PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Genesis 1:28



always
Dec 26th 2008, 04:32 PM
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


of course we know that "re" placed in front of any word means to do over.

What in your opinions had happen to the earth initially for it to have to be replenished?

Bladers
Dec 26th 2008, 04:34 PM
It was destroyed.

Look at Genesis 1:2 - "Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."


Remember, God said the same thing to Noah

Bladers
Dec 26th 2008, 04:44 PM
Some of the bones of dinosaurs are 68 million years old

The 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton known as Sue stands on display at Union Station on June 7, 2000, in Washington, D.C.

Today's knowledge of fossil ages comes primarily from radiometric dating, also known as radioactive dating. Radiometric dating relies on the properties of isotopes. These are chemical elements, like carbon or uranium, that are identical except for one key feature -- the number of neutrons in their nucleus.

Usually, atoms have an equal number of protons and neutrons. If there are too many or too few neutrons, the atom is unstable, and it sheds particles until its nucleus reaches a stable state. Think of the nucleus as a pyramid of building blocks. If you try to add extra blocks to the sides pyramid, they may stay put for a while, but they'll eventually fall away. The same is true if you take a block away from one of the pyramid's sides, making the rest unstable. Eventually, some of the blocks can fall away, leaving a smaller, more stable structure.

The result is like a radioactive clock that ticks away as unstable isotopes decay into stable ones. You can't predict when a specific unstable atom, or parent, will decay into a stable atom, or daughter. But you can predict how long it will take a large group of atoms to decay. The element's half-life is the amount of time it takes for half the parent atoms in a sample to become daughters.

To read the time on this radioactive clock, scientists use a device called a mass spectrometer to measure the number of parent and daughter atoms. The ratio of parents to daughters can tell the researcher how old the specimen is. The more parent isotopes there are -- and the fewer daughter isotopes -- the younger the sample. The half-life of the isotope being measured determines how useful it is at dating very old samples. Once all the parents have become daughters, there's no more basis for comparison between the two isotopes. Scientists can't tell whether the clock ran down a few days or millions of years ago. This means that isotopes with a short half-life won't work to date dinosaur bones.

The short half-life is only part of the problem when dating dinosaur bones -- researchers also have to find enough of the parent and daughter atoms to measure. There are more i cant post here that shows what it takes to date a fossil and what volcanic ash has to do with it.

Kahtar
Dec 26th 2008, 04:46 PM
H4390 Strongs #4390: AHLB#: 1288-E (V) V) Alm% (Alm% M-LA) - Fill: [Hebrew and Aramaic] [df: arm] [freq. 253] (vf: Paal, Niphal, Hiphil, Hitpael, Pual, Piel, Participle) |kjv: fill, full, fulfill, consecrate, accomplish, replenish, wholly, set, expire, fully, gather, overflow, satisfy, filthy, lift| {str: 4390, 4391, 4754}
H853 את 'êth ayth Apparently contracted from H226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely): - (As such unrepresented in English.)

The idea behind the two words used there is simply to fill up the earth with (and extention) of self, or to 'multiply self to fill the earth'.
There is really no suggestion of 're-filling' what was once full but now empty.

Kahtar
Dec 26th 2008, 04:47 PM
That said, if you look at the words for 'formless' and 'void', there IS a suggestion of something having been destroyed, something previously in good condition becoming a ruin.

Bladers
Dec 26th 2008, 04:52 PM
The reason people do not believe it, is because they think it has any thing to do with the 6 days of recreation. but it does not.

always
Dec 26th 2008, 05:38 PM
That said, if you look at the words for 'formless' and 'void', there IS a suggestion of something having been destroyed, something previously in good condition becoming a ruin.

this is a point to look at, God could never create anything that was formless and with a void. Some type of entity had to have entered into his creation to bring it to that point.


As stated in Luke 10:18, Christ states:

"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."

Satan and his kingdom fell before the preaching of the gospel. Jesus is warning the disciples not to be full of pride, that he saw angels turned into devils by pride: that was the sin for which Satan was cast down from heaven, where? upon the earth? he was there, to deceive Eve? and rob from them their heaven?

Bladers
Dec 26th 2008, 05:43 PM
this is a point to look at, God could never create anything that was formless and with a void. Some type of entity had to have entered into his creation to bring it to that point.


As stated in Luke 10:18, Christ states:

"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."

Satan and his kingdom fell before the preaching of the gospel. Jesus is warning the disciples not to be full of pride, that he saw angels turned into devils by pride: that was the sin for which Satan was cast down from heaven, where? upon the earth? he was there, to deceive Eve? and rob from them their heaven?

ALSO

Genesis 1:2 - And the earth 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.

Was = Hayah (Hebrew), it means became/becomes.

(And the earth became formless, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.)

Kahtar
Dec 26th 2008, 06:03 PM
ALSO

Genesis 1:2 - And the earth 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.

Was = Hayah (Hebrew), it means became/becomes.

(And the earth became formless, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.)

Yes, 'became' is one of the meanings of the word, and it has been translated as 'became' in quite a few place. But it is not the only meaning of the word. And which meaning to apply in this place, in this context, is the question.

H1961 היה hâyâh haw-yaw' A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

always
Dec 26th 2008, 06:09 PM
ALSO

Genesis 1:2 - And the earth 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.

Was = Hayah (Hebrew), it means became/becomes.

(And the earth became formless, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.)



Hallelujah!

I love this :monkeyd:

Gen 3:23

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

do you differentiate Eden from the rest of the world?

