Evidence for Creation

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, it is "permissible" (within the limits of grammar) to interpret the word haytah as "became" rather than "was" in Genesis 1:2. So it allows you to invent a "gap theory" about millions of years hidden away between the first and second verses of Genesis, but I consider that idea unlikely in the extreme. To me, it looks like a desperate attempt to avoid dealing with what the Bible really teaches, which is extremely ironic since your whole project is an attempt to make the supposedly "literal" reading viable.

Is it true that the word "haytah" used in Gen 1:2 could mean either "was" or "became"?

John

Yes, it is true, but I don't see anything in the context that would confirm it. And neither is there anything in the rest of the Bible that clearly supports such a theory. And even if it were true, it doesn't really help solve the conflict with science, so that whole approach seems like a waste of time to me. At some point we need to accept what the Bible actually teaches, and move on. The psycho-spiritual insight of the Garden story remains without trying to force it to be literal history. Indeed, I think trying to insist that it is literal history distracts from its psycho-spiritual meaning.

[kathryn]

Yes, it is true, but I don't see anything in the context that would confirm it. And neither is there anything in the rest of the Bible that clearly supports such a theory. And even if it were true, it doesn't really help solve the conflict with science, so that whole approach seems like a waste of time to me. At some point we need to accept what the Bible actually teaches, and move on. The psycho-spiritual insight of the Garden story remains without trying to force it to be literal history. Indeed, I think trying to insist that it is literal history distracts from its psycho-spiritual meaning.

I totally agree with you, about the literal history part Richard! Have a feeling though, that we will find a witness in science/creation, if we come at it from a different angle.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I totally agree with you, about the literal history part Richard! Have a feeling though, that we will find a witness in science/creation, if we come at it from a different angle.

Sure - the psycho-spiritual is ultimately unified with the physical. But finding the map between those "two domains" may not be so easy, especially since the "plain meaning" is so naturally aligned with a false view of the physical (six 24 hour days, etc.).

[kathryn]

Sure - the psycho-spiritual is ultimately unified with the physical. But finding the map between those "two domains" may not be so easy, especially since the "plain meaning" is so naturally aligned with a false view of the physical (six 24 hour days, etc.).

Yes...I agree.
Could you give me the hebrew letters of the words? Thanks!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes...I agree.
Could you give me the hebrew letters of the words? Thanks!

bara = Bet Resh Aleph

asah = Ayin Shin Hey

[jce]

Yes, it is true, but I don't see anything in the context that would confirm it. And neither is there anything in the rest of the Bible that clearly supports such a theory. And even if it were true, it doesn't really help solve the conflict with science, so that whole approach seems like a waste of time to me. At some point we need to accept what the Bible actually teaches, and move on. The psycho-spiritual insight of the Garden story remains without trying to force it to be literal history. Indeed, I think trying to insist that it is literal history distracts from its psycho-spiritual meaning.

Thanks for taking time Richard.

Some time ago I was reading and reflecting on the 1st chapter of Genesis and I noticed a peculiar thing. In fact, I was surprised that as many times as I had read the text before, it had not ocurred to me that if you simply take the last letter of the word "earth" and place it at the beginning of the same word, you have the word "heart". Of course I was then intrigued to read the text again with the change...

Gen 1:1-3 "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the heart. And the heart 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. And God said "Let there be light", and there was light."

Later on I compared the 1st few verses of John's Gospel...

John 1: 1-5 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not."

John 1: 9 "That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world".

I thought it was an interesting discovery and considered the possible implications of the Genesis account as a spiritual revelation.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thanks for taking time Richard.

Some time ago I was reading and reflecting on the 1st chapter of Genesis and I noticed a peculiar thing. In fact, I was surprised that as many times as I had read the text before, it had not ocurred to me that if you simply take the last letter of the word "earth" and place it at the beginning of the same word, you have the word "heart". Of course I was then intrigued to read the text again with the change...

Gen 1:1-3 "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the heart. And the heart 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. And God said "Let there be light", and there was light."

Later on I compared the 1st few verses of John's Gospel...

John 1: 1-5 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not."

John 1: 9 "That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world".

I thought it was an interesting discovery and considered the possible implications of the Genesis account as a spiritual revelation.

John

That's very beautiful John. It makes it a personal revelation that opens doors of possibilities to use the text as a devotional meditation between self and God. Very rich. Thanks for sharing it. Too often we get lost in disputes about "objective meaning" of the text and forget its greatest value is as a catalyst for personal spiritual growth. Indeed, what if that was it's only true purpose? I hate to think of all the wasted lives that have fought and even killed in squabbles over the "objective meaning" of this sacred mystical text.

[Roberto]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXpXJTu8enU

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That's an interesting video. At about 6:30 it tries to build a case for an "angelic rebellion" that happened "before human history" by quoting Revelation 12:1-3 - and then off to Ezekiel 28 for more out of context fragments to create the story. This is why I reject all this kind of stuff - it's way to speculative and nothing is certain. And Rev 12 is about the first century time when Christ was born, not prior to all human history.

[Roberto]

That's an interesting video. At about 6:30 it tries to build a case for an "angelic rebellion" that happened "before human history" by quoting Revelation 12:1-3 - and then off to Ezekiel 28 for more out of context fragments to create the story. This is why I reject all this kind of stuff - it's way to speculative and nothing is certain. And Rev 12 is about the first century time when Christ was born, not prior to all human history.

As i look to Revelation 12 i think the words goes back and forth fitting a angelic rebellion in the fall of the fallen angels, and at the same time telling that Satan is waiting after the promised one which he knew was to come. And Ezekiel 28 is about fallen Satan living in human kings.