Genesis chapter one.

[Fritz Kobus]

. . . The new heavens and a new earth is about God's future Kingdom and Eternity. It will not happen until after.... Christ's future 1,000 years reign of Revelation 20 (I do not believe men's doctrine of Amillennialism).

What do you mean by Christ's 1000 years reign of Revelation 20?

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Sorry, I do not interpret that at all in the Jeremiah 4:24-28 Scripture. God is using His prophet Jeremiah there to forewarn the Jews that He is getting ready to bring Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, upon them to destroy. Then starting in Jeremiah 4:24 by repeating the "without form, and void", etc., He is trying to remind them of a destruction upon the earth He did before, like an example of what was coming upon them...
. . .

God did not shake the earth at the time of Noah with that flood, so this is not speaking of the time of Noah. Hebrews 12 is pointing to 'another'... coming destruction upon this earth, the one to happen on the last day of this present... world, by God's consuming fire burning man's works off the earth, per 2 Peter 3:10 on the "day of the Lord".
. . .

I stand corrected. Jeremiah was warning about a destruction being brought upon the Jews, whether it be from Nebuchadnezzar or later from Rome.

Odd that God would be trying to remind them of a destruction that was never recorded in the Bible. We have a good account of the destruction from Noah's flood but somehow this equally devastating destruction that some presume to have occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 gets no description at all, yet it is going to make the Jews tremble to think of it as a reminder that similar destruction is to come upon them? If this gap destruction is real, I find it very strange that the Bible makes no mention of it. Rather, when Jesus compares the coming destruction with an historical event, he refers to the "days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37). Noah's flood is specifically referenced in Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5, but the New Testament writers apparently had no use for referring to a destruction between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 because there is no record of such destruction for them to refer to. We have four specific references to Noah's flood in the New Testament, but zero for this presumed gap destruction. Pretty clear that the idea of a gap destruction between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is just that, an idea and nothing more.

 

[Lees]

@Fritz Kobus

You just acknowledged that Jeremiah was speaking of destruction. And Jeremiah used the condition of the earth in (Gen 1:2) to describe that destruction. (Jer. 4:23-25) "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light....I beheld, and, lo, there was no man...."

Thus you have right there the proof that (Gen. 1:2) is a picture of judgement and destruction. Not creation.

Plus, in Jeremiah's description of this judgement he also says in (Jer. 4:27) "For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; ye will I not make a full end."

God provides hope for Israel during this judgement. He will not make a full end. He will not destroy completely. Just as He did not destroy the earth completely and instead carried on His purpose.

In other words, Jeremiah's comparison of (Gen. 1:2) to Israel's impending judgement gives hope to Israel because God did not destroy the earth. And if (Gen. 1:2) is not a picutre of judgement and destruction, then neither does it offer any hope to Israel of any mercy.

Point being: (Gen. 1:2) is a picture of judgement, not original creation.

Lees

 

[SetFree]

What do you mean by Christ's 1000 years reign of Revelation 20?

Exactly what I said, the "thousand years" reign by Lord Jesus and His elect of the future, per Revelation 20.

Rev 20:2-5
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
KJV

Surely you're not going to tell me that already happened?

I understand the doctrine called Amillennialism, which started around the same time the Gnostics crept into the Church in the 2nd century A.D. They do not believe the "thousand years" of Rev.20 is literal, I do.

Even at the end of Isaiah 24, it tells us the earth's kings are going to be locked in that future pit prison too, and after many days (i.e., the 1,000 years), they will be visited.

And Zechariah 14 reveals the leftovers that will come up against Jerusalem will after Christ's future return will be made to come up to Jerusalem to worship Him, and keep the feast of tabernacles.

And both the Revelation 3:9 and Revelation 22:14-15 Scripture reveal the wicked are still existing after Christ's future return, even outside the gates of the holy city in that future time when the Tree of Life is manifested for Christ's elect inside the gates.

There's just too much Scripture evidence against men's theory of Amillennialism, I could never accept it.

 

[SetFree]

I stand corrected. Jeremiah was warning about a destruction being brought upon the Jews, whether it be from Nebuchadnezzar or later from Rome.

Odd that God would be trying to remind them of a destruction that was never recorded in the Bible. We have a good account of the destruction from Noah's flood but somehow this equally devastating destruction that some presume to have occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 gets no description at all, yet it is going to make the Jews tremble to think of it as a reminder that similar destruction is to come upon them? If this gap destruction is real, I find it very strange that the Bible makes no mention of it. Rather, when Jesus compares the coming destruction with an historical event, he refers to the "days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37). Noah's flood is specifically referenced in Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5, but the New Testament writers apparently had no use for referring to a destruction between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 because there is no record of such destruction for them to refer to. We have four specific references to Noah's flood in the New Testament, but zero for this presumed gap destruction. Pretty clear that the idea of a gap destruction between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is just that, an idea and nothing more.

I do not see Rome in that picture at all in Jeremiah 4. The days of Jeremiah were long before the days of the Roman empire.