Bladers
Dec 26th 2008, 06:13 PM
Jeremiah had a vision of creation and spoke of this, but he saw it backwards.

Jeremiah 4:23-40 (King James Version)

(23)I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

(24)I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

(25)I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

(26)I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

(27)For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.(fully destroy[will restore it])

(28)For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black; because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

markedward
Dec 26th 2008, 06:30 PM
of course we know that "re" placed in front of any word means to do over.No.

"Re" doesn't always mean "again". It does a lot of the time, but not every time. More often than is realized, the prefix "re" means "completely" or "fully"...

Such as these words:

Research = to search fully
Resplendent = to shine fully
Retard = to slow fully
Resist = to oppose fully
Replenish = to fill fully

God was not saying "Fill the earth again." He was saying "Fill the earth fully."

Not to mention the fact that if you go back to the original Hebrew, there is no notion of "again" in the text. This is a modern misinterpretation of old English and archaic Latin prefixes.

always
Dec 26th 2008, 08:35 PM
No.

"Re" doesn't always mean "again". It does a lot of the time, but not every time. More often than is realized, the prefix "re" means "completely" or "fully"...

Such as these words:

Research = to search fully
Resplendent = to shine fully
Retard = to slow fully
Resist = to oppose fully
Replenish = to fill fully

God was not saying "Fill the earth again." He was saying "Fill the earth fully."

Not to mention the fact that if you go back to the original Hebrew, there is no notion of "again" in the text. This is a modern misinterpretation of old English and archaic Latin prefixes.

alright, taking that into consideration, but Genesis also states

"In THE beginning" God created. In the original Hebrew, the word "the" is not there, KJV placed it there to signify a "time" God is infinite, HE has no beginning or end?

So an understanding that earth began at THIS particular time would be incorrect, and wouldn't that make plausible the logic that there was something before?

Bladers
Dec 26th 2008, 10:18 PM
Did you guys read Jeremiah 4?

Jeremiah had a vision of the creation and spoke of it, but he saw it backwards. Read and study it from verse 27 to 23

Backwards

(27)For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.(fully destroy it[will restore it])

(26)I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

(25)I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

(24)I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

(23)I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

VAIN means worthless, useless.

always
Dec 26th 2008, 10:34 PM
Did you guys read Jeremiah 4?

Jeremiah had a vision of the creation and spoke of it, but he saw it backwards. Read and study it from verse 27 to 23

Backwards

(27)For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.(fully destroy it[will restore it])

(26)I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

(25)I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

(24)I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

(23)I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

VAIN means worthless, useless.

Okay, I see what you are talking about, why do you think God gave it to him backwards?

Bladers
Dec 26th 2008, 10:58 PM
Okay, I see what you are talking about, why do you think God gave it to him backwards?


Well, He didnt just show it to Jeremiah. But He also showed it to Job.

Job 9:5-8

5 He moves mountains without their knowing it
and overturns them in his anger.

6 He shakes the earth from its place
and makes its pillars tremble.

7 He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
he seals off the light of the stars.

8 He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.

This all leads to Verse 8 of Job and this is all talking about Genesis 1:2 - And the earth 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.

This is telling us, some time in Earth's History. He was so angry, He destroyed the mountains, shook the earth, and shut up the stars and heavens.

Same thing that God showed Jeremiah

always
Dec 27th 2008, 03:31 AM
Well, He didnt just show it to Jeremiah. But He also showed it to Job.

Job 9:5-8

5 He moves mountains without their knowing it
and overturns them in his anger.

6 He shakes the earth from its place
and makes its pillars tremble.

7 He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
he seals off the light of the stars.

8 He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.

This all leads to Verse 8 of Job and this is all talking about Genesis 1:2 - And the earth 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.

This is telling us, some time in Earth's History. He was so angry, He destroyed the mountains, shook the earth, and shut up the stars and heavens.

Same thing that God showed Jeremiah

Okay, that poses a problem to me:hmm: I don't believe we serve a God that could emit darkness, for HE is light,

BCF
Dec 27th 2008, 06:15 AM
Some of the bones of dinosaurs are 68 million years old

The 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton known as Sue stands on display at Union Station on June 7, 2000, in Washington, D.C.

Today's knowledge of fossil ages comes primarily from radiometric dating, also known as radioactive dating. Radiometric dating relies on the properties of isotopes. These are chemical elements, like carbon or uranium, that are identical except for one key feature -- the number of neutrons in their nucleus.

Usually, atoms have an equal number of protons and neutrons. If there are too many or too few neutrons, the atom is unstable, and it sheds particles until its nucleus reaches a stable state. Think of the nucleus as a pyramid of building blocks. If you try to add extra blocks to the sides pyramid, they may stay put for a while, but they'll eventually fall away. The same is true if you take a block away from one of the pyramid's sides, making the rest unstable. Eventually, some of the blocks can fall away, leaving a smaller, more stable structure.

The result is like a radioactive clock that ticks away as unstable isotopes decay into stable ones. You can't predict when a specific unstable atom, or parent, will decay into a stable atom, or daughter. But you can predict how long it will take a large group of atoms to decay. The element's half-life is the amount of time it takes for half the parent atoms in a sample to become daughters.

