Is this the second Earth...

[Tobias Reiper]

or is water eternal? One thing that's always bothered me about the Genesis account is that everything is mentioned as being specifically created (the light, plants, etc.), except for the land and water.

If I read correctly the first act of Creation was the creation of the Heavens, but before that Genesis says that the Spirit of God moved upon the waters. There's really no reference to the creation of land, just that it was brought out of the waters.

I never could reconcile this with the concept of God being the only non-created, but I can also find no Scriptual evidence of a pre-Ademic race of man, save for the first chapter of Genesis.

Then one day a friend and I were talking about the gap theory. He said that his dad subscribes to the belief that the earth has existed before, taken care of by Lucifer and his angels, and it was destroyed following the rebellion.

From Genesis we can infer that the fall of Lucifer occured before the creation of Man, so is it possible that Lucifer and his angels were, in fact, predecessors to man and that the earth we now inhabit was made from the remnants of of the earth they had inhabited?

It seems to be an interesting theory, but is there any real merit in it? The only evidence I've been able to find is the fact that the water seemed to exist before the Genesis account of Creation, but as stated earlier, God is said to be the only non-created, and the land and water being eternal would negate that notion.

[4Pillars]

Dear Fatty Arbuckle,

There are several reasons why I believe that the word used in Gen. 1:1 is Heaven and not Heavens (plural).

God first created the materials needed for our physical world to form. In the context of the text, I see the narrative as saying:

In the beginning God Created the heaven (Air) and the Earth (Ground). And the Earth (Ground) was without form, (Dust) and void; (Empty) and darkness (Death) was upon the face of the deep, (Water) and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The 3 elements necessary for all physical form are shown... Air, Dust, and Water. Everything which is physical is composed of these 3 elements.

The text is correct in showing that the water was not directly created, or spoken into being, because it consists of elements of the Air or Atmosphere. Water is Hydrogen and Oxygen and came from the Atmosphere and is not shown as a separate creation.

This is correct in today's scientific knowledge, but IF the Bible were written by Ancient men, Moses would not have known this. He would have written that in the beginning God created the Air, Dust, and Water, but since God Himself is the Author, He correctly shows that the Atmosphere and Ground were created, and the Water was not a separate creation but instead, came from the Atmosphere.

God Bless

[Dee Dee Warren]

There is no merit IMHO to the gap theory.

[4Pillars]

There is no merit IMHO to the gap theory.

I agree. The term "Genesis" speaks of the beginning or birth of our universes and has nothing to do with the fall of Lucifer or "gap theory". JMHO


God Bless

[James Peter]

I agree. The term "Genesis" speaks of the beginning or birth of our universes and has nothing to do with the fall of Lucifer or "gap theory". JMHO


God Bless

And the term Genesis is a title given to the book hundreds of years later than it was written, more than a thousand of years later if you hold to Mosaic authorship.

The correct (original) title of Genesis is Bere[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color], "In the Beginning" - the first word of the text. Arguing from the greek title for the work is flawed.

As for what this 'beginning' is... it certainly doesn't have to be of everything. Mark begins with an equivelant phrase (arche) and yet nobody would argue that it is talking about the beginning of everything.

For the record I think that 'gap theory' lacks evidence and wouldn't want to advocate it but the reasons for doing so need to be more than saying "Look! Its called Genesis you fool!"

[4Pillars]

And the term Genesis is a title given to the book hundreds of years later than it was written, more than a thousand of years later if you hold to Mosaic authorship.

The correct (original) title of Genesis is Bere[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color], "In the Beginning" - the first word of the text. Arguing from the greek title for the work is flawed.

As for what this 'beginning' is... it certainly doesn't have to be of everything. Mark begins with an equivelant phrase (arche) and yet nobody would argue that it is talking about the beginning of everything.

For the record I think that 'gap theory' lacks evidence and wouldn't want to advocate it but the reasons for doing so need to be more than saying "Look! Its called Genesis you fool!"

Correct. And I believe I have accomplished just that -- not only on this thread but also on the other thread, related to this topic....

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90413

Is there anything more I could help you to understand or clarify for your benefit?