Post by In the Name of JesusPost by Dawn FloodPost by In the Name of JesusPost by Dawn FloodPost by In the Name of JesusPost by Christ Rose2 Thessalonians 2: Doctrinal Analysis
You see, the Lord is a "doctrinal analysis" to them, a thing, like
their bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_to_the_Thessalonians
Dawn
Irrelevant. What if you found out that your father was not your real
father? Do we now throw you away as valueless and substance-less?
There are so many different books that did not make it into the
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Does anything ever register with you, Dawn?
Post by Dawn FloodPost by In the Name of JesusIn the beginning, God, God eternal or nothing would be here.
You can't even define "nothing".
Brilliant!
Well, you can't, and, you won't. Here's a paper that was published 40
years ago in The Physical Review Letters by the eminent cosmologist
https://www.scribd.com/document/329268164/Creation-of-Universes-From-Nothing
Of course, you'll never read it, even though it is (with references)
only 4 pages long.
Dawn
Dawn,
This below is taken from Dr. McGee’s commentary on Gen chapter 1. I thought
it might be of interest to you given your comments above.
He address this all quite differently than do most people. I hold this man in
with High Honor, My Dad and he were friends and I first met him when I was
around 5-7 years old.
This info should be on the Net somewhere, but I do not know where.
Genesis 1:1-2
CHAPTER 1
THEME: Creation of the universe; construction of the earth; day one—light;
day two—air spaces; day three—dry land and plant life; day four—sun,
moon, and stars appear; day five—animal life; day six—fertility of animal
life; creation of man.
CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [Gen 1:1].
This is one of the most profound statements that has ever been made, and yet
we find that it is a statement that is certainly challenged in this hour in
which we are living. I think that this verse is all we have of the actual
creation—with the exception, as we shall see, of the creation of man and
animals later on in the Book of Genesis. But this is the creation story, and
I'll admit that it is a very brief story, indeed.
An incident was told by Paul Bellamy, the late city editor of theCleveland
Plain Dealer, that while he was making the rounds of the reporters' desks one
night, he noticed one of his men grinding out a “tapeworm” on what
Bellamy regarded as a relatively unimportant event. “Cut it down!” he
said. “After all, the story of the creation was told in Genesis in 282
words.” The reporter shot back, “Yes, and I've always thought we could
have been saved a lot of arguments later if someone had just written another
couple hundred.”
It is interesting to note that God certainly has given us an abridged
edition. The question arises: What did He have in mind when He gave us this
particular section? What was the Author's purpose here? Was it His purpose to
teach geology? There is a great deal of argument and disagreement at this
particular juncture. Sometime ago here in California, the state board of
education voted to include the biblical so–called theory of creation in
science books. Now frankly, I'm not so sure that I'm happy about that.
Someone will say that I ought to be because it is a step in the right
direction. My friends, I'll tell you why I'm not happy. My concern is
relative to the character of the teachers who teach it. We don't have enough
teachers with a Christian background and with a Bible background to be able
to teach it properly. Very few of the public school teachers are prepared,
really, to teach the story of creation.
Dr. Ralph Girard, professor of biology and dean of the graduate division at
the University of California at Davis is reported by the press to have made
the comment that the “theory of creation” makes about as much sense as
teaching about the stork. He asked if a scientific course on reproduction
should also mention the stork theory. The very interesting thing is that the
stork theory is not mentioned in the Bible at all, but the creation story is
mentioned. His comparison is not quite warranted, because the Bible deals
literally with this matter of procreation, and if you read your Bible
carefully, you never could have the viewpoint of the stork theory! So what
this man says is certainly beside the point but reveals a very antagonistic
attitude toward the Bible. I'm of the opinion that this man probably knows a
great deal about this particular subject, which seems to be biology, but he
knows very little about the Word of God. This is quite obvious from the type
of statement he has made.
This problem of origin provokes more violent controversy, wild theories, and
wide disagreement than any other. Always there is the inclusion of men's
hypotheses, and as a result there is a babble of voices that has drowned out
the clear voice of God. Actually, there are two extreme groups who have
blurred the issue, and they have muddied the waters of understanding by their
dogmatic assumptions and assertions. One group is comprised of the arrogant
scientists who assume that biological and philosophical evolution are the
gospel truth. Their assumed axiom is “the assured finding of science,”
and we'll look into that in a moment. The other group is comprised of the
young and proud theologians who arrogate to themselves the super–knowledge
that they have discovered how God did it. They write and speak learnedly
about some clever theory that reconciles science and the Bible. They look
with disdain upon the great giants of biblical expositors of the past as
being Bible dwarfs compared to them.