To read the time on this radioactive clock, scientists use a device called a mass spectrometer to measure the number of parent and daughter atoms. The ratio of parents to daughters can tell the researcher how old the specimen is. The more parent isotopes there are -- and the fewer daughter isotopes -- the younger the sample. The half-life of the isotope being measured determines how useful it is at dating very old samples. Once all the parents have become daughters, there's no more basis for comparison between the two isotopes. Scientists can't tell whether the clock ran down a few days or millions of years ago. This means that isotopes with a short half-life won't work to date dinosaur bones.

The short half-life is only part of the problem when dating dinosaur bones -- researchers also have to find enough of the parent and daughter atoms to measure. There are more i cant post here that shows what it takes to date a fossil and what volcanic ash has to do with it.

Hi Bladers....nice to know you.

Let me ask you a little question here if I may. No where in scripture can I find this answer.....but maybe you know through some of your researchers you mention.

In Genesis 1:25 where it says:

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon they earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

What was the size of these beast, and cattle, and creeping things, that God made after each of there kind?

Can you answer that question for me. Now when I say answer....I don't mean make an assumption or a logical guess. Anybody can do that. I would like a Biblical answer or a scientific answer to the question.

When you provide that.....we will go from there. If you can't provide an answer to my question. Well then I guess we will just have to go with what the Bible says about it. Which we shall talk about when I hear back from you, and your answer.

God Bless,

Dave

Sirus
Dec 27th 2008, 06:50 AM
If you can't provide an answer to my question. Well then I guess we will just have to go with what the Bible says about it.Which would be?
....and please provide scripture. I don't mean make an assumption or a logical guess. Anybody can do that. I would like a Biblical answer.

dljc
Dec 27th 2008, 07:24 AM
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


of course we know that "re" placed in front of any word means to do over.

What in your opinions had happen to the earth initially for it to have to be replenished?Hi always!

The Strong definition for the word replenish means:

H4390
מלא מלא

mâlê' mâlâ'

maw-lay', maw-law'

A primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively): - accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.

To think it is as a result of something else, is taking it out of context. When we do that we tend to build on shaky ground (sinking sand). This generally causes serious doctrinal problems down the road.

The dictionary however defines the word replenish more on the lines of what you are thinking.

"to make full or complete again, as by supplying what is lacking, used up, etc.: to replenish one's stock of food. "

Hope this helps. :)

markedward
Dec 27th 2008, 08:36 AM
So an understanding that earth began at THIS particular time would be incorrect, and wouldn't that make plausible the logic that there was something before?Only if you're reading it with the preconceived notion that there is an "redo" in the story. You read the word "replenish" and interpreted the word as meaning "to fill again", so from there you're reading into the text a mysterious backstory that God had previously created something and that it was ruined and so He started over.

But there's two problems with that...

1. The first problem is that, plain and simple, the word "replenish" simply did not mean the same thing in old English as it does in modern English. It originally meant "to fill fully" and not "to fill again" (just as "research" means "to search fully" and not "to search again"). When the English word "replenish" was first being used in Genesis 1, no one thought that it was saying God told Adam to "fill the earth again"; the "again" definition of "replenish" is a modern re-interpretation.

2. The second problem is that, plain and simple, the original Hebrew doesn't put forth the idea of a "redo" in Genesis 1; why do I know this? Because no one gave this interpretation until after the word "replenish" was being re-defined in modern English; meaning, for the first few thousand years that the book of Genesis was in existence, no one interpreted it as suggesting a "redo" backstory.

The only reason the "redo" backstory (that is, that God created the earth, that something messed up, and that God was telling Adam to fill the earth "again") exists at all is because of a modern misinterpretation of the old English usage of the word "replenish" and ignorance that there are multiple uses for the "re" prefix. This is not me trying to insult you or call you "ignorant". It's me encouraging looking up all of the facts about (a) English and Latin etymology, (b) the Hebrew verb being use, (c) how the Hebrew is translated into other languages and multiple translations, (d) historical interpretations of the chapter.

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 27th 2008, 09:56 AM
Only if you're reading it with the preconceived notion that there is an "redo" in the story. You read the word "replenish" and interpreted the word as meaning "to fill again", so from there you're reading into the text a mysterious backstory that God had previously created something and that it was ruined and so He started over.

But there's two problems with that...

1. The first problem is that, plain and simple, the word "replenish" simply did not mean the same thing in old English as it does in modern English. It originally meant "to fill fully" and not "to fill again" (just as "research" means "to search fully" and not "to search again"). When the English word "replenish" was first being used in Genesis 1, no one thought that it was saying God told Adam to "fill the earth again"; the "again" definition of "replenish" is a modern re-interpretation.

2. The second problem is that, plain and simple, the original Hebrew doesn't put forth the idea of a "redo" in Genesis 1; why do I know this? Because no one gave this interpretation until after the word "replenish" was being re-defined in modern English; meaning, for the first few thousand years that the book of Genesis was in existence, no one interpreted it as suggesting a "redo" backstory.

The only reason the "redo" backstory (that is, that God created the earth, that something messed up, and that God was telling Adam to fill the earth "again") exists at all is because of a modern misinterpretation of the old English usage of the word "replenish" and ignorance that there are multiple uses for the "re" prefix. This is not me trying to insult you or call you "ignorant". It's me encouraging looking up all of the facts about (a) English and Latin etymology, (b) the Hebrew verb being use, (c) how the Hebrew is translated into other languages and multiple translations, (d) historical interpretations of the chapter.

That's good info, Mark....Thank you.

Even so, I believe the question that is being pressed here is what was in existence before the beginning. We all know that the beginning spoken of in Gen. signifies the beginning of time as we know it....so, then, was earth in existence before time began, or was this when it came into existence?

