Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | When was "In the Beginning" | Gen 1:1 | CDBJ | 17565 | ||
I have long been confused over what the Bible says and what man has found for his evidence as to the length of time that the Earth has been around. I use to spend many days listening to professors expatiate on their theories regarding the age of certain periods of time. Later on, after becoming a Christian, I was subjected to a different concept as to the age of the Earth and it's living matter. I always had a struggle in my mind because there is so much evidence around that shows the Earth to be much older then our theologians are teaching us: Or are they both right? I read a booklet one day that cleared the whole matter up for me with one word in the Hebrew that can be translated several ways. It was stated by this individual, who happens to have a master's degree in the Hebrew language, that the word (was) in Genesis 1:2 could and should be translated (became). He spent the rest of the book explaining creation in it's proper prospective and it all made sense with what my geology professors taught. What man has found actually backs up what the Bible teaches. If you would like you can contact me by e-mail, and I will tell you where you can get a copy of the booklet. I am not going to try and explain a whole booklet on a forum though. CDBJ | ||||||
2 | When was "In the Beginning" | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 17576 | ||
Dear CDBJ: From your description of the "discovery" by the man, who just happened to have his master's degree in the Hebrew language, that the word "hayetah" in Geneis 1:2 should be translated "became" and not "was" is the darling of the proponents of the "Gap Theory." Therefore, according to this translation, Genesis 1:1 describes an original creation of God (Job 38:6; John 1:3; Hebrews 11:3), and Genesis 1:2 explains that the earth "became" chaos. Verse 2 is interpreted negatively as a description of the earth under judgment (cf. Is.24:11; 34:11; 45:18; Jeremiah 4:24-26), a state resulting in the expulsion of Satan from heaven (Is.14:12-17; Ezek.28:11-19; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6.) There is therefore inherent in this theory an indeterminate gap of time between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1 which, so argue the proponents, could account for the assumed older age of the earth than might otherwise be the case. Thus the following account in verses 3-31 of the six days of creation become in essence not the creation, but the re-creation, of the chaotic earth...... The traditional view, the one that I hold, is that the Hebrew verb "hayetah" in this context means, and should be translated, "was". The traditional view does not answer our every question about the when or how of God's creation. No view does or ever will. But it does not require of us, as the Gap Theory does, to postulate a broad spectrum of speculative assumptions to make it plausible and workable. The Gap Theory raises far more questions than it proposes to answer. Proponents of the Gap Theory have, in my estimation, fallen prey, perhaps unwittingly, to the pragmatism that characterizes naturalism. Naturalism seeks to explain, in human terms, the origins and causes of all things. It does not allow for the supernatural acts of the transcendent God. When we attempt to superimpose man's wisdom on the wisdom of the Creator we fail every single time. In no other way is man's foolishness so clearly shown than when he presumes to know the mind of God to such an extent that he thinks he has it all figured out about how and why God does what He does..... I happen to believe that God did His creative work in six days, each of which contained 24 hours. Others believe that the "days" were symbolic of vast time periods. I've been asked, "But don't you think God COULD have chosen an evolutionary process in His creation?" My answer is always "yes" -- yes He COULD have done that -- and "yes" He COULD have done, and can do still, anything and everything He pleases. But we can know, and know only, what He says in His word that He actually did. He tells us clearly that He created man from the dust of the earth and fashioned him in His own image. He makes no suggestion whatever that He prevailed upon either primordial ooze or evolution to effect His creative acts. Evolution is not science; Darwinian evolution is now being debunked by vast numbers of members of the scientific community. Evolution is a theory, but it is more than that; it is, in fact, a religion. A religion of naturalism designed to explain away any idea of the supernatural power of, or even the existence of, a Supreme Being..... God's word does not lend credence to any evolutionary theory or to any Gap Theory or make either necessary. The Almighty God whose power is so incomprehensibly immense that He can speak an entire universe into existence really doesn't need our weak theories to explain it. --Hank | ||||||
3 | When was "In the Beginning" | Gen 1:1 | CDBJ | 17640 | ||
Very interesting, comments you made about a booklet that you have never look at, yet you supposedly new all about it and what it must have said along with the theory that the writer must have employed just by the use of one word: You must be clairvoyant or something. I think you are wasting your time on a forum with all us dummies. With your psychic powers of understanding it's probably boring, giving out perfect counseling every day at the New York Stock exchange. You probably made so much in the market this year that you don't have anything better to do but to sit around and pass judgment on the books that you've never even looked at. What with the capitol gains being what they are and all! You did end your speech with a bit of a shocker though. And that is this, that God can speak an entire universe into existence and really doesn't need our weak theories to explain it. The shock was that you say that your theories are weak as well as the rest, or was that a misprint. I got a lot from your thread but I don't want to discuss it with you because you already know what I am Thinking. CDBJ |
||||||
4 | When was "In the Beginning" | Gen 1:1 | charis | 17641 | ||
Dear CDBJ, Peace to you friend, in Jesus' name! Our colleague Hank has proven himself to be insightful, discerning, and even clairvoyant (look it up in the dictionary) in the past. I do not believe he was being judgmental or rude to you or this author, merely making some general observations. If he was wrong, then give us a short understanding of this pamplet, but please refrain from castigating an honored fellow. He deserves better treatment than that! I tend to agree with Hank that those who claim a special understanding of something that is not made evident by God is probably fringe at best. (Just a general statement :-)) Blessings in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
5 | When was "In the Beginning" | Gen 1:1 | CDBJ | 17686 | ||
I would like to take this time to offer an apology to Hank for my sudden out burst of anger the other day. I made some snide remarks that were not in keeping with the way that a believer in Christ should treat anyone much less another believer. God's Word says that pride comes before a fall; and I think that one of the things that Satan tries to do, is to neutralize us in our testimony. Hank, I am very sorry about what I said the other day and I hope that what I said will not deter you from responding in the future: I was wrong in my response please accept my apology. CDBJ | ||||||
6 | When was "In the Beginning" | Gen 1:1 | charis | 17990 | ||
Dear CDBJ, Sorry to be late in saying this, but... Well said, sir! In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||