Basic Genesis cosmology 2:

[Interplanner]

2, the heavens. We will not find much about the distant heavens. The text is concerned with the local solar system and those objects that are in the expanse of the sky. This refers to the canopy which is discussed below. Only its objects are 'the heavens.' Using NT interpretation, the distant heavens are distinct in 2 Pet 3 and the heavens 'existed,' while the earth was more recently formed, which is what Genesis 1 is saying. The canopy would not allow a view of Orion, which is the Greek term for 'heavens'.
In case we think that the NT world was 'primitive' astronomically (that objects in the sky were considered to be a mile away), Ptolemy in the 2nd century declared that the earth was a mere mathematical point in a massive universe. This fact is generally suppressed to relegate the NT world to that of primitivity (see Lewis, “Religion and Science”).*
Heb 11:3 has an astronomical meaning. It is not saying that things came about in the sense of ex nihilo. That is, out of nothing. Instead, Heb 11:3 means from that which is not visible. Hydrogen is not visible at the beginning of a star cycle. This supports the idea of an old universe, but not a very old earth.
When God forms, he sometimes uses existing materials and tells them to be a certain shape. See 2 Pet 3 again on that.
The earth, as introduced, is 'formless and void,' dark, with deep water, and without the Spirit of God at work on it. For now our attention is only on the dark, deep, and absence of the Spirit. 'Formless and void' will be discussed below at 3.
The NT refers to evil angels being imprisoned on places that are called darkest blackness. A wandering star that burns out ends there, and evil leaders in NT groups were referred to as such stars.
Therefore, there is a case that the earth was one of these before Gen 1.

 

[Ktoyou]

Where did you get this?

 

[patrick jane]

2, the heavens. We will not find much about the distant heavens. The text is concerned with the local solar system and those objects that are in the expanse of the sky. This refers to the canopy which is discussed below. Only its objects are 'the heavens.' Using NT interpretation, the distant heavens are distinct in 2 Pet 3 and the heavens 'existed,' while the earth was more recently formed, which is what Genesis 1 is saying. The canopy would not allow a view of Orion, which is the Greek term for 'heavens'.
In case we think that the NT world was 'primitive' astronomically (that objects in the sky were considered to be a mile away), Ptolemy in the 2nd century declared that the earth was a mere mathematical point in a massive universe. This fact is generally suppressed to relegate the NT world to that of primitivity (see Lewis, “Religion and Science”).*
Heb 11:3 has an astronomical meaning. It is not saying that things came about in the sense of ex nihilo. That is, out of nothing. Instead, Heb 11:3 means from that which is not visible. Hydrogen is not visible at the beginning of a star cycle. This supports the idea of an old universe, but not a very old earth.
When God forms, he sometimes uses existing materials and tells them to be a certain shape. See 2 Pet 3 again on that.
The earth, as introduced, is 'formless and void,' dark, with deep water, and without the Spirit of God at work on it. For now our attention is only on the dark, deep, and absence of the Spirit. 'Formless and void' will be discussed below at 3.
The NT refers to evil angels being imprisoned on places that are called darkest blackness. A wandering star that burns out ends there, and evil leaders in NT groups were referred to as such stars.
Therefore, there is a case that the earth was one of these before Gen 1.

yes, no, continue, please, don't

 

[Interplanner]

yes, no, continue, please, don't

What's the problem? It is the text with more evidencial basis than ever.

How many posts have you seen by YEC's, for ex., that say absolutely nothing about 'formless and void' yet claim to be the most adherent to the original text? Well, this is showing that if you really stick close to the text and close to the science it is increasingly solid, as Dr. Middelmann said.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Void and without form refers to the substance that God created all from, prior to mass and matter. I can hardly make heads or tails of what is stated in the op.

 

[Interplanner]

That's because your view of things before the forming of earth is pretty much empty. But in Gen 1, things have been going on, as we know from elsewhere in Scripture (like the revolt of angels). In jer 4:23 we find out what kind of expression 'formless and void' is. It means that God had to destroy something that was displeasing to him. It has a long story. There are many parts to the story. We don't know if if was in the realm of what we would call biology, or if it was supernatural, making the earth one of the 'blackest darknesses' of 2 Pet 2 or Jude. But there is a backstory before the forming is done.

