Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Who could possibly doubt the existence of a Pre-Adamite World.

[bibleman]

You got your floods mixed up!

Would you call it a flood if the whole world was covered in water?

Yes, as that is what it is called in God's word.
From that flood, came the world we know sprang from Noah, his sons, and all the animals saved on the ark.

So according to you Genesis 1:2 is a Flood.

Gen 1:2 was the state of the universe before its creation.
The following verses describe that creation.

Now you are not being consistent... YOU have to change your view to fit your view.
When I asked: "Would you call it a flood if the whole world was covered in water?"
YOU answered: "Yes, as that is what it is called in God's word."
But then you back away from your statement that a flood is called a flood.
Your theology is nothing but a joke!

Ooops.
I meant Gen 1:1 was the state of the universe before it was created. Not Gen 1:2.
Sorry.
I guess I was just responding to your own typo.
Gen 1:2-31 describe its creation...to the glory of God.

How can something exist before its creation?

Of course something does NOT exist before it is created.

[Grandfather]

Would love to hear your respond to his question? "How can something that has not been created, be without form??

When did the house exist? Did the gathering of material to make the house exist before the house existed? Did it exist when the foundation was laid? Did it exist when the framing when up? Did it begin to exist when the roof went on? Or did the house not exist until it was fully completed and inhabited?

Just as you, and others (including me), believe in a gap of time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. It is just as plausable for some to believe that Gen 1:1 says what God did, Gen 1:2 then begins to describe HOW God did it.

I support a gap, not on the basis of a pre-Adamite world, although I understand why some do, but instead because the science of the cosmos indicates a world that is much older than 6000+ years. And while doing that I cannot support the idea of a “created to look old” theory because that would make God a deciever. I cannot believe that God would changes the laws of physics to allow a “new” creation to appear old by current laws of science. But there are some that do believe that is what God did simply because He is God and is capable of doing whatever he pleases in creation.

So, I am simply pointing out the difficults that people have with gap approach to Gen 1.

[bibleman]

Would love to hear your respond to his question? "How can something that has not been created, be without form??

When did the house exist? Did the gathering of material to make the house exist before the house existed? Did it exist when the foundation was laid? Did it exist when the framing when up? Did it begin to exist when the roof went on? Or did the house not exist until it was fully completed and inhabited?

Just as you, and others (including me), believe in a gap of time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. It is just as plausable for some to believe that Gen 1:1 says what God did, Gen 1:2 then begins to describe HOW God did it.

I support a gap, not on the basis of a pre-Adamite world, although I understand why some do, but instead because the science of the cosmos indicates a world that is much older than 6000+ years. And while doing that I cannot support the idea of a “created to look old” theory because that would make God a deciever. I cannot believe that God would changes the laws of physics to allow a “new” creation to appear old by current laws of science. But there are some that do believe that is what God did simply because He is God and is capable of doing whatever he pleases in creation.

So, I am simply pointing out the difficults that people have with gap approach to Gen 1.

The question I asked was: "Would love to hear your respond to his question? "How can something that has not been created, be without form??"

The answer is something that has NOT been created cannot be without form.

There is NO something to be without form with.

The something that has not already been created can't be red or blue, short or tall, big or little, it can't be anything if it has not been created including... without form.

[Grandfather]

Would love to hear your respond to his question? "How can something that has not been created, be without form??

When did the house exist? Did the gathering of material to make the house exist before the house existed? Did it exist when the foundation was laid? Did it exist when the framing when up? Did it begin to exist when the roof went on? Or did the house not exist until it was fully completed and inhabited?

Just as you, and others (including me), believe in a gap of time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. It is just as plausable for some to believe that Gen 1:1 says what God did, Gen 1:2 then begins to describe HOW God did it.

I support a gap, not on the basis of a pre-Adamite world, although I understand why some do, but instead because the science of the cosmos indicates a world that is much older than 6000+ years. And while doing that I cannot support the idea of a “created to look old” theory because that would make God a deciever. I cannot believe that God would changes the laws of physics to allow a “new” creation to appear old by current laws of science. But there are some that do believe that is what God did simply because He is God and is capable of doing whatever he pleases in creation.