I would say that both of these groups would do well to consider a statement
that was made to Job when the Lord finally appeared to him. God asked him the
question: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
declare, if thou hast understanding” (Job 38:4). In other words, God is
saying to man, “You talk about the origin of the universe, but you don't
even know where you were when I laid the foundation of the earth!”
There are a great many theories as to how the world began, but all of them
can be boiled down to fit into a twofold classification: one is creation, and
the other is speculation. All theories fall into one of these two divisions.
The theory of evolution is comprised of many different theories in our day,
and some of the most reputable scientists of the past, as well as of the
present, reject evolution. So we can't put down the theory of evolution as
being a scientific statement like 2 + 2 = 4. Then there is the creation
account in Genesis 1, which must be accepted by faith. It is very interesting
that God has made it that way—by faith is the only way in the world by
which you can accept it. Notice what the writer to the Hebrews said: “Now
faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that
the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were
not made of things which do appear” (Heb 11:1-3). So today the great
problem still remains. How did it get from nothing to something? The only way
that you can ever arrive at an answer is by faith or by speculation—and
speculation is veryunscientific.
Now let us look at some of the theories of origin. There are those who tell
us that we should accept the scientific answer. I would like to ask, what is
the scientific answer? What science are we talking about? In the year 1806
Professor Lyell said that the French Institute enumerated not less than
eighty geological theories which were hostile to the Scriptures, but not one
of these theories is held in our day.
Moses is the human agent whom God used to write the Book of Genesis, and I
think he would smile at all the disturbance today regarding the creation
story because he did not write it with the intention of giving a scientific
account. Paul tells us the purpose of all Scripture: “All scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be
perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2Ti 3:16-17). The
purpose of the Scripture is for instruction in righteousness. It was not
written to teach you geology or biology. It was written to show man's
relationship to God and God's requirements for man and what man must do to be
saved. You can write this over the first part of the Book of Genesis:
“What must I do to be saved?”
May I ask you, if God had given a scientific statement of creation, how many
people of Moses' day could have understood it? How many people even in our
day could grasp it? You must remember that the Bible was not written for only
learned professors but also for simple folk of every age and in every land.
If it had been written in the scientific language of Moses' time, it
certainly would have been rejected.
Therefore, men have proposed several solutions relative to the origin of the
universe. One is that it is an illusion. Well, that is certainly contrary to
fact, is it not? And yet there are people who hold that theory. There are
others who believe that it spontaneously arose out of nothing. (In a way,
this is what the Bible states, although it goes further and says that God
spoke it into existence; He created it.) Another view is that it had no
origin but has existed eternally. A fourth view is that it was created, and
this breaks down into many different theories which men hold in an attempt to
explain the origin of the universe.
I have before me some of these theories which men have advanced down through
the history of the world. Here is a statement by Dr. Harlow Shapely, the
former director of the Harvard Observatory, who commented that we are still
imbedded in abysmal ignorance of the world in which we live. He observed that
“we have advanced very little, relative to the total surmisable extent of
knowledge, beyond the level of wisdom acquired by animals of long racial
experience. We are, to be sure, no longer afraid of strange squeaks in the
dark, nor completely superstitious about the dead. On many occasions we are
valiantly rational. Nevertheless, we know how much the unknown transcends
what we know.” In other words, we are still absolutely in the dark relative
to the origin of this earth on which we live.
Dr. Loren C. Eiseley, Office of the Provost, University of Pennsylvania, was
asked about this; he answered that “we do not know any more about matter
and how it is produced than we know about spiritual things. Therefore, I
think it is unwise to say in our present state of knowledge that the one
precludes the other. The universe seems to exist as a series of emergent
levels, none of which is like the level below. That man and all the rest of
life have evolved and changed is undeniable, but what lies beneath these
exterior manifestations, we do not know. I wish I could answer your question,
but to clothe my ignorance in big words would benefit neither yourself nor
me.”
One article says that man is on the verge of discovering the mystery of the
origin of the world. That happened to be written back in 1961. We haven't had
anything new on that since then, by the way.
