (Also Isaiah 14).

God would not create an earth "without form and void". It became that way.

Everything I'm saying gets into pre-Adamic doctrine. This makes a lot of what they find in the ages old earth take place before Adam, and does not restrict the earth or universe to 6000 years amply disproved by science and a little logic.

 

[Barbarian]

Tim, do you think Newton was an Arian Christian? Your analysis seems to go with some of Newton's theology.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Tim, do you think Newton was an Arian Christian? Your analysis seems to go with some of Newton's theology.

From what I know about him I would not call him that, as he believed Christ was divine, but not equal to that of the Father. He was non-Trinitarian as I am too (I once was a Trinitarian but changed my thinking on that). But I do know that Newton considered worship of Christ in the same manner as that of the Father as a form of idolatry. However, he did see Christ as Lord, and intermediary.

My take is that God is a family and YHWH the name (like a surname) and the Spirit is his force or energy as God is a Spirit. For the time being, that's Bi-Unity (John 1:1) something that Newton believed a little differently. I believe the rest of us will become part of God's family and divine later. An interesting side note here is that God spoke (his Word) and things came into existence. But the Word is Christ, who is the Creator of all. So that means there's one greater! So God "Christ-ed" and everything came into being. Imagine that! God's the only one that his Word becomes substance, and an actual Being part of Himself.

Newton also did not believe in demons or Satan choosing instead to let man take responsibility for his own actions (as opposed to 'the devil made me do it' as we'd say today). I disagree there in that Satan and the 1/3 of angels can be spirit beings just as we are created beings, and just like there is an animal kingdom and all forms of life, etc etc. While we can be influenced, this does not mean that we are not accountable for our actions. So to take on responsibility for our actions does not mean we have to deny the existence of Satan and angels just so that is the case.

 

[jasonc]

Sure. Do you know that we also breath air?



How does this relate to the Genesis account where "morning and evening" are used to describe a day when there is no sun to denote morning and evening? It seems like you are avoiding this issue, but maybe I'm just not getting all your complicated explanations about what Hebrew words are supposed to mean. Are you suggesting the KJV (which I'm using) somehow missed the point? It's really unclear what point you are trying to make.



It sounds like you are suggesting the accounts of creation and endtime cannot be consistent. No wonder your answers have been confusing and inconsistent so far.



No, I'm suggesting that your understanding could be flawed. I've made that pretty clear several times now and given examples.



The words "morning and evening" are only relevant in the context of sun rise and sun set. I'm open to an alternative interpretation here, but I don't think you've provided any reasonable alternative, so we're still in a situation where the Bible uses language (words which are important, remember) which does not appear to be consistent (i.e. morning and evening with no sun). I'm not suggesting the Biblical account is wrong, but that our understanding of what is being communicated could be wrong.

uhm basic language says per most Hebrew scholars. the ones that disagree often don't even believe that exodus nor genesis are even real events. funny you would have to interpret this then like that

for in six days god created the heavens and the earth as being the first day as being when the sun was made. so its should be on the fourth day god rested. Hebrew scholars do teach. and going to the Hebrew not the English rendering of the Masoretic text, I can post what the jewish translated one says in kjv English as well. I have a tanach that is rendered in kjv English. what day is the shabat practiced? day four or day seven? the week being seven days has what connonation to it? worship and thanks for the work and provision given by god. does the number 4 line up with that?