[_ Old Earth _] Gen 1:2--What in the World!

[Barth Jones]

To my astonishment, a member here has brought to my attention a discovery of enormous proportion. What in the world does Gen 1:2 really mean?

I've always just kind of, "ehh, don't really understand this, I'm sure I will later, move on." But, actually, I think Christians really need to nail this before we can argue for a young or old earth.

I know the temptation for some is to say, "there's no way to determine the age of earth from Scripture." And others will stick to what they've been saying because that's human nature. But the fact is that the schools are teaching children that science proves that human beings evolved from some kind of chaos, to some kind of cell, to some kind of worm, to some kind of ape, to man. That, I think most of us here know to be false. And I think most of us realize how crucial this confusion is to the youngest generations of kids.

And now I'm beginning to feel that the crux of the confusion is that we don't understand or can't make sense of Gen1:2.

So, let's begin by asking,

1) Is it "was," or "became?"
2) What's "the deep?"
3) What's "the waters?"

 

[Barbarian]

To my astonishment, a member here has brought to my attention a discovery of enormous proportion. What in the world does Gen 1:2 really mean?

It's about God and man and our relationship. It's not about:

• The age of the Earth
• How long God took to make everything else
• A worldwide flood
• etc.

I've always just kind of, "ehh, don't really understand this, I'm sure I will later, move on." But, actually, I think Christians really need to nail this before we can argue for a young or old earth.

If you want to know how old the Earth is, you'll have to go check the evidence, because God isn't telling you in Genesis.

I know the temptation for some is to say, "there's no way to determine the age of earth from Scripture." And others will stick to what they've been saying because that's human nature. But the fact is that the schools are teaching children that science proves that human beings evolved from some kind of chaos, to some kind of cell, to some kind of worm, to some kind of ape, to man.

No. EDITED... Address issues/ideas, not persons or personalities.

Some things, God left for us to find out for ourselves. Trying to rework scripture to answer those questions is not a very good idea.

 

[agua.]

1) Is it "was," or "became?"

Either I don't think it makes a difference really.

2) What's "the deep?"

Sounds like the water was deep to me.

3) What's "the waters?"

I'm guessing H2O

 

[MarkT]

The Bible tells us the early universe was water. The earth was without form and darkness was on the face of the deep. Then the earth was formed. At this point it was a ball of water. Then God created a firmament to separate the waters from the waters. Consider the meaning of the word 'firmament'. It is a ceiling separating one floor from another. The floor of one apartment, for example, is the ceiling of the apartment below it. So look at the physical evidence. If there was a floor separating the waters from the waters, we should see it. And we do.

We see the continents, the shape of the continents, the way the continents fit together. Science talks about drift, but there is a better explanation. We see the continental shelf under 120 meters of water. We see how the crust drops off abruptly.

So consider this. The ancient seas were no more than 120 meters deep. The sea floor separated the waters above the floor from the waters below the floor. You can call it a firmament. You can call it a crust, a thin crust separating the waters above from the waters below.

The waters below the floor were deep, even miles deep. When the waters from below the floor came to the surface, the entire earth was flooded for a 150 days until the earth's crust could not support the weight of the waters which were now above the crust.

Then the ancient sea floor collapsed under the added weight of the water that had come from below the sea floor. Therefore the ancient sea floor, the crust between the Americas and the continents of Europe/Africa fell into the deep displacing the waters and creating the North and South Atlantic oceans.

There would have been immediate run off as water fell into the deep once again and dry land appeared.

That's my theory so far. You might also think there was land between the continents, not just a sea, or maybe there was one big continent with seas where the continental shelf is evident.

 

[Barbarian]

The Bible tells us the early universe was water.

Hydrogen, actually. Still mostly is. Genesis enters a long time after the initial creation, at the time the Earth had formed. It was also a long time before the planet cooled to the point that seas formed.

The "firmament" was what the Hebrews conceived as the vault of the heavens, a sort of dome over the flat earth. The Hebrew word, "raqua" originally referred to an expanse like a sheet of hammered brass. As in the flood story, it refers to a solid ceiling over the Earth, with windows in it, to let water fall from the firmament to the Earth.

We see the continents, the shape of the continents, the way the continents fit together. Science talks about drift, but there is a better explanation.

The movement of continents is a demonstrable fact. Not only did it leave abundant evidence, it is still going on at a measurable rate.

We see the continental shelf under 120 meters of water. We see how the crust drops off abruptly.

This process is continuing, also. We see, for example, the same rifting that make the continental boundaries, in the Great Rift Valley in Africa. It is slowly splitting the Continent, and will eventually produce a new ocean, with continental shelves, and margins.

So consider this. The ancient seas were no more than 120 meters deep.

That seems contrary to the evidence, and certainly not in scripture. Why do you believe so?

The sea floor separated the waters above the floor from the waters below the floor. You can call it a firmament. You can call it a crust, a thin crust separating the waters above from the waters below.

The firmament was above us, in the sky, if you accept the Biblical account.

 

[Pizza]

But the fact is that the schools are teaching children.....