The biologist Edwin Conklin, speaking of evolution, stated that the
probability of life originating by accident is “comparable to the
probability of the unabridged dictionary originating from an explosion in a
print shop.” That sounds very unscientific, coming from a scientist, but
it's true.
There seem to be at least three theories of the origin of the universe which
even astronomists have suggested, and it is interesting to note them. One is
known as the “steady state” theory, one is the “big bang” theory, and
another is the “oscillating” theory.
A Caltech scientist, Dr. William A. Baum, speaking at UCLA, told the National
Academy of Science that new findings tend to rule out the “steady state”
theory that the universe has always existed and that new matter is
continually being created. Several years ago that was the accepted theory;
now they have a new theory for the origin of the universe. Dr. Baum
apparently held the “big bang” theory, which is that a great explosion
took place billions of years ago and that we are in for another one in
probably another ten billion years. I don't think we need to worry about that
a great deal, but it is an interesting theory and one that was fathered in
Great Britain.
Several years ago, Dr. Louis Leakey, an anthropologist (the son of a
missionary, by the way) discovered in Africa what he called a missing link.
He dug up pieces of a skull with well–developed teeth, called it the
“nutcracker man” and claimed it belonged to a teenage youth about six
hundred thousand years ago. Well, we have had theories like that before, and
since we've heard no more of this one since 1961, I guess the scientific
world didn't fall for it.
There are other ways for explaining the origin of man. Dr. Lawrence S.
Dillon, associate professor of biology at Texas A and M College, says that
man is not an animal but a plant which evolved from brown seaweed. Now maybe
you have been looking in the wrong place for your grandpa and grandma. Some
folk have been looking up a tree. Now we are told that we should be down at
the beach pulling out seaweed because that is grandpa and grandma! Some of
this speculation really becomes ridiculous.
A long time ago I read in a leading secular magazine that: “After centuries
of bitter arguments over how life on earth began, an awe–inspiring answer
is emerging out of the shrewd and patient detective work in laboratories all
over the world.” You would think that by now we would be getting some
straight answers or at least a little encouragement, but none has been
forthcoming.
It was the practice, according to J. V. N. Talmage, that the dogma which
scientists followed was this: “The archaeological finds of prehistoric
cultural objects must be so arranged that the cruder industries must always
be dated earlier than those of a ‘more advanced’ type, regardless of
where they are found.” It has been a little disconcerting to find some of
the advanced civilizationsunderneath those who seem to be of prehistoric
time.
So many other theories are offered today about how the earth began. Dr. Klaus
Mampell from Germany reportedly said that he didn't see any more reason for
seeing us (the human race) connected with apes than with canary birds or
kangaroos.
The evolutionary theory is divided up into many different phases and
viewpoints. It has never been demonstrated as being true. It is unfortunate
that when you get down to the level of the pseudo–scientists, and I'm
thinking of the teachers today in our public schools who teach science, they
really are not in a position to give a fair view because they were given only
one viewpoint in college.
There is no unanimous acceptance of evolution even by scientists. Here is a
quotation from Dr. G. A. Kerkut, of the Department of Physiology and
Biochemistry at the University of Southampton in England. Though he himself
is an evolutionist, in his book, The Implications of Evolution, he writes:
“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed
over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed.
This can be called the “Special Theory of Evolution” and can be
demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the
theory that all of the living forms in the world have arisen from a single
source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called
the “General Theory of Evolution” and the evidence that supports it is
not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a
working hypothesis.” Now listen to the statement of the Swedish botanist,
Dr. Heribert Nilsson, who is also an evolutionist: “My attempts to
demonstrate evolution by experiment carried on for more than forty years,
have completely failed…. At least I should hardly be accused of having
started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint….” It may be
firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature out of
paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has
been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series
cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. Deficiencies are
real. They will never be filled…. The idea of an evolution rests on pure
belief.”
May I say to you, he is moving into the realm of religion! My friend, to be
an evolutionist you have to take it by faith. Evolution is speculation and
always has been that. But, unfortunately, a great many folk have accepted it
as fact.