Also, doesn't the Hebrew word and in vs. 2 signify that the world was brought about in it's formless and void state....that there is no gap in time between verses 1 and 2? Isn't it the same Hebrew word and used in the rest of the chapter. For example: v.3 Then God said "Let there be light, and there was light, and God saw the light, that it was good.." There's no gap in time here....Its just a word that connects 2 things together. That is the way that I understand it.

Also, if there was a gap in time between Gen. 1 and 2, then how does one account for the heavens described in verse 1? If the heavens in their present state (including the sun, other stars, and planets) didn't exist until God created them well past verse 3, then what was this heaven that existed with the earth in verse 1? If the earth existed before the creation account in Genesis, then obviously, the heavens existed, as well....but the Bible doesn't say anything about God re-structuring the Sun or the other planets, so does this mean that they didn't exist, and the earth existed without the rest of the solar system? If we are to accept that gap theory, wouldn't we also have to accept the fact that the earth was roaming around the sky, with no other planets or stars or anything else? What about gravity?

If we adhere to the Gap Theory, then we would have to discount Genesis as a literal account of creation, unless an entirely different celestial creation existed.

If I'm wrong, please correct me. I also don't think that the Bible specifies what was in existence before time, so it's probably unwise to speculate.

Is there anywhere in Scripture that specifically states that God couldn't or wouldn't create something in an unorderly state....or is that merely our pre-conceived notion of Him?

Bladers
Dec 27th 2008, 02:05 PM
Hi Bladers....nice to know you.

Let me ask you a little question here if I may. No where in scripture can I find this answer.....but maybe you know through some of your researchers you mention.

In Genesis 1:25 where it says:

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon they earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

What was the size of these beast, and cattle, and creeping things, that God made after each of there kind?

Can you answer that question for me. Now when I say answer....I don't mean make an assumption or a logical guess. Anybody can do that. I would like a Biblical answer or a scientific answer to the question.

When you provide that.....we will go from there. If you can't provide an answer to my question. Well then I guess we will just have to go with what the Bible says about it. Which we shall talk about when I hear back from you, and your answer.

God Bless,

Dave


He made them big and small for the scriptures said, "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind".

My brother what happened to the living things in the sea during noah's flood?

But why do we have dinosaurs thats millions of years old? Science does not discredit the bible, it actually proves it. The reason we have so many atiest is because they have met the christians of the Christ, and not the Christ of the christians. They see evidence that proves earth is older than 6 thousand years, then they ask they friend christians and they profess 6 thousand. and thats it, if they only had met the Christ of the christiands with no blemish or spot. They would be Saved!


A question to every one, Why would Adam need to subdue(bring into bondage) the earth?
There must have been someone or something to subdue.
Why does devil have dominion on the earth today?

BCF
Dec 27th 2008, 04:10 PM
Which would be?
....and please provide scripture. I don't mean make an assumption or a logical guess. Anybody can do that. I would like a Biblical answer.

The scripture does not give a size on the beast. Nor does it give a size of Adam and Eve. For all we know my friend..... Adam and Eve could have been 30 feet tall. The bible does speak of Giants in Genesis 6:4. The Bible also tells us in this same chapter that these Giant's multiplied. Now......it is highly irregular to have a 30 foot Giant......having a sexual relationship with a 5.5 foot woman.

Now....I'm not saying that there were not big animals back then such as a Tyrannosaurus Rex and so one. But that is what we call them through science. All we know from scripture is that it was a beast. The scripture never......ever says how tall or small they were. But scripture does say that there were Giants. Scripture does not ever say how tall Adam and Eve were. For all we know they all could have been made 30 feet tall and larger. But one thing we do know...how ever big Adam and Eve were.....they were bigger then every living creature on the earth. Why? Because God made Adam Dominion over all of ever thing on the earth (Genesis 1:28). And in order for Adam to have that.....he needed to be bigger then all of them...b/c Adam did not have a gun.

You wanted a Biblical answer...there is one from the very beginning:P

God Bless

Dave

always
Dec 27th 2008, 05:02 PM
Thanks guys for all of your comments, I love discussion of this type. I truly appreciate the definition history of the word replenish, that does bring to light answers for me.

Our God is truly awesome:)

BCF
Dec 27th 2008, 05:46 PM
He made them big and small for the scriptures said, "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind".

I will give you the fact that God made the beast of the earth after his kind...but where do you get in scripture that it was both big and small? There is nothing in scripture which states how big HIS kind was.

[QUOTE]
My brother what happened to the living things in the sea during Noah's flood?

Nothing....fish swim in water. They don't live on ground or land. We have proof that nothing happened to them in Genesis 7:23 where it says this:

"And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him on the Ark."

In this scripture God never says anything about the fish of the sea, that God created in Genesis 1:28. So what happened to them......nothing. They just went about there day, and kept right on swimming along, according to scripture;).



But why do we have dinosaurs thats millions of years old? Science does not discredit the bible, it actually proves it.

I'm not saying that they are not millions of years old. If they are....that only proves how old the creation of the world really is.....now don't it. Since science actually proves the Bible to be correct.


The reason we have so many atheist is because they have met the christians of the Christ, and not the Christ of the christians. They see evidence that proves earth is older than 6 thousand years, then they ask they friend christians and they profess 6 thousand. and thats it, if they only had met the Christ of the christiands with no blemish or spot. They would be Saved!

Very interesting thought. But I believe that the reason that we have so many people who don't want to put there Faith in God is b/c they have to much Pride in themselves to say that they are wrong.....and God is right.


