Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Creation and Restoration of the Earth | Bible general Archive 4 | EdB | 235378 | ||
You may disagree but all you present is strawman arguments that are only seen to exist to those that want to believe in the Gap theory and Pre Adamic world. Had the Genesis account stopped with Genesis 1:2 there would be a problem in light of so many other scriptures that says God created earth to be inhabited. But the Genesis account doesn't stop at Genesis 1:2 nor is there any indication of a time gap between verse 1 and verse 2. Genesis is an account of the creation of the world. When God gave the account of how He brought the world together from nothing he did so in stages first the initial formation and then enhancements that were made to make the world we know. Verse 1:1 is the big picture, verses Genesis 1:2-chapter 2:7 is a more detailed summary and Genesis 2:8 and on gives a more detailed account. Notice the comment in verse 2:5 and 6 it says God had not made it rain on earth and a mist came up from the ground to water the land. Then move forward to Noah’s flood account, to accomplish what God did there God made the water spew from both the ground and made a down pour rain. Verse 5and 6 said rain never occurred before on the earth. The 2 Peter account can only be the Flood of Noah, as it details two events pertinent to the reader, Noah’s flood and the final destruction of the Earth by fire. There is no mention of the previous flood and if you insist the flood mentioned is the Pre Adamic flood then the account leaves out the most significant flood to the readers, the Noah flood and that I think you have to agree is unlikely. As far as the testimony of Isaiah and Jeremiah both pertain to the present world as that is the only thing that interests the reader. A pre Adamic world would hold like interest to people at the time of it writing. As for Psalms 104:1-10 is the creation story reaffirmed. There is not conflict with it and the Genesis account of creation. There is nothing to suggest a Pre Noah flood nor is anything that suggest that if there was a pre Adamic flood did exist (which it didn’t) that, that flood or Katabola, as you seem to like to call it, was a far worst flood than Noah’s which killed all of humanity except Noah and his family. |
||||||
2 | Creation and Restoration of the Earth | Bible general Archive 4 | escar.smith@yahoo.com | 235390 | ||
Well here is some more strawmans what ever that is, advice you stated this is Noahs flood this flood (v.7,8) happened in this Earth age (2 Peter 3: 5 The First earth age. For this they willingly are ignorant of,by the word of God the heavens were of old,(UNDER LINE THAT WORD IGNORANT GOD'S WORD) and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:v.6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:(To destroy fully) (witness 1 GEN.1:2)( WITNESS 2) (ISA.45:18,19) God does not create any thing void.(WITNESS 3 JER.4:19-27) And again this has not a thing to do with Noahs flood, Noahs flood is several thousand years in the future From this time period, and Noah did not I repeat did not completely destroy the earth, the katabole did. Now Rev.12:4 You say this is in the future in v. 7,8 Michael and his angels boots Satan and his angels out of heaven to earth, and v.9 gives all Satan rolls he plays from the first earth age to the sixth trump in the future, his last roll he will play as the Antichrist and I don't believe it says any thing about a third of God's children being drawn away in stead I do believe he deceives the whole world thinking that he is the true Christ except those with the seal of God in their foreheads ( the truth). Now lets get back to the name calling , I could care less whether or not you believe any thing I say, seems like you have a problem believing what God WORD SAYS. From now on if I send in a question if you disagree with it fine other wise keep your sly remarks to your self, get your facts from GOD'S WORD, IF THERES ANY NAME CALLING I AM SURE HE WILL DO IT. JUST A THOUGHT GOD BLESS. | ||||||
3 | Creation and Restoration of the Earth | Bible general Archive 4 | EdB | 235392 | ||
First the word Katabole means to lay down a foundation. Not a flood so I don't know why you keep calling the flood a Katabole. Now the foundation of the earth was apparently laid and the ground was drawn from the waters to form dry land. Why is that so mysterious? Not God didn't create vain place, he prepared a perfect world for us to dwell in and Genesis 1:1-7 gives an overview of the stages that occured to accomplish that. 2 Peter 3:4-7 (NKJV) 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. Where is this talking of a two floods? It doesn't mention two floods yet you suggest that this passage simply ignores the Noah's Flood the one that destroyed all of mankind except Noah and his family and is talking of the Flood that is never mentioned anywhere else in scripture. God said we must have two or three witnesses for a verdict. Noah's flood and many times that number. Can you show me one other witness to this flood? As to name calling what name did I call you? I don't recall calling you any name and I reread my last post and I don't see any name calling. Please explain so I can correct myself if I did, it was never my intention to call anyone a name. If you are referring to my use of the term Strawman which I think you might be. I wasn't calling you that I was saying you were using strawman arguments which is commonly understood to mean your arguments are based on very weak implications being used to support ones position. |
||||||