If you don't like what schools are teaching, why are your kids in public schools?

And if your kids are not being taught what the Bible says - why are they NOT in church?



I have never seen a conflict between science and religion. I was educated in public schools in the 60's and 70's and got my science from school, along with math, social studies, history, etc.
I got my knowledge of God and His word in church and by reading the Bible on my own. If the science teacher wants to tell me that mankind evolved from apes, fine. But I have NEVER believed that, just like I don't really believe that a lizard evolved into a bird that can fly.

On the other hand, I was taught in Sunday school that the earth was 6,000 years old and that God made everything in a week - I don't believe that, either, because the Bible does not say that.
The Bible gives me a cryptic account of creation that is cloaked in mystery and unusual terminology. It tells me that GOD DID IT, but it does not go into detail to tell me HOW He did it. As I learn (I'm enrolled in a degree program: Math Major and Physics minor), I realize that there is no way God could explain in ANY one book how He did it all! And He owes me NO explanation, either.

 

[TOG]

1) Is it "was," or "became?"

Either I don't think it makes a difference really.

I think it does matter. "Was" implies that God created the earth "without form and void", but "became" implies that something changed after God created it. The latter translation is insisted upon by people who believe the "gap theory", which says that millions or even billions of years could have elapsed between the first two verses of Genesis and that dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures lived in that period, and that the rest of the first chapter describes a "re-creation" in 6 literal days. Some even say that there were many previous creations. I don't understand Hebrew, but I once asked a man who did and he said that it's "was".

The TOG​

 

[agua.]

I think it does matter. "Was" implies that God created the earth "without form and void", but "became" implies that something changed after God created it. The latter translation is insisted upon by people who believe the "gap theory", which says that millions or even billions of years could have elapsed between the first two verses of Genesis and that dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures lived in that period, and that the rest of the first chapter describes a "re-creation" in 6 literal days. Some even say that there were many previous creations. I don't understand Hebrew, but I once asked a man who did and he said that it's "was".

The TOG​

Yeah that's true TOG it does matter to some people.

 

[Barth Jones]

Let's just see who's telling the truth here. Who says Jesus is Lord? I say, "Jesus is Lord!"

 

[Barth Jones]

Like

The Bible tells us the early universe was water. The earth was without form and darkness was on the face of the deep. Then the earth was formed. At this point it was a ball of water. Then God created a firmament to separate the waters from the waters. Consider the meaning of the word 'firmament'. It is a ceiling separating one floor from another. The floor of one apartment, for example, is the ceiling of the apartment below it. So look at the physical evidence. If there was a floor separating the waters from the waters, we should see it. And we do.

We see the continents, the shape of the continents, the way the continents fit together. Science talks about drift, but there is a better explanation. We see the continental shelf under 120 meters of water. We see how the crust drops off abruptly.

So consider this. The ancient seas were no more than 120 meters deep. The sea floor separated the waters above the floor from the waters below the floor. You can call it a firmament. You can call it a crust, a thin crust separating the waters above from the waters below.

The waters below the floor were deep, even miles deep. When the waters from below the floor came to the surface, the entire earth was flooded for a 150 days until the earth's crust could not support the weight of the waters which were now above the crust.

Then the ancient sea floor collapsed under the added weight of the water that had come from below the sea floor. Therefore the ancient sea floor, the crust between the Americas and the continents of Europe/Africa fell into the deep displacing the waters and creating the North and South Atlantic oceans.

There would have been immediate run off as water fell into the deep once again and dry land appeared.

That's my theory so far. You might also think there was land between the continents, not just a sea, or maybe there was one big continent with seas where the continental shelf is evident.

Like

 

[Barth Jones]

I think it does matter. "Was" implies that God created the earth "without form and void", but "became" implies that something changed after God created it. The latter translation is insisted upon by people who believe the "gap theory", which says that millions or even billions of years could have elapsed between the first two verses of Genesis and that dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures lived in that period, and that the rest of the first chapter describes a "re-creation" in 6 literal days. Some even say that there were many previous creations. I don't understand Hebrew, but I once asked a man who did and he said that it's "was".

The TOG​

Like

 

[Vaccine]

Let's just see who's telling the truth here. Who says Jesus is Lord? I say, "Jesus is Lord!"

I'm with ya'
Jesus is lord!

 

[Barbarian]

Jesus is indeed Lord. And evolution is one of His ways of creating things.

There is no conflict between God and His creation.

 

[Barth Jones]

Jesus is indeed Lord. And evolution is one of His ways of creating things.

There is no conflict between God and His creation.

Good. Moving on to error--"evolution:"

Defined? In terms of:

1) kinds (in the dynamics as used by Moses)

2) species following kinds (before speciation and following)

3) man's role in all this (in terms of Gen 1:26-28, microscopes, telescopes, etc)

 

[Barbarian]

Change in allele frequency in populations over time.

 

[TOG]

Change in allele frequency in populations over time.

