In class the other day we were going over Creation... So I posted something on FB and my wife had me look through her foundational class binder to understand where people are coming from... I didn't really understand it totally. I was wondering how you guys dealt with these points in the red binder? Any pointers you can give to me?
Thanks
Nate
What are the points in the red binder?
If you post what they are, I can tell you how I dealt with them in twi,
I don't know if you heard or not, but I spent the last week of August in the hospital because of an inadvertent massive overdose of potassium. I am still recovering from the damage it did me, so I'm not in school this semester. I don't yet have enough strength to walk up on campus, but I hope to within a week or so. Then we'll be able to get together and talk about some of these things face to face!
Wierwille said that there was no verb form "be/was" in the original. Therefore it had to be translated "became". Yeah, I know. That's a derivation of the same thing. Wacky stuff. He also said it had to be translated as such because it explains the phrase "tohu waw bohu" (null and void). It seems the idea here is that God would not have first created nothingness and then replaced it with something tangible. He would have created something of substance and then nullified it.
As to the Lucifer reference:
This is supposed to explain the section of Isaiah that deals with Lucifer's fall. According to Wierwille, Lucifer (the bright and morning star) was second in command to God but plotted to overthrow God's authority. His plot was foiled and he was banished from Heaven, along with 1/3 of the angels. (These were the ones who were part of his plot.) This idea was also used to teach how the firmament came to be compromised in the cataclysmic battle that ensued, as well as explain the existence of devil spirits who roam the Earth. His vacated position as bright and morning star was later filled by Jesus Christ.
It's non-Biblical. You seriously CANNOT derive that doctrine from the scriptures. It's just not there. You have to cut this verse from here, that verse from there, wedge those two patches into this verse over here, and PRESTO! Rightly-divided!
Steve, That sounds great look forward to connecting... I will just keep on keeping in touch! Small World huh!
WordWolf sorry for the little info.. I wish I could cut and past the ummm cutting and pasting....
Isaiah 14:12-17 some stuff on that linking it with Gen 1:1,2
Isaiah 45:18, Jeremiah 4:23... Satan is blamed for the whole without form and void thing
Just keeps going on and on and on...
He misuses the word for filament I looked it up on several hebrew dictionaries and it seems to mean something of a metal bow or a metal structure is where it comes from... Seems to parallel many of the religious traditions of the time...
He also misrepresents the Big Bang Theory... not surprising calling it "chaos" That is a loose way of looking at that theory..
I think waysider answered some of it but I am going to have to chew on that stuff if you have anymore to add that would be awesome!
"I think waysider answered some of it but I am going to have to chew on that stuff if you have anymore to add that would be awesome!"
That's an off-the-cuff recollection of what I was taught about it 40+ years ago.If I can find more information in a syllabus or book, I'll post it here. My computer access, however, is somewhat limited at the moment.
Just a quick input to this discussion regarding "The earth was/became without form and void." This was something that always bothered me because every single translated the word as "was" so I took my BibleWorks program and looked up every single usage of the word here. It's been a few years so I don't remember what the word was, but I do remember the result.
Every usage of the word indicated a change in status or nature in of the object or situation being talk about. Every single one of them, no exceptions. Some of them weren't immediately obvious as the what the change in nature was, but it always indicated a change. As a result, we I read this verse I almost always read it as "the earth came to be without." I would have to say from my limited understanding what we were taught regarding the earth being created in one state and form and changing to a different one, for whatever reason, appears to be correct. I also believe it fits in with science quite a bit better.
PFAL expanded foundational syllabus. If someone would make a copy of the syllabus or tell me where I could obtain one, I would sincerely appreciate it. Mine have long since been discarded, and now I am finding I would like to go through and actually verify what I have often as "accepted without question" as "truth" in my brain. Please email me or post if there is a public option to acquire a syllabus. Thanks. Of course I would pay for copying and postage, etc.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
What are the points in the red binder?
If you post what they are, I can tell you how I dealt with them in twi,
and how I deal with them now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Great when I get home.. I will post them..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
The Genesis 1:1,2 for was... VPW saying it "became" form and without void
It seemed the word could be read multiple ways... I am going to ask my Hebrew prof what he thinks of the word
The whole faces of the deep thing....
How did Lucifer make the first heaven?? I don't know... So much odd stuff in here...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Hey, Nate!
I don't know if you heard or not, but I spent the last week of August in the hospital because of an inadvertent massive overdose of potassium. I am still recovering from the damage it did me, so I'm not in school this semester. I don't yet have enough strength to walk up on campus, but I hope to within a week or so. Then we'll be able to get together and talk about some of these things face to face!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here's how I remember it.
Wierwille said that there was no verb form "be/was" in the original. Therefore it had to be translated "became". Yeah, I know. That's a derivation of the same thing. Wacky stuff. He also said it had to be translated as such because it explains the phrase "tohu waw bohu" (null and void). It seems the idea here is that God would not have first created nothingness and then replaced it with something tangible. He would have created something of substance and then nullified it.