2 Pet 3 validates this by choosing two different verbs about the heavens and earth. The heavens were already existing; the earth was (more recently) formed out of water and through water. Ch 2 had referred to sinful angels who were already being confined in 'blackest darkness.' And Peter had used the same expression from Greek myth--that of Tartarus as the place where evil super-entities are confined. I'd guess that was because his audience would be familiar, even though he didn't accept all Greek myth wholesale.

 

[Interplanner]

Perhaps the problem is the distant heavens? We don't get much information. Most of the time Gen 1 is referring to the local--sun, moon. We aren't told what kind of light is on days 1-3. There are no stars to see yet because of the canopy. Just the greater light and the lesser.

So there is a chance that the light of days 1-3 is from a distance and that Moses was just writing it to keep consistent and saying that there was morning and evening on those days but not the kind of days 4-6.

 

[Interplanner]

Where did you get this?

Working back through the post, if you are talking about the 'blackest darkness' idea, that would be Jude and 2 Pet 2, which are parallels. In these we find that rebellious angels have been confined in 'blackest darkness' from way back, apparently before earth's forming. They are where the 'wandering stars' end up, but it is possible that all of this was meant to be subterranean, not celestial. All these things are images of the mistaken teachers affecting the church, but they are true items in their own right.

Notice what the earth is in Gen 1:2 before it is formed in the 6 days. It is black, dark, watery, chaos, and the Spirit of God is near, but not working in it. That's a bad thing. It is possible that the earth was one of these places. When we first meet Satan (in Job) he has been roaming all through the earth. We know from Gen 3 that he was confined to earth, and defeated, but has a bit of influence. Was he stuck here, and has to endure the "torment" of the beautiful creation God? Could be. In Mt 4, tempting Jesus, he claims to have authority to dispense with the earth. Lies. All lies. Perhaps earth was his prison, now "contaminated" by God transforming it, and Satan wants to pull back what he can.

 

[StanJ]

Heb 11:3 means from that which is not visible.

In modern English, Heb 11:3, the Greek φαίνω (phainō), connotes observable. That applies today, so your theory is NOT supported, as Hydrogen IS observable and has been for quite some time.

What Luke was conveying is clear, God made SOMETHING, from NOTHING. He CREATED.

 

[Interplanner]

Luke?

Do you have a background in astronomy or chemistry? I don't. I understood it to be not visible at that stage from the astronomer who mentioned it.

Create is not always from sheer nothing. The Greek 'sunestosa' is 'forming from material.' Of course, as far as whether it was usefully organized, it was a nothing. 2 Pet 3. This is compounded in that, it was not only not useful, it was the leftovers, the debris, of a destruction. 'Formless and void' is found in Jer 4:23 as such, the only other usage of the Hebrew phrase. Jerusalem had been destroyed.

If there continues to be reinforcing evidence for the Theia theory (the most accepted view of how the moon came to be), then God formed both from the collision, and perhaps other things out of that event. It's an option that has to be kept on the table, since the face of the moon is pocked and smattered with indications of such a thing taking place.

 

[Interplanner]

In modern English, Heb 11:3, the Greek φαίνω (phainō), connotes observable. That applies today, so your theory is NOT supported, as Hydrogen IS observable and has been for quite some time.

What Luke was conveying is clear, God made SOMETHING, from NOTHING. He CREATED.

Using the BAG lexicon, there are many cases when 'phaino' means that a thing in one unseen form becomes visible later, which is what the astronomer meant. There is also the sense of things emerging--being formed--from what shines or is bright. This would then also be a forming of what is pre-existing, just as earth was a forming from pre-existing water. All you can see at first is light, then you see the thing. Which is an interesting commentary on day 1 vs day 4.

 

[RBBI]

A couple of thoughts.....Everything HaShem ever planned to do is listed in Bereshit (Genesis)1.

Days 1-7 are representative of many things, not the least of which is men, and also 1000 years days, beginning with Adam the 1st, and going to Enoch, the 7th.

From Adam to Moses was roughly 2 days, from Moses to Yeshua was roughly 2 days, and from Yeshua to now has been 2 days. We are in the dawning (HaShem's day begins at night) of the 7th day, no part darkness, the daystar arising in our hearts, unto a perfect man.

