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

[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.

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.

What principle did you put forth?

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?

[Grandfather]

What principle did you put forth?

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?

1 -The principle/premise that both positions require some assumptions to be true.

2 - Ad hominem attack - a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

3 - A diversion from point 1 by attempting the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The premise of "both positions require some assumptions to be true" does not become valid or invalid because one of us has more books, or more years spent studying the subject.

[bibleman]

1 -The principle/premise that both positions require some assumptions to be true.

There are no assumptions concerning God having created the Earth in Genesis 1 and finding it empty and waste in verse 2. The text clearly states that.

2 - Ad hominem attack - a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I know what ad hominem is... I completed my Master's and learned all about it.

I did not attack your character or motive. I simply stated the obvious.

3 - A diversion from point 1 by attempting the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The premise of "both positions require some assumptions to be true" does not become valid or invalid because one of us has more books, or more years spent studying the subject.

No not always... but the fact that a person has few resources on a subject does limit their collection of facts and ideas on the subject.

If you went to a specialist you would expect the specialist to have studied more than the general.

[Ironman]

What principle did you put forth?

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?

1 -The principle/premise that both positions require some assumptions to be true.

2 - Ad hominem attack - a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

3 - A diversion from point 1 by attempting the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The premise of "both positions require some assumptions to be true" does not become valid or invalid because one of us has more books, or more years spent studying the subject.

Thank you Sister Scholastica. . . . .

[Grandfather]

1 -The principle/premise that both positions require some assumptions to be true.

There are no assumptions concerning God having created the Earth in Genesis 1 and finding it empty and waste in verse 2. The text clearly states that.

With the slight exception that there are no verse numbers in the original text. So it is plausible that the meaning of the text is (paraphrasing). In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, he started with a mass that was formless and void...

2 - Ad hominem attack - a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I know what ad hominem is... I completed my Master's and learned all about it.

I did not attack your character or motive. I simply stated the obvious.

It doesn't matter if you have no education or several Phd's, it is still an ad hominem attack, the the attempt to deflect with the assertion "I simply stated the obvious" is simply piling on that attack. (And if your degree included any information on logical arguments you would be aware of that.

3 - A diversion from point 1 by attempting the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The premise of "both positions require some assumptions to be true" does not become valid or invalid because one of us has more books, or more years spent studying the subject.

No not always... but the fact that a person has few resources on a subject does limit their collection of facts and ideas on the subject.

If you went to a specialist you would expect the specialist to have studied more than the general.

Again, trying to appeal to authority? So if I have 60 years and a library full of books to the contrary does my expertise make my position correct because I have more credentials than you and thus I am more of a specialist than you?

BYI - Notice I have not said I disagree with your position. Nor have I claimed that one position is correct and the other is a fallacy. I have simply pointed out that both positions require assumptions. You have taken the position you have based on how you view the preponderance of evidence and you believe it best explains the situation. Other however can arrive at a different view and still see the preponderance of evidence supporting their interpretation of scripture.

You adherence to logical fallacies does nothing to enhance your position and in my view only weaken it.

[bibleman]

1 -The principle/premise that both positions require some assumptions to be true.

There are no assumptions concerning God having created the Earth in Genesis 1 and finding it empty and waste in verse 2. The text clearly states that.

With the slight exception that there are no verse numbers in the original text. So it is plausible that the meaning of the text is (paraphrasing). In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, he started with a mass that was formless and void...

2 - Ad hominem attack - a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I know what ad hominem is... I completed my Master's and learned all about it.

I did not attack your character or motive. I simply stated the obvious.

It doesn't matter if you have no education or several Phd's, it is still an ad hominem attack, the the attempt to deflect with the assertion "I simply stated the obvious" is simply piling on that attack. (And if your degree included any information on logical arguments you would be aware of that.

3 - A diversion from point 1 by attempting the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The premise of "both positions require some assumptions to be true" does not become valid or invalid because one of us has more books, or more years spent studying the subject.

No not always... but the fact that a person has few resources on a subject does limit their collection of facts and ideas on the subject.