As I have said, Hebrew tohu ("without form") is often used exactly the way Jeremiah 4:24-28 used it, about something good that went into a waste state. In that case, God is describing a 'fruitful place' turning into a 'wilderness' (Jeremiah 4:26). If you have a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, or an Englishman's Concordance, you can look up all the places in The Old Testament where that word 'tohu' appears, and see how it is used and was translated (Strong's no. 8414). The way it was used in Jer.4:24-28 is how it is used the majority of times in The Old Testament.

And there are... more hints about God's destruction of that old world. I showed you in 2 Peter 3:5-6 verses...

2 Peter 3:5-6
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
KJV

"that by the word of God the heavens were of old" = the Genesis 1:1 of God's original creation of the heavens and the earth", not a summary statement, but an independent statement of His first original creation that was NOT in bondage of corruption.

"and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" = the perfect original earth (a fruitful place), sitting a waste, overflowed with waters upon it; the state of Genesis 1:2.

Then Peter says that specific world perished. Not Noah's time, but before.

In Romans 8, Apostle Paul said God put the creation into bondage of corruption for today. That means at some time in the past, this earth was NOT in bondage of corruption.

God did not do that at the time of Noah, because there is NO re-seeding of the earth's plants and vegetation, no re-creation mentioned in Noah's day. Nor does it even say the earth trembled with the mountains and hill being moved in Noah's day.

So there, I gave 2 New Testament examples that Apostles Paul and Peter both knew about that old destruction, and Peter even said many are 'willingly ignorant' of it. This also was the matter Peter was pointing to with Paul's Epistles, that in them are many hard things to understand. This matter is one of them.

 

[SetFree]

Oh yeah, here is another New Testament witness to God's destruction upon the earth long before Noah...

Heb 12:25-29
25 See that ye refuse not Him That speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused Him That spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him That speaketh from heaven:

26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now He hath promised, saying, "Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven."

27 And this word, 'Yet once more', signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

29 For our God is a consuming fire.
KJV

Notice the Hebrews 12:26 phrase, "Yet once more I shake not the earth only". When did God shake the earth ONLY, and not Heaven too? It is still prophecy that for the end of THIS Present world He is going to both shake the earth and Heaven also (Isaiah 2:19; Isaiah 13:13; Joel 3:16; Revelation 6:13-14; Matthew 24:29, etc.)

The future shaking of both this present earth and Heaven is what Apostle Paul is comparing to in the above Hebrews 12 Scripture to a PREVIOUS shaking God did upon this ancient earth. And we do not find that shaking nor consuming fire description anywhere at the time of the flood of Noah's day.

Moreover, the LEVEL of shaking Hebrews 12 is describing is on par with the coming destruction Peter said will happen on the last day of this present world ("day of the Lord") with God's consuming fire burning man's works off this present earth per 2 Peter 3:10.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

@Fritz Kobus

You just acknowledged that Jeremiah was speaking of destruction. And Jeremiah used the condition of the earth in (Gen 1:2) to describe that destruction. (Jer. 4:23-25) "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light....I beheld, and, lo, there was no man...."

Thus you have right there the proof that (Gen. 1:2) is a picture of judgement and destruction. Not creation.

Plus, in Jeremiah's description of this judgement he also says in (Jer. 4:27) "For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; ye will I not make a full end."

God provides hope for Israel during this judgement. He will not make a full end. He will not destroy completely. Just as He did not destroy the earth completely and instead carried on His purpose.

In other words, Jeremiah's comparison of (Gen. 1:2) to Israel's impending judgement gives hope to Israel because God did not destroy the earth. And if (Gen. 1:2) is not a picutre of judgement and destruction, then neither does it offer any hope to Israel of any mercy.

Point being: (Gen. 1:2) is a picture of judgement, not original creation.

Lees

Just because Jeremiah uses the same phrase as was used to describe the initial formation of matter that would be shaped into the creation does not mean that there was a world that had to be destroyed prior to our current world being formed and populated. Formless and void is a state. It can be from a lump of clay that has not been made into a bowl yet, or it could be from clay that has been smashed and pulverized. There is nothing in the words for formless and void that would imply a destruction.

But let's pretend there is this "gap." Then how long was it from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:2?

What was created in 1:1 that was then destroyed?

Why was it destroyed?

How would the presence of a gap destruction affect our theology?

Why does this gap matter?

 

[Lees]

Just because Jeremiah uses the same phrase as was used to describe the initial formation of matter that would be shaped into the creation does not mean that there was a world that had to be destroyed prior to our current world being formed and populated. Formless and void is a state. It can be from a lump of clay that has not been made into a bowl yet, or it could be from clay that has been smashed and pulverized. There is nothing in the words for formless and void that would imply a destruction.

But let's pretend there is this "gap." Then how long was it from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:2?

What was created in 1:1 that was then destroyed?

Why was it destroyed?

How would the presence of a gap destruction affect our theology?

Why does this gap matter?

Destruction is what Jeremiah is talking about. (Jer. 4:20) "Destruction upon destruction is cried....." Jeremiah was not just using the words 'formless and void'. He was comparing Israel's impending destruction to the earths destruction.

(Jer. 4:23-26) "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. 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.

