NT six literal days

[BobRyan]

You just keep hittin' that wall don't ya :laugh:.

OF COURSE HE DID BOTH. How many times can I say that and then you accuse me of not believing it. He did both. That's my WHOLE point. And that DESTROYS your idea. BOTH means two different things. But your argument is made and create are the same thing, but the text says they are different.

Gen 2:1-4 SHOWS that in that SAME 7 day window ALL things mentioned in Gen 1-2 as being INSIDE that 7 day window were both MADE and Created.

So which of the things LISTED in Gen 1-2:4 as being MADE in 7 days are you "claiming" were not CREATED in that 7 days???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It's not applied to creation per se, but rather to God's current work. God said He is working six days again and will rest on the seventh.

So NOT tied to creation - NOT tied to creation week - NOT tied to the MAKING of ALL life on earth - you say that "someplace" God says HE is NOW working AGAIN for SIX days engaged in "not creating " and "not making"???

Try a Bible quote.

So if He's working six days there is only one of two things that can mean. Either one His work is finished and it would be nice to know what He finished creating the second time. But this is impossible, because He wouldn't want to remind Israel of something He's already done. The Sabbath was and still is pointing to the future. That time of rest has not come yet. God is still working.

That is pretty good story telling -- but given that you are using NO TEXT at all it is easy see how you seem to have complete freedom to spin it any way you please.

So we see that it is not a literal 24-hour day this time.

Are we "seeing that from some TEXT???" or is your story telling supposed to be "showing us something"???

Peter gives us a time line as to God's new work. Each day is equated to 1,000 years. God has been and will continue to work for six days (6,000 years) and He will rest on the seventh-day (1,000-year kingdom of Christ - that is the coming Sabbath).

Peter says NOTHING about a new week -
Peter says NOTHING about "God working for another six days"
Peter says NOTHING about "the new timeline is that we have 1000 real years for every day of God's new week and God is still working through it"

NONE of that is scripture - all of it is your "story telling" so far..

Does it ever end??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK

One cannot escape the truths taught in Exodus 20, nor in the rest of the Bible. All throughout the Bible the Sabbath is referred to as a 24 hour day. God is a God of order, not chaos. It is only logical if the Sabbath Day was 24 hours, so were all the other days. They are all defined the same way: "the morning and the evening were the ___day." When that formula is used it always refers to a 24 hour day, no exceptions made. God MADE. God put in order that which he created. It speaks of his creation. When he ceased from his creation (rested), he didn't create any longer.

Well said.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK said

Do you care to accurately quote the verse?

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I find it significant that in your version of this verse you left out these little words "as" which indicate that the verse is a similie, a figure of speech. It doesn't say that one day is a thousand years. It says it is as a thousand years. It is speaking of time in eternity. It defines it by saying "With the Lord," not with man. With the Lord (in heaven) one day is as a thousand years. There is no time with God. To apply this verse to the creation is just absurd.

This is also true. The verse given by Peter does NOT come in the form of a new prophetic time ruler "One day for God is a 1000 years for man" but rather it states it BOTH ways "with God a day is AS a 1000 years AND a THOUSAND years AS a day".

The point being that NO time is TOO long for God to wait to get a perfect result nor is any time TOO SHORT for God to accomplish all that He plans.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

Bob notes that since God states that He BOTH Created AND MADE all that we see in those Six days being MADE and Created -- the J Jump argument trying to say "NO he only Made things - He did not CREATE them in those six days" falls into never never land.

You only wish it did Bob. It says MADE. Now why you can't deal with that as what it SAYS instead of inserting and idea INTO the text of something IT DOESN'T say is beyond me.

I am talking about the 7 day creation week not the things that were created BEFORE that 7 day week.

I know exactly what you are talking about Bob.

"You" are equating Exodus 20 with Genesis 1. The problem is that is "your" claim not the Scripture. And it continues to amaze me that something so clear is so difficult for you to see. Maybe you see it and you just don't want to have to admit that you are wrong. I'm not sure, but it's one or the other, because Scripture is crystal clear and it's not backing up your ideology.

The point being that NO time is TOO long for God to wait to get a perfect result nor is any time TOO SHORT for God to accomplish all that He plans.

That's your spin on it, but the text doesn't explain it that way, so no one has to believe you. By the same token the text doesn't explain it the way I have explained it, so no one has to take what I've said either. However I think the rest of Scripture proves what I'm saying to be true.

I'll get you Scriptures for the other part after dinner.

 

[DHK]

Are you KIDDING me?

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain,

How much more clear can that be. He said He created it NOT in vain. Are you really going to say that Isaiah 45:18 is not clear. That's the best you've got to offer.