In our day a group of theologians (young theologians for the most part) who,
not wanting to be called intellectual obscurantists, have adopted what is
known as “theistic evolution.” If you would like to know what one
scientist says about it, Kirtly Mather, inScience Ponders Religion, says:
“When a theologian accepts evolution as the process used by the creator, he
must be willing to go all the way with it. Not only is it an orderly process,
it is a continuing one. The golden age for man—if any—is in the future,
not in the past…. Moreover, the creative process of evolution is not to be
interrupted by any supernatural intervention. The evolution of the first
living cells from previously existing nonliving materials may represent a
quantum jump rather than an infinitesimal step along the path of progress,
but it is an entirely natural development.” Theistic evolution is probably
the most unrealistic of all theories. It is almost an unreasonable tenet and
an illogical position. There are those today who are trying to run with the
hare and with the hounds. They would like to move up with the unbelievers,
but they also like to carry a Scofield Bible under their arm. My friend, it
is difficult to do both. It is like that old Greek race in which a contestant
rode with one foot on one horse and the other foot on another horse. It was
marvelous when the two horses kept on the same route. But, believe me, when
one of the horses decided to go in another direction, the rider had to
determine which one he was going with. That is the condition of the theistic
evolutionist. He ordinarily ends up riding the wrong horse, by the way.
In our day there is so much misinformation in the minds of intelligent human
beings. For example, before me is a clipping from a secular magazine from
several years ago. It posed a question, then answered it. First, the
question: “What, according to biblical records, is the date of the creation
of the world?” Now listen to the answer that was given: “4,004 B.C.”
How utterly ridiculous can one be?
An article in Life magazine concerning the origin of life said that at some
indeterminate point—some say two billion years ago, some a billion and a
half—life miraculously appeared on the surface of the deep. What form it
took, science cannot specify. All that can be said, according to this
article, is that “through some agency certain giant molecules acquired the
ability to duplicate themselves.” My friend, are you willing to go along
with the theory that giant molecules acquired the ability to duplicate
themselves?
Other ridiculous theories have been advanced. One is that man began on this
earth from garbage that some prehistoric intelligence left on this earth in
the dim and distant past. That statement comes from a scientist! While some
scientists send us out to look for our ancestors in the trees, another sends
us out to look at the seaweed, and now some send us to the garbage can! This
is getting worse and worse, is it not? I don't know about you, but I feel
that God's statement of creation still stands in this modern age.
A famous definition of evolution which Herbert Spencer gave stated that:
“An integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion during
which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent, homogeneity to a
definite, coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained motion
undergoes a parallel transformation.” You ponder that one for awhile,
friend!
It still makes more sense to me to read: “In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth.” Who created the universe? God did. He created it out
of nothing. When? I don't know, and nobody else knows. Some men say one
billion years ago, some say two billion, and now some say five billion. I
personally suspect that they are all pikers. I think it was created long
before that. My friend, we need to keep in mind that God has eternity behind
Him. What do you think He has been doing during all the billions of years of
the past? Waiting for you and me to come on the scene? No, He has been busy.
He has had this creation a long time to work with. You see, He really has not
told us very much, has He? It is presumptuous of little man down here on
earth to claim to know more than he really knows.
You cannot put one little star in motion;
You cannot shape one single forest leaf,
Nor fling a mountain up, nor sink an ocean,
Presumptuous pigmy, large with unbelief!
You cannot bring one dawn of regal splendor,
Nor bid the day to shadowy twilight fall,
Nor send the pale moon forth with radiance tender;
And dare you doubt the One who has done it all?
—Sherman A. Nagel, Sr.
It behooves us to just accept that majestic statement which opens the Word of
God: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” And with
the psalmist let us consider His heavens, the work of His fingers, the moon
and the stars, whichHe hast ordained (Psa 8:3) and realize that
“the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his
handiwork” (Psa 19:1).
The apostle Paul wrote this to the Romans: “For the invisible things of him
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse” (Rom 1:20). And the writer to the Hebrews says: “Through
faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that
things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb 11:3).
We must accept creation by faith. Even science cannot tell us how something
can be made out of nothing. God apparently did it just that way. And man
today cannot tell when this was created.
When we compare the Genesis record with other creation accounts, the
contrasts are striking indeed. Most nations have a legend of creation, and
probably all of them are corruptions of the Genesis account. For example, we
find one of the best accounts of a secular nation in the Babylonian tablets
of creation. Notice some of the contrasts: The Babylonian tablets begin with
chaos. The Bible account begins with cosmos, with perfection. “In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” According to the
Babylonian account, the heavenly bodies are gods, but they are nothing in the
world but matter according to the Bible. There is a polytheistic theology in
the Babylonian account but a monotheistic truth in the Bible account. The
Babylonian account says the universe is just the work of a craftsman, but the
Bible says that God spoke and it came into existence. The Babylonian account
is characterized by its puerility and grotesqueness, whereas the Bible
presents grand and solemn realities of the Creator God who is holy and who is
a Savior. The Babylonian account is definitely out of harmony with known
science, but the Bible is in accord with true science.