So, I am simply pointing out the difficults that people have with gap approach to Gen 1.

The question I asked was: "Would love to hear your respond to his question? "How can something that has not been created, be without form??"

The answer is something that has NOT been created cannot be without form.

There is NO something to be without form with.

The something that has not already been created can't be red or blue, short or tall, big or little, it can't be anything if it has not been created including... without form.

Sorry, the common use of language calls creation a process, Gen 1:2 can be said to explain that process

[Hill Top]

You got your floods mixed up!

Would you call it a flood if the whole world was covered in water?

Yes, as that is what it is called in God's word.
From that flood, came the world we know sprang from Noah, his sons, and all the animals saved on the ark.

So according to you Genesis 1:2 is a Flood.

Gen 1:2 was the state of the universe before its creation.
The following verses describe that creation.

Now you are not being consistent... YOU have to change your view to fit your view.
When I asked: "Would you call it a flood if the whole world was covered in water?"
YOU answered: "Yes, as that is what it is called in God's word."
But then you back away from your statement that a flood is called a flood.
Your theology is nothing but a joke!

Ooops.
I meant Gen 1:1 was the state of the universe before it was created. Not Gen 1:2.
Sorry.
I guess I was just responding to your own typo.
Gen 1:2-31 describe its creation...to the glory of God.

How can something exist before its creation?

Of course something does NOT exist before it is created.

Then why do you keep inferring that it does?

[bibleman]

Of course something does NOT exist before it is created.

Then why do you keep inferring that it does?

I don't.

You are the one that does that with your bogus idea...
that God created the earth without form and void and then...
created that without form and void into the world we now have.

I think you are really smarter than that but because of your religious pre conceived ideas, you just want see the common sense of the English language of verse 1 and 2.

[Grandfather]

When a painter starts a painting, the canvas is formless and void.
When a writer starts a novel, the pages are formless and void.

Why is it difficult to believe that when God started creation he didn’t start with a blank canvas?

[bibleman]

Would love to hear your respond to his question? "How can something that has not been created, be without form??

When did the house exist? Did the gathering of material to make the house exist before the house existed? Did it exist when the foundation was laid? Did it exist when the framing when up? Did it begin to exist when the roof went on? Or did the house not exist until it was fully completed and inhabited?

Just as you, and others (including me), believe in a gap of time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. It is just as plausable for some to believe that Gen 1:1 says what God did, Gen 1:2 then begins to describe HOW God did it.

I support a gap, not on the basis of a pre-Adamite world, although I understand why some do, but instead because the science of the cosmos indicates a world that is much older than 6000+ years. And while doing that I cannot support the idea of a “created to look old” theory because that would make God a deciever. I cannot believe that God would changes the laws of physics to allow a “new” creation to appear old by current laws of science. But there are some that do believe that is what God did simply because He is God and is capable of doing whatever he pleases in creation.

So, I am simply pointing out the difficults that people have with gap approach to Gen 1.

The question I asked was: "Would love to hear your respond to his question? "How can something that has not been created, be without form??"

The answer is something that has NOT been created cannot be without form.

There is NO something to be without form with.

The something that has not already been created can't be red or blue, short or tall, big or little, it can't be anything if it has not been created including... without form.

Sorry, the common use of language calls creation a process, Gen 1:2 can be said to explain that process

Think what you like or you can accept the Word that the earth was created in verse 1 as it says.

[Grandfather]

Think what you like or you can accept the Word that the earth was created in verse 1 as it says.

I acknowledge that a while back. The issue is vs 2 - it is reasonable to assume that vs 2 is an explanation of how vs 1 transpires. You assume it is reasonable to assume a gap between 1 and 2. Both are assumptions, and both have support for those assumptions.

[bibleman]

Think what you like or you can accept the Word that the earth was created in verse 1 as it says.

I acknowledge that a while back. The issue is vs 2 - it is reasonable to assume that vs 2 is an explanation of how vs 1 transpires. You assume it is reasonable to assume a gap between 1 and 2. Both are assumptions, and both have support for those assumptions.

Not at all.
The earth is not created again after verse 1.
No assumptions just can read the Bible.

But if you want to believe it is then have at it.