Vain simply means empty. The world was created empty--uninhabited.
Read what Henry Morris says on Genesis 1:2 from his book "The Genesis Record:

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Every word and phrase of Genesis 1:2, like Genesis 1:1, is vitally important to a sound understanding of God’s created universe.
1. “And the earth was…”
It is significant that every verse in the first chapter of Genesis (except Genesis 1:1) begins with the conjunction “And” (Hebrew waw). This structure clearly means that each statement is sequentially and chronologically connected to the verses before and after. Each action follows directly upon the action described in the verse preceding it.
This pattern must apply to the first two verses, as well as to any other pair of verses in the chapter. Thus there seems no room for a chronological age gap of any consequence between the first two verses of Genesis. The condition described in verse 2 follows immediately upon the creative act of verse 1.
Even if there were a significant time gap implied between these two verses, there is nothing whatever in the context to justify inserting the supposed ages of geology there. This device, as already noted, would generate overwhelming scientific and theological problems.
The gap theory also proposes that the word translated “was” (Hebrew hayetha) should really be translated “became,” thus suggesting a change of state from the original perfect creation to the chaotic condition inferred from verse 2. Although such a translation is grammatically possible, it is highly unlikely in this particular context.
The verb is the regular Hebrew verb of being (hayetha), not the word normally used to denote a change of state (haphak). Although hayetha can also, if the context warrants, be used to introduce a change of state, it simply means “was” in 98 percent of its occurrences. That is why, in the King James and every other standard translation of the Bible, Genesis 1:2 is always translated “was,” never “became.” There is nothing at all in the context of Genesis 1 to suggest that it should in this particular case be rendered “became.” But even if it were to be translated “became,” it would not necessarily imply a change of state. It might well refer simply to the nature assumed by the created earth in response to the divine creative flat of Genesis 1:1.
2. “Without form and void”
This phrase is, in Hebrew, tohu wavohu, or tohu waw bohu. The gap theory suggests that these words should really be translated “ruined and desolate,” or some such phrase.
In justification of this claim, reconstructionists maintain that God, being perfect, would never create the universe in a chaotic state. Therefore, they say, such a state must have come about long after the creation itself, probably because of Satan’s sin and judgment. Furthermore, they point out, Isaiah 45:18 specifically says that God created not the earth “in vain (Hebrew tohu), He formed it to be inhabited.”
Such an interpretation of Genesis 1:2, however, is very forced and unnatural. The word tohu can carry various shades of meaning. It occurs twenty times in the Old Testament and is translated in the King James Version no less that ten different ways (“vanity,” “confusion,” “empty place,” “nothing,” etc.). Its proper translation depends on the specific context and the best translation in the context of Genesis 1:2 is exactly as the King James scholars rendered it: “without form.”
Similarly, the context of Isaiah 45:18 (having to do with God’s purpose for the land of Israel) makes the best translation there to be “in vain.” Paraphrasing, the message can be read: “God created not the earth [to be] forever unformed and uninhabited, He formed it to be inhabited.” The creation narrative in Genesis 1 tells the steps by which He brought form to the unformed earth and living inhabitants to its empty surface. There is certainly no contradiction with the statement in Genesis 1:2 that the initial creation was of basic elements rather than of a completed system. The initial creation was not perfect in the sense that it was complete, but it was perfect for that first steps of God’s six-day plan of creation.
Likewise, the word bohu does not connote a desolation, but simply “emptiness.” When initially created, the earth had no inhabitants; it was “void.”
The essential meaning, therefore, is: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [or space and matter], and the matter so created was at first unformed and uninhabited.”
The created cosmos, as discussed earlier, was a tri-universe of time, space, and matter. Initially there were no stars or planets, only the basic matter component of the space-matter-time continuum. The elements which were to be formed into the planet Earth were at first only elements, not yet formed but nevertheless comprising the basic matter – the “dust” of the earth.

 

[BobRyan]

"FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the HEAVENs and the EARTH the SEA and all that is in them".

The SAME SIX days that we are to work in --

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2
]Genesis 2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed[/b], and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.[/b].

Obvisously I am admitting to the fact that these texts both speak to the same six days of creation week!!

As this next quote shows - not "everyone" on this thread agrees with me on this.

J Jump said
I know exactly what you are talking about Bob.

"You" are equating Exodus 20 with Genesis 1. The problem is that is "your" claim not the Scripture. And it continues to amaze me that something so clear is so difficult for you to see. Maybe you see it and you just don't want to have to admit that you are wrong. I'm not sure, but it's one or the other, because Scripture is crystal clear and it's not backing up your ideology.

