Genesis 1 (Ian)
Greg, Nancy, and James Todd todds@pa.net
Sun, 1 Mar 1998 14:19:04 -0500 (00888801544, 199803011919.OAA28204@emh1.pa.net)
>MATT
>1. Where do you derive the idea that God apparently created water?
>
>IAN
>1. Well, you might have me here Matt. I jumped the gun. You see, vs.6
>says, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters." without
>the creation of the waters. So the waters had to have already been created.
>But you are right, I jumped ahead a verse.
>
>MATT
>You don't need to go as far as v6 to find the 'waters' as they are
>mentioned in v2: 'the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters'
>('and darkness was upon the face of the deep' could also be considered a
>reference to them), when did God create these waters?
>
>IAN
>You're the expert Matt, you tell me.
>
>MATT
>Not an expert Ian but I'll share what I think based on what I have read. v2
>is how the heaven(s) and the earth were after God had completed the
>initial act of creation - i.e. 'without form, void, waters'. What would be
>wrong about this proposition?
>
>IAN
>Well Matt, if you are not an expert and if this is only what you think, I
>will be happy to go along with you on this basis. The fact remains
>however, that IF God created everything and IF the waters were already in
>place, THEN God would have had to have created the waters even though they
>are
>not mentioned as being created.
>
>MATT
>Where do you get either from the passage of Scripture or my posts that
>the waters were already there? What I am saying is that when 'In the
>beginning God created the heavens and the earth' the result was v2. Is that
>any
>clearer?
>
>IAN
>Ge. 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.
>
>Now, IF God created the heavens and the earth and as you say, the result
>was the waters, is that not the same as God creating the waters? I don't
>understand what you are trying to say and I do not understand the great
>importance of this. Of course, others on this list seem to have problems
>with you also so I do not feel I am particuarly dense on this subject.
>
>MATT
>Yes it would be about the same, which of course would mean there was
>nothing 'apparent' about it as you earlier thought/said. Is that progress?
>
><snip semantics>
>
>Thanks
>Matt
>
>
NANCY
Cheese and rice, Matt, don't you have anything of substance to say? You seem
incapable of doing anything except playing childish games.
Nancy Todd
todds@pa.net