HaShem told Adam that in the DAY that he ate of it he would die, and he did, just under the perfect full day of 1000 years. HaShem never wanted Adam to die. The Holy Seed IS the 7th day, and the rest that remains, and it is spiritual.

Seven means perfect, sacred, complete. Enoch, as a type of the Holy Seed, walked with HaShem and he was no more, for the He took him. Peace

 

[StanJ]

Luke?

Do you have a background in astronomy or chemistry? I don't. I understood it to be not visible at that stage from the astronomer who mentioned it.

Create is not always from sheer nothing. The Greek 'sunestosa' is 'forming from material.' Of course, as far as whether it was usefully organized, it was a nothing. 2 Pet 3. This is compounded in that, it was not only not useful, it was the leftovers, the debris, of a destruction. 'Formless and void' is found in Jer 4:23 as such, the only other usage of the Hebrew phrase. Jerusalem had been destroyed.

If there continues to be reinforcing evidence for the Theia theory (the most accepted view of how the moon came to be), then God formed both from the collision, and perhaps other things out of that event. It's an option that has to be kept on the table, since the face of the moon is pocked and smattered with indications of such a thing taking place.

Yes Luke.

I don't need to, to be able to read, nor study the connotations to see what the context is conveying.

In Genesis 1, it IS. I don't believe in creatio ex materia, I accept creatio ex nihilo, which BTW is what many first accepted the Big Bang to be. Now of course those same people are saying there actually WAS something there, just not something we could see, even though NOBODY was there.

Faith means you START with God's word and accept it as it is written, and move on from there. You don't change your faith every time man purports to make a new discovery or attain a new understanding. God's word is ALWAYS true.

 

[StanJ]

A couple of thoughts.....Everything HaShem ever planned to do is listed in Bereshit (Genesis)1.

Days 1-7 are representative of many things, not the least of which is men, and also 1000 years days, beginning with Adam the 1st, and going to Enoch, the 7th.

From Adam to Moses was roughly 2 days, from Moses to Yeshua was roughly 2 days, and from Yeshua to now has been 2 days. We are in the dawning (HaShem's day begins at night) of the 7th day, no part darkness, the daystar arising in our hearts, unto a perfect man.

HaShem told Adam that in the DAY that he ate of it he would die, and he did, just under the perfect full day of 1000 years. HaShem never wanted Adam to die. The Holy Seed IS the 7th day, and the rest that remains, and it is spiritual.

Seven means perfect, sacred, complete. Enoch, as a type of the Holy Seed, walked with HaShem and he was no more, for the He took him. Peace

It is preferred to support your assertions with scriptural facts, not speculation based on some mystical numerology. It is well established that Gen 1 is literal and refers to solar days, just as Moses confirms in Exodus.

 

[RBBI]

It is preferred to support your assertions with scriptural facts, not speculation based on some mystical numerology. It is well established that Gen 1 is literal and refers to solar days, just as Moses confirms in Exodus.

I don't say anything that ISN'T scriptural, and that I can't prove. It should be obvious what scriptures I'm referring to, and I guess Yeshua was into numerology too since He said tell Herod, that fox, that today (1000 years) and tomorrow (1000 years) I will do cures and cast out devils, but the THIRD day, I will be perfected.

Now if you take those days and go backwards to Adam, you can see what I'm saying. And there is literal and there is hidden manna. So called, because you have to press in to see it, it's not surface.

Google PARDES and see the different approach that the people of the Book take to dividing scripture, compared to the Greek philosophers. Peace

 

[StanJ]

I don't say anything that ISN'T scriptural, and that I can't prove. It should be obvious what scriptures I'm referring to, and I guess Yeshua was into numerology too since He said tell Herod, that fox, that today (1000 years) and tomorrow (1000 years) I will do cures and cast out devils, but the THIRD day, I will be perfected.

Now if you take those days and go backwards to Adam, you can see what I'm saying. And there is literal and there is hidden manna. So called, because you have to press in to see it, it's not surface.

Google PARDES and see the different approach that the people of the Book take to dividing scripture, compared to the Greek philosophers. Peace

In OTHER words, you got nuthin' !

Just another false teacher looking for acceptance of his flawed beliefs.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes Luke.

