Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Two questions about Lucifer his creation and his fall

[Grandfather]

Hill Top

God never creates anything without form or void. You still haven't answered my question. When do you think or believe "In the beginning," was?

Actually this popular statement is incorrect. It might be better stated that we have no history showing that God created anything without form or void, but even that statement assumes an instantanious creation. Also, both of those questions assume there was a creation prior to Gen 1:2 and there was a "gap" between verse 1 and 2.

FYI - I am not a young earther, I am simply pointing out the fallacies within the argument.

[Grandfather]

God created the earth from nothing. (Gen 1:1)
Here is how He did it. (Gen 1:2 -10)

Ok - you and I both know you are being dishonest with the text.
Or else you can't add or read.

Oh well stay in ignorance if you like, it is really up to you.

I see where you are coming from. So allow me to ask how did God create the world that you assume later became "without form and void"?

Why is it not being honest with the text to assume that God started creation with a formless mass, then separated it, divided it, and brought forth life on it? Why is it, in your assumption, only honest if one assume there was a world that fell into a state that caused it to become formless and void?

Both positions require assumptions. Both require those assumptions to be true for later interpretations of scripture to be valid.

[Hill Top]

OK - lets be honest here and just think a little...

You said: "Where is it written that the earth was created for the angels to inhabit?"

I don't know. To my knowledge the Bible does not say that.

You said: "By the way, the earth was "without form and void" before it was formed and became the earth."

You said the earth was without and form and void BEFORE it was formed and became the earth.

OK where does the Bible say that? It does not.

What it says is the earth was created in Genesis 1:1

THEN AFTER the creation it says it was "without form and void in Genesis 1:2.

Now ask yourself what comes first verse 1 or verse 2?

If you can read and count numbers your answer will have to be that verse 1 comes BEFORE verse 2.

So according the person that can read - The earth was created BEFORE it was without form and void - NOT after as you say.

God created the earth from nothing. (Gen 1:1)
Here is how He did it. (Gen 1:2 -10)

Ok - you and I both know you are being dishonest with the text.
Or else you can't add or read.

Oh well stay in ignorance if you like, it is really up to you.

How can one accuse ignorance in the light of scripture?
Do you have a word that describes unscriptural beliefs?

[Hill Top]

Hill Top

God never creates anything without form or void. You still haven't answered my question. When do you think or believe "In the beginning," was?

There is no beginning, as God is eternal.
The beginning of the earth, however, occurs in Gen 1:2-10.

Story...
1. The Cards lost to Washington's Nats Wednesday, 3-0.
2. In the first inning the Cards got a man to second but couldn't drive him in.
3. In the fifth inning the Cards loaded the bases with only one out and again couldn't score.
4. In the seventh inning the Nats scored three on a home run by Smith.
5. In the ninth the Card again loaded the bases but came up empty.

When did the Cards lose?
Can't you see "1" as a prequel or prologue?
2 through 5 only describe the loss.

[bibleman]

God created the earth from nothing. (Gen 1:1)
Here is how He did it. (Gen 1:2 -10)

Ok - you and I both know you are being dishonest with the text.
Or else you can't add or read.

Oh well stay in ignorance if you like, it is really up to you.

I see where you are coming from. So allow me to ask how did God create the world that you assume later became "without form and void"?

Why is it not being honest with the text to assume that God started creation with a formless mass, then separated it, divided it, and brought forth life on it? Why is it, in your assumption, only honest if one assume there was a world that fell into a state that caused it to become formless and void?

Both positions require assumptions. Both require those assumptions to be true for later interpretations of scripture to be valid.

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.

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.

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.

You said: "Both positions require assumptions."

Only to the uninformed.

[bibleman]

OK - lets be honest here and just think a little...

You said: "Where is it written that the earth was created for the angels to inhabit?"

I don't know. To my knowledge the Bible does not say that.

You said: "By the way, the earth was "without form and void" before it was formed and became the earth."

You said the earth was without and form and void BEFORE it was formed and became the earth.

OK where does the Bible say that? It does not.

What it says is the earth was created in Genesis 1:1

THEN AFTER the creation it says it was "without form and void in Genesis 1:2.

Now ask yourself what comes first verse 1 or verse 2?

If you can read and count numbers your answer will have to be that verse 1 comes BEFORE verse 2.

So according the person that can read - The earth was created BEFORE it was without form and void - NOT after as you say.

God created the earth from nothing. (Gen 1:1)
Here is how He did it. (Gen 1:2 -10)

Ok - you and I both know you are being dishonest with the text.
Or else you can't add or read.

Oh well stay in ignorance if you like, it is really up to you.

How can one accuse ignorance in the light of scripture?
Do you have a word that describes unscriptural beliefs?

You have given no Scripture but to the contrary avoided it.

Unscriptural beliefs? How about secular beliefs or vain beliefs?

[Grandfather]

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.

Indeed 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.

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.

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.

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.

You said: "Both positions require assumptions."

Only to the uninformed.

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.

[Ironman]

Hill Top

God never creates anything without form or void. You still haven't answered my question. When do you think or believe "In the beginning," was?

There is no beginning, as God is eternal.
The beginning of the earth, however, occurs in Gen 1:2-10.

Story...
1. The Cards lost to Washington's Nats Wednesday, 3-0.
2. In the first inning the Cards got a man to second but couldn't drive him in.
3. In the fifth inning the Cards loaded the bases with only one out and again couldn't score.
4. In the seventh inning the Nats scored three on a home run by Smith.
5. In the ninth the Card again loaded the bases but came up empty.

When did the Cards lose?
Can't you see "1" as a prequel or prologue?
2 through 5 only describe the loss.

Who knows when or what period of time, "IN THE BEGINNING" was?

In Genesis it says, Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

It does not say, 6'000 years ago God created the heaven and the earth.

John 1:1 also states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

It does not say, Six thousand years ago was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, six thousand years ago?

The next two verses also do not mention any time period or time when things were created.

John 1: 2, The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1: 3, All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

In John 5:17, Jesus said, 17, But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

They have been creating throughout eternity. I doubt they decided to create the heavens and the earth 6,000 years ago.

[bibleman]

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.

Indeed 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.

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.

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.

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.

You said: "Both positions require assumptions."

Only to the uninformed.

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.

You wouldn't disagree if you had studied the subject for over 40 years and simply believed the Bible as it is written.

[Grandfather]

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.

Indeed 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.

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.

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.

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.

You said: "Both positions require assumptions."

Only to the uninformed.

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.

You wouldn't disagree if you had studied the subject for over 40 years and simply believed the Bible as it is written.

Hmmmm, 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.