A question to every one, Why would Adam need to subdue(bring into bondage) the earth?


Subdue does not mean to bring into bondage. For your definition to be correct, the scripture would have to read that God created man so that he would sin. Nowhere in scripture will you find such a statement by God. God created man in His own image to be just like God. Sinless. That was the whole purpose for the creation of man. To be Faithful to God and be Sinless (Perfect) just like God. We find proof of that in Genesis 1:26-31.

What God wanted Adam to do when he told him to subdue the land....was to watch over it for God. In other words...be a keeper over ever thing that God created. Take care of it all.


Why does devil have dominion on the earth today?

Because of sin in the Garden.

God Bless,

Dave

Bladers
Dec 27th 2008, 05:52 PM
[quote=Bladers;1919961]
Subdue does not mean to bring into bondage. For your definition to be correct, the scripture would have to read that God created man so that he would sin. Nowhere in scripture will you find such a statement by God. God created man in His own image to be just like God. Sinless. That was the whole purpose for the creation of man. To be Faithful to God and be Sinless (Perfect) just like God. We find proof of that in Genesis 1:26-31.

Because of sin in the Garden.

God Bless,

Dave


subdue = kabash;

1) to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage
a) (Qal)
1) to bring into bondage, make subservient
2) to subdue, force, violate
3) to subdue, dominate, tread down
b) (Niphal) to be subdued
c) (Piel) to subdue
d) (Hiphil) to bring into bondage

markedward
Dec 27th 2008, 08:19 PM
Also, if there was a gap in time between Gen. 1 and 2, then how does one account for the heavens described in verse 1? If the heavens in their present state (including the sun, other stars, and planets) didn't exist until God created them well past verse 3, then what was this heaven that existed with the earth in verse 1?Think of Genesis 1:1 and 2:1 as "brackets" of the seven days of creation. Genesis 1:1 is a statement along the lines of "God did this, and here's how it happened" and Genesis 2:1 is a reiteration, "God did this, and that's how it happened." It's not really supposed to be read out as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... then the heavens disappeared and the earth was ruined, so now the earth was formless and void."

Think of it this way... this might be a bad example, but have you ever seen The Brady Bunch? Let's just look at episode 1.

The introductory theme song explains how the Brady family came to be. But then the episode gives a lengthy, detailed version of how it happened. But the introductory theme song says "That's how they became the Brady Bunch" and then the episode that follows shows that they're not a family yet. But no one says, "The introduction theme song shows Mr. Brady marrying some lady and adopting her three daughters, then in-between the introduction theme song and the first episode, Mr. Brady and this mysterious lady divorce and so when the first episode actually starts, he's trying to find a new wife and three other daughters to adopt."

Again, a bad example, but I hope the analogy comes across clearly enough. Genesis 1:1 is "God created the heavens and the earth." Then the following verses are the detailed explanation of how He did that.

BCF
Dec 27th 2008, 10:47 PM
[quote=BCF;1920162]


subdue = kabash;

1) to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage
a) (Qal)
1) to bring into bondage, make subservient
2) to subdue, force, violate
3) to subdue, dominate, tread down
b) (Niphal) to be subdued
c) (Piel) to subdue
d) (Hiphil) to bring into bondage

Ok, I'll play along....so show me in the scripture where it says that God's plan for creating man was so that man would become sin?

According to your definition of subdue...that is what God would have been creating man for.

Bladers
Dec 27th 2008, 10:51 PM
[quote=Bladers;1920167]

Ok, I'll play along....so show me in the scripture where it says that God's plan for creating man was so that man would become sin?

According to your definition of subdue...that is what God would have been creating man for.

I didn't say that. All I'm saying is God told adam to subdue the earth. We now see the meaning of subdue!

Sirus
Dec 27th 2008, 11:07 PM
But there's two problems with that...

1. The first problem is that, plain and simple, the word "replenish" simply did not mean the same thing in old English as it does in modern English. It originally meant "to fill fully" and not "to fill again" (just as "research" means "to search fully" and not "to search again"). When the English word "replenish" was first being used in Genesis 1, no one thought that it was saying God told Adam to "fill the earth again"; the "again" definition of "replenish" is a modern re-interpretation.Since old english was 500 years before the KJ translators I can hardly see your point. Not only were they not in old but they weren't in middle english either. It was early modern english.



2. The second problem is that, plain and simple, the original Hebrew doesn't put forth the idea of a "redo" in Genesis 1; why do I know this? Because no one gave this interpretation until after the word "replenish" was being re-defined in modern English; meaning, for the first few thousand years that the book of Genesis was in existence, no one interpreted it as suggesting a "redo" backstory.The Hebrew is used as re-fill in other places, such as Jeremiah. You say it is not in Genesis 1 because of your method of interpretation (whatever that may be) and no other reason. Same is true for any of us. I use the literal holistic method. So I must consider all scripture when I read the earth 'was' in a state different than God originally created it. I must consider all scripture to answer why it was in this state in Genesis 1:2. I must consider all this when I read 'fill the earth' and gaurd, protect, and keep your dominion and subdue. Subdue what? Guard against what? I don't just read over that like God is whistling in the wind. The serpant said 'be like the gods'. Did Adam know what was meant by that?

Fact is, the Hebrew meaning has always been the same and the Hebrew is used both ways.