I don't need to, to be able to read, nor study the connotations to see what the context is conveying.

In Genesis 1, it IS. I don't believe in creatio ex materia, I accept creatio ex nihilo, which BTW is what many first accepted the Big Bang to be. Now of course those same people are saying there actually WAS something there, just not something we could see, even though NOBODY was there.

Faith means you START with God's word and accept it as it is written, and move on from there. You don't change your faith every time man purports to make a new discovery or attain a new understanding. God's word is ALWAYS true.

Well, you were a ways off on 'phaino' so that unsettles what the 'Word of God' is. Many uses of it play on the not-visible-to-visible plot or change.

I have no idea what you brought Luke into this for, quoting Heb 11:3. The two top candidates for authorship are Paul and Apollos. The reason Luke is not is because Hebrews style moves away from Luke's higher vocabulary smoothness. Hebrews has Levitical things to express and gets complicated by antecedents etc., like Josephus. It's as though the person is having a hard time finding ways to describe Levitical principles in Greek, which Luke never does elsewhere. The ending sounds like Paul's type of farewell.

I have no idea how someone reads 1:2 in Moses' own style and says that that verse is ex nihilo. There are probably 20 examples just in Genesis of Moses' narrative structure:
1, section title
2, pre-existing scene, setting, condition
3, new action

The 'formless and void' stage is not momentary. It took some time to develop and come about, as was the case with the decline and destruction of Jerusalem. We know from the only other usage of 'formless and void' in Jer 4:23 that something was stopped and destroyed by God who disapproved of it. We know by the features (dark, deep water, formless, void, and the absence of the Spirit) that it resembles what Peter and Jude mention, the 'blackest darkness.' That there were places like this 'from long ago' that were for the imprisonment of rebellious angels.

All the neighboring nations had creation cosmologies in which the creator was victorious over an opponent and constructs this world out of the residue of that world. I mention that because elements repeated in those myths often point to a common source although they degenerate from it. That common source would be Genesis.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes Luke.

I don't need to, to be able to read, nor study the connotations to see what the context is conveying.

In Genesis 1, it IS. I don't believe in creatio ex materia, I accept creatio ex nihilo, which BTW is what many first accepted the Big Bang to be. Now of course those same people are saying there actually WAS something there, just not something we could see, even though NOBODY was there.

Faith means you START with God's word and accept it as it is written, and move on from there. You don't change your faith every time man purports to make a new discovery or attain a new understanding. God's word is ALWAYS true.

Faith does not neglect ordinary knowledge. It is not a separate kind of knowledge. It integrates all that is known. Otherwise the spiritual or moral part of the Bible crumbles because the ordinary statements have.

Ps 19 says the heavens declare the glory of God, but there is no speech or language nor is their voice heard, because it is a different kind of communication about the same thing. The two sources of knowledge integrate. I can't think of a better example than Gonzalez and Richards' THE PRIVILEGED PLANET. Calvin said God has two parts to his book, the book of Scriptural revelation and the book of natural revelation; but it all integrates into one book.

There is nothing to be afraid of on this. Dawkins concluded his review of intelligent design by blurting 'if there is a god, he's infinitely more intelligent than the theologians have been saying!' Huh? That is what they have been saying but he (Dawkins) just realized God's book has the natural revelation part. It must never be neglected. We must keep trying to integrate, not to say it is a separate way or type of knowledge.

 

[RBBI]

In OTHER words, you got nuthin' !

Just another false teacher looking for acceptance of his flawed beliefs.

I'm not looking for anything, I'm about my Father's business.

And it would be profitable to you to ask Him to give you the hearing ear, which we are told He plants. Without it, you'll be stuck in the mud, formless, unable to see past the muddied image. Peace

 

[RBBI]

Faith does not neglect ordinary knowledge. It is not a separate kind of knowledge. It integrates all that is known. Otherwise the spiritual or moral part of the Bible crumbles because the ordinary statements have.

Ps 19 says the heavens declare the glory of God, but there is no speech or language nor is their voice heard, because it is a different kind of communication about the same thing. The two sources of knowledge integrate.

AMEN. The natural and the spiritual have no choice but to integrate, because one came out of the other, and therefore is a mirror image, ie. a WITNESS, for how He can be any less (in the natural) than what He is?