It is left "as an exercise for the reader" to read the texts quoted above "verrrrrryyyyy carefullllyy" and see if they are talking about the same thing or not.

I am perfectly happy with that kind of a gap left in the debate for the objective thinking reader to work through.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

Vain simply means empty. The world was created empty--uninhabited.

You guys are grasping for straws. It doesn't matter what the word said. God said He didn't create it that way. Now we can either believe Him or not. I choose to believe Him. He said He didn't do it and that's good enough for me.

 

[J. Jump]

It is left "as an exercise for the reader" to read the texts quoted above "verrrrrryyyyy carefullllyy" and see if they are talking about the same thing or not.

I am perfectly happy with that kind of a gap left in the debate for the objective thinking reader to work through.

Bob that certainly works for me. However there are not many people that will read it and make up their own mind, but will run to pastors/teachers/commentators, you name it and let them do the thinking for them. That is sad to say, but so true.

People don't want to think for themselves these days. If that pastor says it's black it's black despite what Scripture says. It was the same way during Jesus' day.

 

[J. Jump]

The initial creation was not perfect in the sense that it was complete, but it was perfect for that first steps of God’s six-day plan of creation.

Here is a quote for DHK's commentary quote. And I think it goes even further to make the point that Genesis 1:2-the rest of the seven days is not creation.

Our commentator here says that the first step was perfect, not in the sense of complete perfection, but perfect for the first step, and yet for some reason God did not say that His perfect work was good as He did in so many other places in this account.

Again am I the only one that finds this odd? If God was pleased with His first step why did He leave out and He saw that it was good like He did other places?

 

[DHK]

Here is a quote for DHK's commentary quote. And I think it goes even further to make the point that Genesis 1:2-the rest of the seven days is not creation.

Our commentator here says that the first step was perfect, not in the sense of complete perfection, but perfect for the first step, and yet for some reason God did not say that His perfect work was good as He did in so many other places in this account.

Again am I the only one that finds this odd? If God was pleased with His first step why did He leave out and He saw that it was good like He did other places?

For his own purposes. Does He have to write the Bible the way you want him to?

 

[DHK]

Your observation, JJump, is entirely wrong.
God saw the light and it was good. That was in the first day.
Notice all that he made in the second day. There is not one mention of anything being said to be good in the second day. Now you have a contradiction.

 

[J. Jump]

Does He have to write the Bible the way you want him to?

Now that's just a silly statement. However God is not the author of confusion.

But you make what God has written very confusing. God said He created the heavens and the earth. The only place that God mentiones six days is in Exodus and the same story is related at least one or two other places, but it's the same thing, and it doesn't mention created, but made.

Somehow we are supposed to believe that God chose two different words that don't even have the same meaning to mean the same thing. That's confusion. If you want to believe it that is fine, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to buy it.

I believe what God has said. I believe He chose the two different words to express two different meanings. He could just as easily used created instead of made and that would have eliminated any doubt.

Therefore that leads me to believe He chose two different words for two different purposes.

 

[DHK]

Now that's just a silly statement. However God is not the author of confusion.

But you make what God has written very confusing. God said He created the heavens and the earth. The only place that God mentiones six days is in Exodus and the same story is related at least one or two other places, but it's the same thing, and it doesn't mention created, but made.

Somehow we are supposed to believe that God chose two different words that don't even have the same meaning to mean the same thing. That's confusion. If you want to believe it that is fine, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to buy it.

I believe what God has said. I believe He chose the two different words to express two different meanings. He could just as easily used created instead of made and that would have eliminated any doubt.

Therefore that leads me to believe He chose two different words for two different purposes.

You say you believe what God has said, when in fact you will only accept your version of what God has supposedly said. Your objections have been answered. The differences between created and made have been explained. There is no gap between Gen.1:1 and 1:2, and reasons have been given. And yet you simply come back and say I will believe what the Bible says. Sorry that's not good enough. I too will believe what the Bible says, and it is not the same as what you believe.

 

[J. Jump]

Sorry that's not good enough.

And herein lies the problem. Believing what the Bible actually SAYS these days is somehow out in left field :laugh:. The truth is coming to light.

Your objections have been answered.

That may be true somehow in your mind, but you have never explained anything. All you have done is muddied the water with your explanations of how two different words really mean the same thing, but on the otherhand sometimes they don't. God made chaos to begin with and yet that is somehow okay. On and on the list goes.

I too will believe what the Bible says

If that was actually true then "did not create it a waste place," would actually mean He did not create it in that form at any time. Yet you say well I know He said that, but that's really not what He meant.

If that were actually true then For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day;" would actually mean made. Yet some how you get "created" out of that and that's simply NOT what the text says. We can believe what the text SAYS actually or we can make up stuff to hold on to our doctrine.