The only reason the "redo" backstory (that is, that God created the earth, that something messed up, and that God was telling Adam to fill the earth "again") exists at all is because of a modern misinterpretation of the old English usage of the word "replenish" and ignorance that there are multiple uses for the "re" prefix. This is not me trying to insult you or call you "ignorant". It's me encouraging looking up all of the facts about (a) English and Latin etymology, (b) the Hebrew verb being use, (c) how the Hebrew is translated into other languages and multiple translations, (d) historical interpretations of the chapter.There's that 'old english' things again.

The only reason for the YEC view is because of modern misinterpretation of the Hebrew and an ignorance from lacking a holistic view of Scripture.

The fact that you mentioned
d) historical interpretations of the chapter
speaks volumes as to why you have said what you have. Historically the church has been and is full of leaven and dead wrong, no pun intended. After all they think Adam was immortal and spiritual/heavenly before he sinned, even though the text plainly says otherwise.

SIG
Dec 27th 2008, 11:15 PM
The simplest explanation:

http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/arxiv-9.htm

BCF
Dec 27th 2008, 11:44 PM
I didn't say that. All I'm saying is God told adam to subdue the earth. We now see the meaning of subdue!

I'm sorry my friend but you did. I will grant you the fact that you did not come out in those words and say that. But your definition of the word subdue does.

Here you said that the word subdue means this:


A question to every one, Why would Adam need to subdue(bring into bondage) the earth?[QUOTE]

I in response to your definition of subdue wrote this to you:

[quote=BCF;1920162] Subdue does not mean to bring into bondage. For your definition to be correct, the scripture would have to read that God created man so that he would sin. Nowhere in scripture will you find such a statement by God. God created man in His own image to be just like God. Sinless. That was the whole purpose for the creation of man. To be Faithful to God and be Sinless (Perfect) just like God. We find proof of that in Genesis 1:26-31.

What God wanted Adam to do when he told him to subdue the land....was to watch over it for God. In other words...be a keeper over ever thing that God created. Take care of it all.[QUOTE]

You then disagreed with my definition of subdue an wrote this back to me:

[quote=Bladers;1920167]


subdue = kabash;

1) to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage
a) (Qal)
1) to bring into bondage, make subservient
2) to subdue, force, violate
3) to subdue, dominate, tread down
b) (Niphal) to be subdued
c) (Piel) to subdue
d) (Hiphil) to bring into bondage

According to your answer...you would be saying that the definition of subdue is (Hiphil) to bring to bondage.

My definition of subdue out of Genesis 1:28, comes from a cross reference of scripture which takes me to 1st Corinthians 9:27 which says this:

"But I keep under (or discipline) my body, and bring it unto subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway (or disqualified)."

This Scripture does not tell me that Paul is trying to keep his body in bondage. But what it does tell me is that Paul is trying to discipline his body to bring it under subjection to what he preaches.

So you see my friend. What it all comes down to is this. I have scripture to back up ever single thing that I am saying about subdue...and so far you have showed me nothing other then a meaning of the word. Which could be a true meaning for subdue in another part of the Bible with some other scripture. But when you look at the word subdue in Genesis 1:28, and what it's meaning was, it did not mean to bring into bondage as you say. I would say that it meant number 3 in your little list.

God Bless,

Dave

Zack702
Dec 27th 2008, 11:51 PM
How else can we have gardens with good fruit to eat and trees of every sort that are good to eat? If we decide that we want to destroy the land rather than replenish it.

I think that the passage describes the spirit which was given to early men who sought it. That they should replenish the land whereever it was found that it had been destroyed or trampled or ruined. And that they would not say "we must let it remain ruined" but that they would take up the rememberance of that blessing to replenish on there own as they saw fit that they would be known by there actions also.

Take for example Abraham who had cattle and dug wells of water.
Abraham could of killed his cattle and devoured there meat.
But instead of doing it he replenished his stock so much so that anyone who visited them had plenty to eat and even his sons who inherited his stock because Abraham replenished it rather than devoured it.

This is what I think replenish means in Genesis. Not that we directly replenish the Earth but that we replenish the things that are good things and cherished and subdue the things that are wild and a worry.

The Earth is a dangerous place for a man whos head is in the clouds. I think that perhaps the early men understood this much more so than we today who live in a time where we have little concern for the reality of the wild Earth.

markedward
Dec 28th 2008, 12:33 AM
Since old english was 500 years before the KJ translators I can hardly see your point. Not only were they not in old but they weren't in middle english either. It was early modern english.Eh, you're arguing semantics now. The point about the word itself remains, even if I applied the era terms incorrectly.


speaks volumes as to why you have said what you have. Historically the church has been and is full of leaven and dead wrong, no pun intended. After all they think Adam was immortal and spiritual/heavenly before he sinned, even though the text plainly says otherwise.I didn't say anything about "the church", did I? What I said was that for the first few thousand years the book of Genesis was in existence; that includes the pre-church age.

You also mentioned that the Hebrew word is used "both ways" (that it can mean both "fill fully" and "fill again"), yet searching through lexicons and multiple translations, I cannot find any instances where this is the case. Every time I find the word, it is used in the manner of "fill fully" or "completely", but never with a notion of "again" to it.

Sirus
Dec 28th 2008, 01:00 AM
Eh, you're arguing semantics now. The point about the word itself remains, even if I applied the era terms incorrectly.go ahead and fall back on 'semantics'.



I didn't say anything about "the church", did I? What I said was that for the first few thousand years the book of Genesis was in existence; that includes the pre-church age.Yes, you did.
d) historical interpretations of the chapter
You didn't specify a part of history so naturally you would mean all.