If you went to a specialist you would expect the specialist to have studied more than the general.

Again, trying to appeal to authority? So if I have 60 years and a library full of books to the contrary does my expertise make my position correct because I have more credentials than you and thus I am more of a specialist than you?

BYI - Notice I have not said I disagree with your position. Nor have I claimed that one position is correct and the other is a fallacy. I have simply pointed out that both positions require assumptions. You have taken the position you have based on how you view the preponderance of evidence and you believe it best explains the situation. Other however can arrive at a different view and still see the preponderance of evidence supporting their interpretation of scripture.

You adherence to logical fallacies does nothing to enhance your position and in my view only weaken it.

You said: "It doesn't matter ...it is still an ad hominem attack,"

Not at all simply stated the truth - no attack at all.

You said: "I have simply pointed out that both positions require assumptions. ...Others however can arrive at a different view and still see the preponderance of evidence supporting their interpretation of scripture."

No assumptions on my part... The Scripture what it says - simply believe it.

You said: "You adherence to logical fallacies does nothing to enhance your position and in my view only weaken it."

Your view is based on a lack of knowledge concerning the question under discussion.... (or something like that as Brother Hagin would say.

[Grandfather]

You said: "It doesn't matter ...it is still an ad hominem attack,"

Not at all simply stated the truth - no attack at all.

You said: "I have simply pointed out that both positions require assumptions. ...Others however can arrive at a different view and still see the preponderance of evidence supporting their interpretation of scripture."

No assumptions on my part... The Scripture what it says - simply believe it.

You said: "You adherence to logical fallacies does nothing to enhance your position and in my view only weaken it."

Your view is based on a lack of knowledge concerning the question under discussion.... (or something like that as Brother Hagin would say.

I guess you didn't take a logic or debate in your pursuit of your Masters, or else you are choosing to ignore the lesson taught there as you continue your ad hominem attack.

And I agree with you... the scripture says what is says and people simply should believe it... The disagreement is what reasonable people assume it says, both say they are right.

And indeed your view, as well as mine, is based on a lack of knowledge concerning the question under discussion.

[bibleman]

You said: "It doesn't matter ...it is still an ad hominem attack,"

Not at all simply stated the truth - no attack at all.

You said: "I have simply pointed out that both positions require assumptions. ...Others however can arrive at a different view and still see the preponderance of evidence supporting their interpretation of scripture."

No assumptions on my part... The Scripture what it says - simply believe it.

You said: "You adherence to logical fallacies does nothing to enhance your position and in my view only weaken it."

Your view is based on a lack of knowledge concerning the question under discussion.... (or something like that as Brother Hagin would say.

I guess you didn't take a logic or debate in your pursuit of your Masters, or else you are choosing to ignore the lesson taught there as you continue your ad hominem attack.

And I agree with you... the scripture says what is says and people simply should believe it... The disagreement is what reasonable people assume it says, both say they are right.

And indeed your view, as well as mine, is based on a lack of knowledge concerning the question under discussion.

No ad hominem attack at all... You must have my post confused with someone else's.

As to assumptions, I am not making any assumptions at all.

No lack of knowledge here at all. The Bible clearly states the earth was created in Genesis 1:1.

Then we see the recreation of the earth in the following verses of chapter.

As Dake would say believe it or not!

[Grandfather]

No lack of knowledge here at all. The Bible clearly states the earth was created in Genesis 1:1.

Then we see the recreation of the earth in the following verses of chapter.

When did God implement chapter and verse in scripture? Since you insist on separating verses 1 and 2, please tell me when God separated them. Provide scriptural proof of your defense.

[bibleman]

No lack of knowledge here at all. The Bible clearly states the earth was created in Genesis 1:1.

Then we see the recreation of the earth in the following verses of chapter.

When did God implement chapter and verse in scripture? Since you insist on separating verses 1 and 2, please tell me when God separated them. Provide scriptural proof of your defense.

God of course did NOT implement chapter and verse... BUT Moses did place the second line after the first line of Genesis.

Hope you are not suggesting that Moses was wrong to do so!