I reject evolution because it rejects God and it rejects revelation. It
denies the fall of man and the fact of sin, and it opposes the virgin birth
of Christ. Therefore, I reject it with all my being. I do not believe that it
is the answer to the origin of this universe.
There are three essential areas into which evolution cannot move and which
evolution cannot solve. It cannot bridge the gap from nothing to something.
It cannot bridge the gap from something to life. It cannot bridge the gap
between life and humanity—that is, self–conscious human life with a free
will.
The press, of course, is always looking for something sensational and comes
up with interesting findings. One of the things which has been put in my
hands is a clipping from a fellow Texan. They have found near Glenrose,
Texas, down near a place where I used to live, the tracks of dinosaurs. Now,
I've known about that for years. You might expect that in Texas they would
find the biggest of everything, and apparently the dinosaurs were there. But
now they have found something that is quite disturbing: they have found some
giant human tracks in the same place. You know, that's really upsetting
because it is very difficult to start out with a little amoeba or a little
scum on top of the water and then find that walking back there with the
dinosaurs were human beings who were much bigger than any of us today.
Evolution is going to have a lot of problems in the next few years. May I
predict (and I am merely echoing a prediction of a scientist) that by the end
of this century the theory of evolution will be as dead as a dodo bird.
While there is a great deal more that could be said on these issues, there is
a third question that arises. Not only are folk asking who created and when
did He create but alsowhy did He create. Believe me, this gets right down to
the nitty–gritty. This is very important.
The Word of God tells us that this universe was created for His own pleasure.
He saw fit to create it; He delighted in it. In the final book of the Bible
we find these words: “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour
and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are
and were created” (Rev 4:11). He created this universe because He wanted to
create it. He did it for His pleasure. You may not like the universe, but He
does. He never asked me about where I wanted this little world on which I
live to be located in His universe. In fact, He didn't even ask me whether I
wanted to be born in Texas or not. Of course, if He had given me the
opportunity, I would have chosen Texas. But He didn't give me that choice.
May I say to you that this universe was created for His pleasure. He saw fit
to create and He delighted in the act.
The second reason that He created this universe was for His own glory. The
original creation, you remember, sang that wonderful Creator's praise “…
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for
joy” (Job 38:7). It was created for His glory. And in the prophecy of
Isaiah are these words: “… I have created him for my glory, I have formed
him; yea, I have made him” (Isa 43:7). God created this universe for His
own glory.
The Word of God also tells us that God created man in this universe for
fellowship. He wanted to have fellowship with mankind, and so He created him
a free moral agent. God could have made a bunch of robots. God could have
made mechanical men and pushed a button to make them bow down to Him. But God
didn't want that kind of a man. God wanted a man to be free to choose Him and
to love Him and to serve Him.
My friend, in the midst of all the unbelief, the blasphemy, and the hostility
toward God which is around us today, the greatest thing you can do as a human
being is to publicly choose the Lord Jesus Christ. To believe in God the
Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth and to receive His Son, Jesus
Christ, is the most glorious privilege that you and I have. We hear a lot of
talk about freedom of speech and freedom of every sort, but this poor crowd
around us who talks so loudly of freedom doesn't seem to know what freedom
really is. We have real freedom when we choose Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Now let's return to the first verse of Genesis: “In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth.” This is a majestic verse. It is a
tremendous verse. I am of the opinion that it is the doorway through which
you will have to walk into the Bible. You have to believe that God is the
Creator, for he that cometh to God must believe that He is. “In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
“In the beginning”—that is a beginning which you cannot date. You can
estimate it as billions of years, and I think you would be accurate, but who
knows how many? Certainly man does not know.
