What principle did you put forth?Grandfather wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:05 pmHmmmm, I have studied the subject for more than 40 years, and I do believe the Bible as written. But I find it interesting that you cannot refute the principle I put forth and have to resort to an ad hominem attack. So unlike you.bibleman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:50 pmYou wouldn't disagree if you had studied the subject for over 40 years and simply believed the Bible as it is written.Grandfather wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:37 pmIndeed it says the world was without form and void. It does not say it BECAME without form and void. So that is an assumption. Is it possible that God spoke a mass of substance into existence that was without form and void and then unraveled this mass by speaking to it? It is just as reasonable to assume that was the case as it is reasonable to assume the “without form and void” was the remaining chaos over a previous existing world.bibleman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:22 pm You asked: "...how did God create the world that you assume later became "without form and void"?"
First of all I don't assume anything. I simply read verse 2 that states the earth was without form and void.
How did God create the world?
I don't know I was not there (not that old yet!). But based on how he recreated the earth I would guess he SPOKE it into existence.
I see nothing in this passage that rejects either of the above positions. God took a mass of material and from that created a world that was to be inhabited. Did he do that from a “new” mass of material or a pre-existing mass? In either case Isaiah 45 would apply equally.bibleman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:22 pm You asked: "Why is it not being honest with the text to assume that God started creation with a formless mass,"
Because formless is "tohu" and the Bible clearly states God did not create the earth "tohu."
Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there is no other.
bibleman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:22 pm You asked: "Why is it, in your assumption, only honest..."
I was referring to the face that 1 comes before 2. If you will read Hilltops' post he had it backwards. And then when I called attention to it you of course would have to be dishonest if you did not see that verse 2 comes after verse 1.
Indeed 1 comes before 2, but 1 also explains where the material in 2 comes from and describes the condition of the material God used in the following passage.
Indeed and both position as assuming some uniformed information.
I am not opposing the idea of a “gap” and all that Dake and others suggest happens in that gap. I am simply pointing out that assumptions are made to arrive at that conclusion. You and others may be fully persuaded that this is the right and proper understanding. However, it remains a conclusion that is based on a assumption, and that assumption is based on other scriptures that are, in the opinion of those holding to this gap, best explained by the gap.
It is a point that I believe reasonable minds can disagree on.
It just gets so tiring going over the basics with people, sorry you feel it was an attack, it was not meant as one.
Having studied the subject for over 40 years how many books do you have on the subject?