As to the Lucifer reference:
This is supposed to explain the section of Isaiah that deals with Lucifer's fall. According to Wierwille, Lucifer (the bright and morning star) was second in command to God but plotted to overthrow God's authority. His plot was foiled and he was banished from Heaven, along with 1/3 of the angels. (These were the ones who were part of his plot.) This idea was also used to teach how the firmament came to be compromised in the cataclysmic battle that ensued, as well as explain the existence of devil spirits who roam the Earth. His vacated position as bright and morning star was later filled by Jesus Christ.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Funny thing, that whole Lucifer explanation:
It's non-Biblical. You seriously CANNOT derive that doctrine from the scriptures. It's just not there. You have to cut this verse from here, that verse from there, wedge those two patches into this verse over here, and PRESTO! Rightly-divided!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So, what's your point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
vpw got it from Bullinger.
Genesis 1:2 saying the Earth "was tohu va bohu",
and Isaiah 45:18 saying God didn't create the world "tohu" (in vain).
So, we have the Earth NOT created tohu, but it being tohu in Genesis 1:2.
The conclusion was that something changed things to make the Earth "tohu."
Bullinger also noted the limited uses of the word "create" in Genesis 1,
and claimed every instance that did not say "create" was not an instance of
creation, but something closer to renovation or resupply (my wording.)
The NIV has a note on Genesis 1:2 saying that the word "was" is "possibly became."
I saw that in college when comparing Bibles.
You'll have to give me more information.
I have no idea what you mean, other than a reference to Genesis 1.
Someone said Lucifer made the first heaven??? News to me.
What I heard was that God made heaven and earth (the "first" one of each,
although, AFAIK, the current one is the same as any previous one,
plus any renovations, so this is literally the same planet, albeit one where
things may have changed radically so it is metaphorically new.).
The heavens included a hierarchy of spirit beings we usually call angels to make
things simple, and the pre-eminent of them was "the bright and morning star",
aka Lucifer. He became vain and desired worship and to replace the Almighty,
so he engineered a revolt- which, predictably, lost, and the losers were cast
from heaven to earth.
Probably as an immediate result, the earth "became without form and void."
Eventually, the title "bright and morning star" is given to Jesus, who uses
it at the closing of the Book of Revelation.
Mind you,
even in twi it bothered me greatly there's no chapter of Scripture that lays
this out in a straightforward manner. There's a few verses in Isaiah, a few
verses in Ezekiel, and a few verses in Revelation. That's hardly conclusive.
The 3 sections may have nothing to do with each other or the same person,
and the Revelation verses may only refer to something in the future and not
be fulfilled one way in the past and one way in the future.
IF the Bullinger account is correct,
then a possible impact of some kind to the earth by the exiled angels might
produce results consistent with a meteorite collision. Something would hit
the earth, the impact point would throw up ash into the sky, blocking out
sunlight. Plants would starve due to lack of sunlight. Plant-eaters would
starve due to a lack of plants. Meat-eaters would starve due to a lack of
plant-eaters. It's one way to look at Genesis 1:2, and it would coincide
with the scientists who believe a meteor collision wiped out the dinosaurs.
I once saw a television show simulate the expected results of such a
collision and ash-cloud. When the sun was blocked almost completely,
I recited Genesis 1:2 to myself-and noted it matched the simulation.
If the Bullinger account is not correct,
then things were made in a progressive order.
Curiously, it's the same order the scientists think things developed in.
Right now,
I believe the account makes it clear God's the reason we're here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Steve, That sounds great look forward to connecting... I will just keep on keeping in touch! Small World huh!
WordWolf sorry for the little info.. I wish I could cut and past the ummm cutting and pasting....
Isaiah 14:12-17 some stuff on that linking it with Gen 1:1,2
Isaiah 45:18, Jeremiah 4:23... Satan is blamed for the whole without form and void thing
Just keeps going on and on and on...
He misuses the word for filament I looked it up on several hebrew dictionaries and it seems to mean something of a metal bow or a metal structure is where it comes from... Seems to parallel many of the religious traditions of the time...
He also misrepresents the Big Bang Theory... not surprising calling it "chaos" That is a loose way of looking at that theory..
I think waysider answered some of it but I am going to have to chew on that stuff if you have anymore to add that would be awesome!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"I think waysider answered some of it but I am going to have to chew on that stuff if you have anymore to add that would be awesome!"
That's an off-the-cuff recollection of what I was taught about it 40+ years ago.If I can find more information in a syllabus or book, I'll post it here. My computer access, however, is somewhat limited at the moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
Just a quick input to this discussion regarding "The earth was/became without form and void." This was something that always bothered me because every single translated the word as "was" so I took my BibleWorks program and looked up every single usage of the word here. It's been a few years so I don't remember what the word was, but I do remember the result.
Every usage of the word indicated a change in status or nature in of the object or situation being talk about. Every single one of them, no exceptions. Some of them weren't immediately obvious as the what the change in nature was, but it always indicated a change. As a result, we I read this verse I almost always read it as "the earth came to be without." I would have to say from my limited understanding what we were taught regarding the earth being created in one state and form and changing to a different one, for whatever reason, appears to be correct. I also believe it fits in with science quite a bit better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Just want to thank everyone for their input! It has been a great help!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
PFAL expanded foundational syllabus. If someone would make a copy of the syllabus or tell me where I could obtain one, I would sincerely appreciate it. Mine have long since been discarded, and now I am finding I would like to go through and actually verify what I have often as "accepted without question" as "truth" in my brain. Please email me or post if there is a public option to acquire a syllabus. Thanks. Of course I would pay for copying and postage, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.