“God created.” The word “create” is from the Hebrew wordbara, which
means to create out of nothing. This word is used only three times in the
first chapter of Genesis, because it records only three acts of creation. (1)
The creation of something from nothing: “In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth.” (2) The creation of life: “And God created great
whales, and every living creature that moveth …” (v. Gen 1:21). That's
animal life of all kinds. (3) The creation of man: “So God created man in
his own image …” (v. Gen 1:27). Theistic evolution is not the answer. It
attempts to follow creation until the time of man, then considers Adam and
Eve to be products of some evolutionary process. The theistic evolutionist
considers the days in Genesis as periods of time, long periods of time. I do
not believe that is true. God's marking off the creative days with the words,
“And the evening and the morning were the first day,” etc., makes it
clear that He was not referring to long periods of time but to actual
twenty–four hour days.
“God created the heaven and the earth.” The earth is separated from the
rest of creation. Why? Well, the earth is the hometown of mankind; that's
where he is to be placed. We are very much interested in him because we
belong to this creature. We need to realize, my friend, that you and I are
creatures, creatures of God, and as creatures of God, we owe Him something.
It was years ago that Herbert Spencer said, “The most general forms into
which the manifestation of the Unknowable are re–divisible aretime, space,
matter, force, motion.” Those were his categories of division. A very fine
personal worker, George Dewey Blomgren, was talking to an army sergeant who
was a law graduate. Mr. Blomgren was attempting to witness to him. The
sergeant mentioned Herbert Spencer, so Mr. Blomgren replied, “Did you know
that both the Bible and Spencer teach the great principle of creation?” The
sergeant's eyes widened and he asked, “How's that?” The reply was,
“Spencer talked about time, space, matter, force, motion. In the first two
verses of Genesis we find: ‘In the beginning [time] God created the heaven
[space] and the earth [matter]. And the earth was without form and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God [force] moved
[motion] upon the face of the waters.’ It took Spencer fifty years to
uncover this law, but here it is in fifty seconds.” The sergeant had no
grounds for argument and soon trusted Christ as his Savior.
It is very interesting that God has put down these great principles in the
first two verses of Genesis. How important it is for us to see that.
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 [Gen 1:2].
Although this view has been discredited by many in the past few years, I
believe that a great catastrophe took place between verses Gen 1:1 and Gen
1:2. As far as I can see, there is an abundance of evidence for it. To begin
with, look out upon this vast creation—something has happened to it! Man's
trip to the moon reveals nothing in the world but a wasteland up there. How
did it get that way? May I say that there came a catastrophe in God's
universe.
That is specifically mentioned in regard to the earth because this is to be
the place where man lives, and so the earth is described as being “without
form and void.”
“Darkness was upon the face of the deep” indicates the absence of God, of
course.
“Without form, and void” is a very interesting expression. “Without
form” is the Hebrew word tohu, meaning a ruin, vacancy; “void” is the
Hebrew word bohu, meaning emptiness. Notice this statement in the prophecy of
Isaiah: “For thus said the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that
formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in
vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else”
(Isa 45:18). Here God says that He did not create the earth “in vain,”
and the Hebrew word is tohu, which is the same word we found in Gen 1:2. God
did not create the earth without form and void. God created this universe a
cosmos, not a chaos. This is the thing which Isaiah is attempting to make
clear. He created it nottohu va bohu, but the earth becametohu va bohu. God
formed the earth to be inhabited, and it was God who came to this wreck and
made it a habitable place for mankind.
Our current study and exploration of space has revealed, so far, that you and
I live in a universe in which only the earth is habitable for human beings. I
believe that Genesis is telling us that this earth became without form and
void, that it was just as uninhabitable as the moon when the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters.
I believe that the entire universe came under this great catastrophe. What
was the catastrophe? We can only suggest that there was some pre–Adamic
creature that was on this earth. And it seems that all of this is connected
with the fall of Lucifer, son of the morning, who became Satan, the Devil, as
we know him today. I think all of this is involved here, but God has not
given us details. The fact of the matter is that He has given us very, very
few details in the first chapter of Genesis.
“And the spirit of God moved.” The word for “moved” means brooded,
like a mother hen broods over her little chicks. He brooded upon the face of
the waters. The Holy Spirit began a ministry here which we will find Him
doing again and again. It is re–creation! He comes into this scene and He
recreates. This is precisely what He does for us.
You will remember that the Lord Jesus said, “… Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jhn
3:5). The water is the Word of God. Now, if you want to make baptism the
symbol for it, that's fine. But the water means the Word of God. And the Holy
Spirit is the Author of it. This is very important for us to see.
Robert
This is another view worthy of understanding.