Featured ? - Gen 1:31

Hebrews 1:10 explicitly refers to Genesis 1:1-2.

 

Yes. It proves my case, and doesn't help yours. If it did you would have made an argument from it by now.

 

Sir, you have shown that God's very good purpose included arranging for the fall, by evading the question. Please do not waste my time with your false charges, even a dog knows when it is being kicked.

 

"arranging for the fall...." Bingo!

Isn't it interesting that you're so opposed to a simple straightforward reading of Genesis, you're willing to embrace fatalism.

For the record, no, I do not believe God arranged the fall. It was not cause by the existence of the tree, but rather the choice of an individual. I also believe that the freedom God gave Adam was very good.

 

The foundation of the earth was laid in the beginning not in the third day. Hebrews 1:10, ". . . in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; . . ." Genesis 1:1-2.

I wrongly assumed you read the text.

 

Ah, finally got you to voice the actual argument. Now you're in trouble.

The word beginning in Gen. 1:1 is re’shiyth. As Sailhamer pointed out (to the detriment of his view) re’shiyth can refer to a beginning period, rather than just a beginning point. He gives many examples of this in the OT (Jehoiakim’s beginning-Jer. 26, and Zedekiah’s beginning-Jer. 27-28), and he is correct.

Thus day 3 is included in the beginning period. Context bears this out as well as day 3 falls between the two heaven and earth merisms from 1:1 to 2:1. No question at all the six days represent the beginning the author of Hebrews is referring to. He is not referring to some pre-six day period.

 

I do not trust your interpretation.

My interpretation states that God started creation on the first day.

Your interpretation states that God started creation 12 hours before the first day.

Your interpretation says Moses and Israel were wrong.

My interpretation says they knew and understood God completely.

 

Ah! This is a view that is based on the conflating the terms morning and day, and also evening and night. It's actually caused by an interpretation on your part. A bad one.

I forgot who is famous for making this argument, but it's based on a simple misunderstanding of the terms evening and morning. The irony is, it's even wrong in today's understanding of these terms.

Evening is a not a 12 hour period, nor is morning. Evening is a term that merely marks the close of a day (dusk). While morning is simply a term that marks the end of the night (dawn).

These are the twilight transition periods where the day begins to fade, and the darkness begins to break. They are not synonyms for day and night.

Bottom line, words matter. You need to know what they mean.

And here's a bonus verse to chew on.

Matt. 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.​

Hmmmm.

 

Ok you are wrong. Hebrews 1:10, John 1:1-3, Genesis 1:1-2.

 

Keep dreaming. Your own proof-texts prove me right.

 

Psalms 102:25, ". . . Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: . . ." Hebrews 1:10, ". . . in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; . . ." John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, . . ."

 

Further proves my case. Thank you. The beginning! re’shiyth! The word that defeats all gap theories and shuts the mouth of advocates.

 

So in your limited fallen state of the twilight zone, you have declared yourself smarter and more knowledgeable than God. Hmm Satan?

God declares it so, and you and all other humans interpret it wrong. Yes there was a perfect 12 hours of darkness that God called night, and it started at 6pm that God calls evening. Then there was a perfect 12 hours of light called day, that started at 6am, that God called morning. It was perfect, and God called it perfect and set the names perfectly. Only fallen humans can get it wrong and argue about interpretations from experiences in a not perfect world with twilight zones.

 

Says the guy who doesn't even know the meaning of morning and evening. Nice try. You have no more arguments. Lament all you want. Genesis is true history, men are liars.

 

No, let God be true, and every man a liar.

Yes Genesis is true history, and God defines the terms, not a man made dictionary.

 

LOL! Lexicon, timmy. Buy one. You have more theological hangups than dry-cleaner.

 

Perhaps theology is the hang up of mankind? Hope the noose does not tighten until the head needs to come off, instead of the mark coming out.

 

Hmmm. Theology—the study of God. All that words and bible stuff. Yeah, you don't need it. Don't think, feel!

 

Only thing it proves you think your point of view is not an interpretation. I think you are intellectually dishonest, and the sad part is you do not know you are. I would be fine with an interpretation the the foundation of the earth was caused on the third day, but you are so arrogant you actually said it was not an interpertation. So I gave you an interpretation the foundation of the earth was before the first day. And you simple want to disallow it. Ok.

 

Says the guy that just had his pet argument crushed.