You also mentioned that the Hebrew word is used "both ways" (that it can mean both "fill fully" and "fill again"), yet searching through lexicons and multiple translations, I cannot find any instances where this is the case. Every time I find the word, it is used in the manner of "fill fully" or "completely", but never with a notion of "again" to it.We all know of one, and I told you Jeremiah, and there are others....did you look at all 241 instances in their context?

ross3421
Dec 29th 2008, 08:26 AM
[QUOTE=Bladers;1919961]But why do we have dinosaurs thats millions of years old? Science does not discredit the bible, it actually proves it. The reason we have so many atiest is because they have met the christians of the Christ, and not the Christ of the christians. They see evidence that proves earth is older than 6 thousand years, then they ask they friend christians and they profess 6 thousand. and thats it, if they only had met the Christ of the christiands with no blemish or spot. They would be Saved!

Did not God create the earth with age? Meaning the earth though initially created without form in verse 1 was formed and fit for living after the 7 days were complete. So the earth though being in it's first days had the appearence of perhaps millions of years of age, rivers, rocks ect.....I believe this can be parralled to the age of Adam. Adam was not formed as an infant but with age.

So the earth is only 6 thousand + years but has the appearence "with age" of millions of years.

Mark

ross3421
Dec 29th 2008, 08:40 AM
Well, He didnt just show it to Jeremiah. But He also showed it to Job.

Job 9:5-8

5 He moves mountains without their knowing it
and overturns them in his anger.

6 He shakes the earth from its place
and makes its pillars tremble.

7 He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
he seals off the light of the stars.



Is this not speaking of a future event?

Re 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

Re 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

Re 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.


8 He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.

[B]This all leads to Verse 8 of Job and this is all talking about Genesis 1:2 - And the earth 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.

This is telling us, some time in Earth's History. He was so angry, He destroyed the mountains, shook the earth, and shut up the stars and heavens.

Could verse 8 be the future "new heaven" being stretched out upon the new earth after the destruction?

Mark

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 29th 2008, 05:26 PM
Think of Genesis 1:1 and 2:1 as "brackets" of the seven days of creation. Genesis 1:1 is a statement along the lines of "God did this, and here's how it happened" and Genesis 2:1 is a reiteration, "God did this, and that's how it happened." It's not really supposed to be read out as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... then the heavens disappeared and the earth was ruined, so now the earth was formless and void."

Think of it this way... this might be a bad example, but have you ever seen The Brady Bunch? Let's just look at episode 1.

The introductory theme song explains how the Brady family came to be. But then the episode gives a lengthy, detailed version of how it happened. But the introductory theme song says "That's how they became the Brady Bunch" and then the episode that follows shows that they're not a family yet. But no one says, "The introduction theme song shows Mr. Brady marrying some lady and adopting her three daughters, then in-between the introduction theme song and the first episode, Mr. Brady and this mysterious lady divorce and so when the first episode actually starts, he's trying to find a new wife and three other daughters to adopt."

Again, a bad example, but I hope the analogy comes across clearly enough. Genesis 1:1 is "God created the heavens and the earth." Then the following verses are the detailed explanation of how He did that.

Yes....I believe that's a sound explanation.

Thank you.

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 29th 2008, 05:39 PM
For all we know they all could have been made 30 feet tall and larger. But one thing we do know...how ever big Adam and Eve were.....they were bigger then every living creature on the earth. Why? Because God made Adam Dominion over all of ever thing on the earth (Genesis 1:28). And in order for Adam to have that.....he needed to be bigger then all of them...b/c Adam did not have a gun.

You wanted a Biblical answer...there is one from the very beginning:P

God Bless

Dave

Dave;

I'm sorry, but I don't see it like that at all.
Where do you get the idea that Adam and Eve were bigger in size than every creature?
One creature does not have to be bigger than another to subdue it....the reason why we must forcefully subdue creatures who are bigger than us today is because of the after-effects of the Fall...I believe that one of these after-effects is wild animals being hostile towards humans.

I don't believe that Adam had any reason to fear animals in Eden.

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 29th 2008, 05:44 PM
[quote=BCF;1920162]Subdue does not mean to bring into bondage. For your definition to be correct, the scripture would have to read that God created man so that he would sin. [quote]

:confused :huh:

Can you please explain how you make this connection?

Thank you.

Bladers
Dec 29th 2008, 08:34 PM
Can you please explain how you make this connection?
Subdue does not mean to bring into bondage. For your definition to be correct, the scripture would have to read that God created man so that he would sin.

Yea, How did you get this connection? I was also wondering... :dunno:

chad
Dec 29th 2008, 08:43 PM
Depends which translation you are using. The King James and ASV use the word replenish.

The NIV,ESV,CEV,NCV,YLT,DT,ASB,NLT,HCSV and amplified versions use the word fill instead of replenish, which IMO is a more accurate translation of the word and verse in context.

NIV Genesis 1:28

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Chad :rolleyes:



And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


of course we know that "re" placed in front of any word means to do over.

What in your opinions had happen to the earth initially for it to have to be replenished?

Emanate
Dec 29th 2008, 10:11 PM
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


of course we know that "re" placed in front of any word means to do over.

What in your opinions had happen to the earth initially for it to have to be replenished?


If you look at the Hebrew word translated as 'replenished' it actually means 'fill' and not re-fill or re-anything.

Dake's bible has done its fair share of spreading this false message.

