LOL

Does the waters in Genesis 1:2 presently exist beyond the realm of the heavens and the earth of which were created within the week of creation?

According to Genesis 1:10 the waters were gathered together and called Seas. The seas of the earth are most definitely host to the heavens and the earth. (They do not exist beyond the realm of what was created in the six days of creation.)

If you attempt to claim the seas are not effected and do not exist within the confines of the heavens and the earth you deceive your self. If it were true that the waters are not host to creation, the waters could not be included as part of creation.

Genesis 2:1-3 summarizes Genesis chapter 1. If the waters (of which are host to the heavens and the earth) existed even a single day before the "first day" it would render Genesis 2:2 to be a lie. Verse 3 explains: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

If the waters existed outside the creation week, its form of time would be fully independent of time as it is measured in our universe. Otherwise, Genesis chapter 2 is a lie. I didn't find any scripture supporting the existence of waters before the beginning. There are multiple texts evidencing the beginning as the beginning of the creation week. I didn't find any texts stating that the waters were not "pre existant" either. But texts like Jer 10:12-14, 51:15-17, Amos 5:7-9, 9:5-7, and 2 Peter 3:4-6 clearly show that God did create the waters spoken of in Gen 1:2.

This implies a very serious problem with Gen 2:3. The problem being that God rested from ALL of his created works on the seventh day. This again shows that if the waters were created before the week that it was in a measure of time fully independent of the week of creation.

Amos 5:7-9 and Amos 9:5-7 evidences God's actual act of creating the waters and then pouring them over the earth.

Acts 15:18 Makes an interesting statement:

"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."

All of his works are in direct reference to the beginning of the world.

Isaiah 48:3,16 illustrate even more on God's acts of creation:

"I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I showed them; I did [them] suddenly, and they came to pass."

"Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there [am] I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me."

God's acts of creation are sudden and never in secret.

This is a list of what I considered relevant texts:

Gen 1-2, Ex 20:11, Exodus 31:16-18, Jonah 1:9, Ps 136:5-9, Pro 8: 22-29, Isa 46:10, Is 48:16, Is 48:3, Jeremiah 10:12-14, Jeremiah 51:15-17, Amos 5:7-9, Amos 9:5-7, Acts 14:15, 2 Peter 3:4-6, Acts 15:18, Acts 14:15, Rom 1:20-21, Ephesians 3:8-10, Hebrews 1:9-11, Revelation 3:13-15, Revelation 14:6-8, Rev 22:13

I concede that I can not provide absolute solid proof that the waters did not exist independent of the created universe following your guidelines. The waters could not have been included within the time marking the beginning of creation if they were "pre existant".

This line of thought (the pre existance of waters outside of the created universe) is very problematic but not utterly disproven if you are solely relying on scripture and exact word for word.

I had read your link about La Sierra University. It's rather sad, but I do not find it describing me. I'm sorry to be a distraction from your first flash model. All I'm trying to get you to consider is that one of your base assumptions may not be correct. That in no way disqualifies the rest of your model. As you have most recently said, light may not be as constant as textbooks would have us believe. I think that is an important thing to hang in with. Spin affecting the speed of light is another. I'm just trying to say there will come along someone much better than I who may cause you to really consider your base assumption of the whole universe being created at creation is not correct. Will you then throw away your faith? Would it be much better for you to apply your model and say the universe may have been created at creation, but the underlying theories still hold even if it is shown it had already been created previously?

As it is said, Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still. And, of course, the same would apply to me. Just consider the possibility.


Yep. I agree. But doesn't address what I was saying. See, we each are so biased by what we believe, we will quote statements that we feel so much directly supports our position, but the other view doesn't see any such support.

To me, what first comes to mind with relics is man created relics. Although the context suggests to me, fossils. What do you think she means by relics?


Possibly a point.

Previous thought: Do other worlds exist? When were they created? or, anticipating, when did they "exist"?
(subquestion: what is "worlds" in this question?)

Another question: Is God light, did He create light at creation?

An incorrect base assumption would usually bear negative effect to all those parts of the model which is connected with it. By definition a major part of the larger model since a premise with only minor influence on the model hardly would be a "base assumption". What about John 5:17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." ?

Well, I'm glad to see we still have stuff to question. This topic of whether or not preexistent waters were used in the creation of our visible universe does NOT effect any base assumptions supporting FF.

One of FF's reverse engineered calculations determines how long ago the time space manifold of our universe started expanding from a point. There's nothing in it prohibiting the introduction of foreign material. (Meaning: any form of "matter" composed of time space fabric independent of the time space fabric defining the visible universe in which we exist.)

This is the one reason why I've started this separate tread. As interesting as this idea is, it is still a distraction as far as my focus is concerned in my original topic covering FF.

One way someone could intoduce an idea that would conflict with an FF base assumption would be to claim that the heavens (defining our visible universe's expanse of time space) existed long before the week of creation approximately 6000 years ago.

Without any doubt, such an idea would be easily debated scripture wise. The origin of the waters, as Greenie points out, is seemingly different. Curiously, preexistant waters isn't disproven (as far as I can tell) by the Bible, nor does it damage FF. Just because I oppose the idea doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Yeah, I don't like admitting it, but I'm changing my tune.

vaster


Are you claiming then that Jesus lied or that God didn't rest from his work on the Sabbath? As flawed human beings with finite avenues for communication, we often over generalize or fail to consider context. Lets say I was at work and my boss asks me if I finished my assigned task and I respond, "Yep, I finished everthing." Does that mean I'm claiming to have accomplished everything that I ever will in my entire life?

Try to avoid overgeneralizing and focus more on context for answers.

Hey, if you're going to accept the Bible in place of opinion, sometimes opinions must change as we are educated by it. It shows a broad mind to be able to accept new truths against former beliefs. No one knows everything, and it is highly probable that many things tradition hands us are just as incorrect as our own formulated opinions can be. Most Adventists really have not sat down and considered Genesis 1 from a truly Biblical perspective. They tend to "interpret" based on the oral tradition we have been handed down. My own Grandmother eschews the view that I have been forced to arrive at based on the Bible that matter pre-existed Creation Week.

Ellen White tells us that truth is progressive. If we hold the exact same beliefs today that our Adventist pioneers held, we haven't learned much.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I had in mind such as 1844. Their base assumption was that cleansing the sanctuary was the 2nd coming. Their assumption was incorrect, but that didn't discredit the rest of their calculations nor what actually occured.

I believe your point is his point. He was responding to:
Which I took to mean that "ALL his created works" were to be taken in context -- creation. Which I took him adding another question to my two.

However, I don't believe that was why you used it. Would you then agree with him and I that we should focus on context?

Context is the sabbath. The sabbath is generally closely linked with creation in these discussions. Where did I fail to focus?