At every turn you have fallen short. If you want to believe that way you are more than welcome to, but haven't even come remotely close to disproving the gap theory, or proving a six-day creation.

 

[DHK]

That may be true somehow in your mind, but you have never explained anything. All you have done is muddied the water with your explanations of how two different words really mean the same thing, but on the otherhand sometimes they don't. God made chaos to begin with and yet that is somehow okay. On and on the list goes.

God never created chaos. Why do you accuse him of doing so?
God is a God of order.

 

[J. Jump]

God never created chaos.

Really. Yet you say that God created something that was unfinished and not in order. Hmmmm....

Why do you accuse him of doing so?

I know when your back is up against the wall you get desperate, but the false accusations are really unbecoming.

God is a God of order.

And once again you prove my point. Thank you. Thank you all. And good night. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[DHK]

Really. Yet you say that God created something that was unfinished and not in order. Hmmmm....

Incomplete does not mean chaotic. Please learn the difference. The Lord takes us through the steps of creation from Day one to the end of Day six. By the end of Day five, his creation is still not complete (Old English word--perfect). Not until after the 7th day could he look upon his creation and say that it was complete or perfect (the two words mean the same in Old English and in the original languages). At every stage there was incompletion, but not chaos. God knew what he was doing. Let's not ascribe confusion to the Lord.

I know when your back is up against the wall you get desperate, but the false accusations are really unbecoming.

It wasn't a false accusation. Go back and read your own post. You said "God made chaos to begin with." Those are your exact words. It is not a false accusation.

And once again you prove my point. Thank you. Thank you all. And good night. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The point is made that God is a God of order, but you clearly have him as a God of chaos. There is no chaos with God, not even in verse two.

 

[J. Jump]

Incomplete does not mean chaotic. Please learn the difference.

You say made really means create, and I'm the one that needs to learn the difference in something :laugh:.

The Lord takes us through the steps of creation from Day one to the end of Day six. By the end of Day five, his creation is still not complete (Old English word--perfect).

Just out of curiosity can you name anything else that God created that wasn't perfect, I mean absolute perfection, the moment it came into being?

Let's not ascribe confusion to the Lord.

Well that's what I keep suggesting, but it keeps failing on deaf ears.

It wasn't a false accusation. Go back and read your own post. You said "God made chaos to begin with." Those are your exact words. It is not a false accusation.

How about reading the ENTIRE paragraph! It's called CONTEXT. We need not be surprised that you took this statement out of context should we?

All you have done is muddied the water with your explanations of how two different words really mean the same thing, but on the otherhand sometimes they don't. God made chaos to begin with and yet that is somehow okay. On and on the list goes.

The context of the paragraph which you have ripped a single statement out of was referring to YOU. I know you won't out and out claim God made chaos, because it shoots your theory in the foot, but you really don't have any choice whether you admit it or not.

It's the same with the works salvation folks. They will never admit that works has anything to do with salvation, yet there are folks that mix works in with eternal salvation. Some do it before, some do it in the middle and some backload it, but they all deny it. Denying it doesn't make it untrue.

The point is made that God is a God of order, but you clearly have him as a God of chaos. There is no chaos with God, not even in verse two.

Again thank you for proving my point for me. You keep saying the right words, just like the no works salvation folks, yet when you type in other areas you contradict yourself.

Even your commentator says the gap theory is possible, but he just doesn't believe it.

 

[BobRyan]

About the post on page 29 below --

Has ANYONE on this thread read Gen 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11 (quoted below) and come away with the notion that they are NOT talking about the same thing??? EVEN ONE? Besides J Jump that is...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan

"FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the HEAVENs and the EARTH the SEA and all that is in them".

The SAME SIX days that we are to work in --

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2
]Genesis 2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed[/b], and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.[/b].

Obvisously I am admitting to the fact that these texts both speak to the same six days of creation week!!

As this next quote shows - not "everyone" on this thread agrees with me on this.

Quote:
J Jump said
I know exactly what you are talking about Bob.

"You" are equating Exodus 20 with Genesis 1. The problem is that is "your" claim not the Scripture. And it continues to amaze me that something so clear is so difficult for you to see. Maybe you see it and you just don't want to have to admit that you are wrong. I'm not sure, but it's one or the other, because Scripture is crystal clear and it's not backing up your ideology.

It is left "as an exercise for the reader" to read the texts quoted above "verrrrrryyyyy carefullllyy" and see if they are talking about the same thing or not.

I am perfectly happy with that kind of a gap left in the debate for the objective thinking reader to work through.

in Christ,

Bob