That's just a fancy sounding way of saying "things change". Not much of a theory if you ask me. My brother has a PhD in biophysics and is a staunch evolutionists. We have talked about evolution hundreds of times, and he has never once tried to separate evolution and common descent into to different theories. I also know many other evolutionists, some of whom are scientists and some of whom aren't, and you are the only one I've ever seen that tries to separate these theories. Everyone else I've ever talked to says one of them can't exist without the other. Evolution without common descent is just "things change". Common descent without evolution can't explain how different species descended from a common ancestor. The two theories are inseparable. If you believe one can survive without the other, please explain how.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian explains what evolution is, in biology:
Change in allele frequency in populations over time.

That's just a fancy sounding way of saying "things change".

No. It's a very straightforward, albeit technical definition. Alleles are varieties of genes. Allele frequency is the distribution of different alleles. A population is an interbreeding group of organisms.

Precise and direct.

Not much of a theory if you ask me.

The basis of modern biology. And it turns out to be right. Dozens of predictions of the theory have since been confirmed.

My brother has a PhD in biophysics and is a staunch evolutionists. We have talked about evolution hundreds of times, and he has never once tried to separate evolution and common descent into to different theories.

Non-biologists often conflate the two. Common descent is a phenomenon, which is not the same as evolution, although it is caused by evolution. Evolutionary theory is the way we explain the phenomenon.

I also know many other evolutionists, some of whom are scientists and some of whom aren't, and you are the only one I've ever seen that tries to separate these theories.

Common descent isn't a theory. It's a prediction of the theory. Why not go look up the four basic points of evolutionary theory and see?

Everyone else I've ever talked to says one of them can't exist without the other.

Of course it can. Pretend for a moment there's no genetic evidence, we haven't found many fossils, and the only transitionals alive are those between familes or lower. In that case, evolution would be a fact, but we'd have no reason to believe that common descent was a fact. The "Baraminologists" tried to construct a consistent theory in which organisms evolved, but from separately created "kinds", with each original kind appearing on its own, with no common descent.

This would be consistent with Darwin's theory, but not with the evidence I mentioned above. So yes, common descent is not a necessary part of evolutionary theory. It's observably true, based on that evidence I mentioned.

Evolution without common descent is just "things change".

Nope. "Baraminologists" accept natural selection, changes in alleles, and all the rest. Just not common descent.

Common descent without evolution can't explain how different species descended from a common ancestor.

According to the Institute for Creation Research, that's wrong. They endorsed John Woodmorappe's Ark Feasibility Study, in which he claims that all "cat kind" descended from a common ancestor, but he denies common descent of all living things.

The two theories are inseparable.

As you see, common descent isn't even a theory.

 

[Barth Jones]

I'll try to get through that manana--that's Spanish for tomorrow (hehe!). I do want to address or requalify the question. Ken Ham scored big points in the debate in my own firm opinion, when he explained the difference between the several thousand "kinds," which Moses speaks of, and and the millions/+ "species" that we know exist today.

I looked briefly at the Genesis account (sic) earlier today, and I do believe that man is the one living being on earth whom God created to reproduce--not--after their "kinds."

In other words, several thousand kinds-dog=1 kind, including however many breeds have evolved, either by technology or by nature. We understand there is speciation with beasts, at least where man has cultivated various breeds. I admit I'm ignorant of the technical definition of speciation, but for now Ham's distinction from Moses' kinds will suffice for me. The way I see it is that breeds=species.

 

[Barbarian]

So are foxes also "dog kind?" How about hyenas? And how do you decide?

No one seems to know how to do that. Because no matter where you draw the line, things don't fit.

 

[TOG]

Non-biologists often conflate the two.

Did you miss the part where I said he had a PhD in biophysics? He can hardly be called a "non-biologist".

As you see, common descent isn't even a theory.

You referred to it as a theory in another thread. You said it was a different theory than evolution. But this doesn't surprise me. You've already admitted that, to support evolution, you have to have to be able to change the definition of the most basic terms used in the theory. It doesn't surprise me that you claim that things are theories or not theories depending on what suits you. I had a conversation with a coworker the other day about evolution. We were sitting at a round table in the break room and next to us was a rectangular table. I suggested a theory and asked him what he thought of it.

TOG: What would you say if I proposed the theory that all tables are circular?
Coworker: I would point to that table and say you're wrong.
TOG: Some circles have straighter edges than other circles.​

I didn't have to say any more. He understood what I meant. But for the benefit of anyone here who doesn't get it, I'll explain. The theory that all tables are circular is obviously wrong, but how can you prove that it's wrong if I get to define what a circle is and change that definition whenever it suits my theory? It would be impossible. If you pointed to a square table, I would just say that a circle is a shape with 4 sides of equal length. If you pointed to a rectangular table, I would say that a circle is a shape with 4 corners, all of which are right angles. If you pointed to an oval table, I would simply say that a circle is any shape that doesn't have any corners. If I'm allowed to define the terms at will, there's no way of disproving the theory, even though you know for a fact that it is wrong. The very fact that evolutionists have to resort to this type of tactic and change the meaning of "species" whenever it suits them, and change which things are theories and which aren't, tells me there's something seriously wrong with the theory.

The TOG​