Emanate
Dec 29th 2008, 10:17 PM
ALSO

Genesis 1:2 - And the earth 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.

Was = Hayah (Hebrew), it means became/becomes.

(And the earth became formless, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.)



sorry to correct you, but that is not correct.


היה
hayah

1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
a) (Qal)
1) -----
a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
b) to come about, come to pass
2) to come into being, become
a) to arise, appear, come
b) to become
1) to become
2) to become like
3) to be instituted, be established
3) to be
a) to exist, be in existence
b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
d) to accompany, be with
b) (Niphal)
1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
2) to be done, be finished, be gone

Emanate
Dec 29th 2008, 10:21 PM
If you look at the Hebrew word translated as 'replenished' it actually means 'fill' and not re-fill or re-anything.

Dake's bible has done its fair share of spreading this false message.


מלא
1) to fill, be full
a) (Qal)
1) to be full
a) fulness, abundance (participle)
b) to be full, be accomplished, be ended
2) to consecrate, fill the hand
b) (Niphal)
1) to be filled, be armed, be satisfied
2) to be accomplished, be ended
c) (Piel)
1) to fill
2) to satisfy
3) to fulfil, accomplish, complete
4) to confirm
d) (Pual) to be filled
e) (Hithpael) to mass themselves against

BCF
Dec 29th 2008, 10:21 PM
Yea, How did you get this connection? I was also wondering... :dunno:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Welder4Christ http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1920162#post1920162)
Can you please explain how you make this connection? Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1920162#post1920162)
Subdue does not mean to bring into bondage. For your definition to be correct, the scripture would have to read that God created man so that he would sin.

I don't understand why you would be wondering Bladers my friend...you are the one who said it in the first place. It was you definition of Subdue in post #23 when you asked the question:

A question to every one, Why would Adam need to subdue(bring into bondage) the earth?

Now....as you stated before in post #27 the Hebrew word for subdue and it's meaning is the following:

subdue = kabash;

1) to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage
a) (Qal)
1) to bring into bondage, make subservient
2) to subdue, force, violate
3) to subdue, dominate, tread down
b) (Niphal) to be subdued
c) (Piel) to subdue
d) (Hiphil) to bring into bondage

Now......from using your definition of subdue from your post on page #23 ( A question to every one, Why would Adam need to subdue(bring into bondage) the earth?) you are telling me, that (d) (Hiphil) (to bring into bondage) is the definition that fits the word subdue, that is used in Genesis 1:28.

I was disagreeing with you. I was saying that the word subdue meant: a. (Qal) #3 out of your list, which would mean, to subdue, dominate, tread down.

I say that is (Qal) would be the Hebrew meaning because God made man to dominate over everything that He created. Bladers was using the word (Hiphil), which meant to bring into bondage, and God did not create man to bring him into bondage. To say that God created man to bring him into bondage....would be like saying that God created man to sin. Because sin is bondage.

I hope that clears things up for all of you,

God Bless,

Dave

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 29th 2008, 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welder4Christ http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1920162#post1920162)
Can you please explain how you make this connection? Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1920162#post1920162)
Subdue does not mean to bring into bondage. For your definition to be correct, the scripture would have to read that God created man so that he would sin.

I don't understand why you would be wondering Bladers my friend...you are the one who said it in the first place. It was you definition of Subdue in post #23 when you asked the question:

A question to every one, Why would Adam need to subdue(bring into bondage) the earth?

Now....as you stated before in post #27 the Hebrew word for subdue and it's meaning is the following:

subdue = kabash;

1) to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage
a) (Qal)
1) to bring into bondage, make subservient
2) to subdue, force, violate
3) to subdue, dominate, tread down
b) (Niphal) to be subdued
c) (Piel) to subdue
d) (Hiphil) to bring into bondage

Now......from using your definition of subdue from your post on page #23 ( A question to every one, Why would Adam need to subdue(bring into bondage) the earth?) you are telling me, that (d) (Hiphil) (to bring into bondage) is the definition that fits the word subdue, that is used in Genesis 1:28.

I was disagreeing with you. I was saying that the word subdue meant: a. (Qal) #3 out of your list, which would mean, to subdue, dominate, tread down.

I say that is (Qal) would be the Hebrew meaning because God made man to dominate over everything that He created. Bladers was using the word (Hiphil), which meant to bring into bondage, and God did not create man to bring him into bondage. To say that God created man to bring him into bondage....would be like saying that God created man to sin. Because sin is bondage.

I hope that clears things up for all of you,

God Bless,

Dave


Umm.....not really.

I guess I'm just not following your argument.

Must be some sort of inside info that I'm lacking.

kenrank
Dec 30th 2008, 07:48 AM
It was destroyed.

Look at Genesis 1:2 - "Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."


Remember, God said the same thing to Noah

There is a difference, there was life before Noach. For God to tell him to replenish (re-fill) the earth is a given. But for YHWH to say it to Adam? That would mean that there was life before them? Dino's? While dating says dino's are millions of years old, there are also footprints of man and dino's side by side, fossilized. I will say that the word "replenish" MAY not have been the best choice of the translators.

mâlê' mâlâ'
maw-lay', maw-law'
A primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively): - accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.

As you can see, the word "replenish" is one of many meanings this Hebrew word can have. "To fill" is the first use, the context of many of the other words or phrases kind of leans in this direction as well.

In the end, this is a scriptural problem we can never solve! There is simply not enough scripture to answer it. So, I leave it be, I will ask God when and if I ever have his ear.

Peace.
Ken