And the promise to Israel that God would not make a complete annhilation, (Jer. 4:27), of her, can be trusted just as God continued on in His purpose for the earth. In other words, Jeremeiah was not given this just to talk about the earth's judgement for a moment. It related to what God was also going to do with Israel. The judgement and the promise of hope.

1.) As to how long the gap was between (Gen. 1:1) and (1:2): I don't know. We are not told.

2.) As to what was created and destroyed: the earth and whatever was upon the earth during that time. (Gen. 1:2) "And the earth...."

3.) As to why it was destroyed, I believe others have already mentioned it. The fall and rebellion of Satan. For, when God created the earth Satan had not yet rebelled. (Job 38:4-7) "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?.....When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? And Satan was already fallen while Adam and Eve were not. (Gen. 3:1)

So Lucifers actions had an affect upon the earth. Meaning he had some sort of authority from God concerning it. I believe this is alluded to in (Ezekiel 28:12-15). In (28:13) it says, "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God". But the Eden there is not the same as the Eden Adam and Eve were in. (28:14) says, "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so; thou wast upont the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. " This is the Eden and earth prior to Satan's rebellion.

One can understand the hatred that Satan had when he saw God restoring the earth and creating a lesser creature, man, to replace him and whatever authority he had. And of course that Man, would be eventually, Jesus Christ.

4.) As to how the Gap affects our theology: any understanding of what God has revealed to us in the Bible helps us. It adds to our knowledge of God and what He is doing and what has gone before.

5.) As to why the Gap matters: Same answer as #(4)

Lees

 

[SetFree]

Just because Jeremiah uses the same phrase as was used to describe the initial formation of matter that would be shaped into the creation does not mean that there was a world that had to be destroyed prior to our current world being formed and populated. Formless and void is a state. It can be from a lump of clay that has not been made into a bowl yet, or it could be from clay that has been smashed and pulverized. There is nothing in the words for formless and void that would imply a destruction.

That's an assumption, and is not accurate. The Hebrew tohu ("without form") is a Hebrew word that can apply to something in a good state going to a waste or nothing state (Job 6:18; Isaiah 29:21; Isaiah 40:23; Isaiah 45:18 where God said He did not create the earth tohu).

But let's pretend there is this "gap." Then how long was it from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:2?

No one knows how long that time gap was. But the fossil record, the true fossil record, does reveal a destruction ended a much more ancient time on earth, and destroyed various specie of God's original creation that have never appeared in today's present creation, i.e., like dinosaurs and the woolly mammoth. Then a period existed in the fossil record where no life existed, and then suddenly a springing forth of new life of the species of today's world.

And about one of the woolly mammoth found in the Arctic region, buried frozen in the ice. It still had plant vegetation in its mouth showing it was caught grazing in a green field, and also plant vegetation undigested in its stomach. That still puzzles scientists, because that points that it was caught in the Arctic which was not yet ice, but lush and green. And then suddenly the mammoth was instantly buried in a flood of water that also instantly froze. Otherwise, unfrozen waters would have decayed the mammoth instead of preserving it in the fresh state when it died.

Also not widely made known, is the fact that both the earth's poles have fossil remains of tropical plant and animal life.

Scientists like to think the earth's land plates shifted, to try and explain that; like the land at the poles was at one time located in warmer regions of the earth, but that idea has never been proven.

What was created in 1:1 that was then destroyed?

God's PERFECT CREATION.

Revelation 21:1 that says in the world to come there will be no more sea (i.e.,. no more oceans), that reveals what? A brand new creation of a brand new earth, as if this present earth will be totally destroyed, and then God will start afresh? No, because God didn't literally turn the ancient earth into an asteroid belt either when He brought a flood upon it to end Satan's original time of rebellion against Him.

So where are all those ocean waters going to go, think kind in the natural sense based on the Scriptures? Well, He gave us the view in Genesis 1:2-9 of a time of previous waters overspread upon this earth that He moved portions of it to create today's sky atmosphere around the earth. The rest of those waters He left upon the earth, and then moved those around on the earth until the dry land appeared. All that is not difficult to understand IF... one reads it as written without men's preconceived traditions affecting it.

So what's wrong with today's sky atmosphere around the earth today? I know, most think it is perfect and beautiful, which it is, kind of. However, it may be beautiful, as God's creation is, but it is not perfect, which is why Paul showed in Romans 8:18-25 that God placed His creation in bondage to corruption for this present world time.

The problem with today's sky around the earth is that it is full of holes. This is what actually causes our violent storms for this present world time. Cold air from the heights is heavier and falls down to mix with warmer air at the surface that is rising, because of the sun shinning through those sky holes to heat the earth and evaporate waters upon the earth. That mix in the sky is what causes violent storms, along with the water vapor rising to fill up those clouds and turn them 'black' as rain clouds.

But what would happen if all... of those holes in today's sky were filled by the ocean waters on today's earth? It would form a complete cloud canopy around the earth, and be like a greenhouse. In a greenhouse, the temperature is the same everywhere in it. Thus it would be like a tropical paradise all over the earth, not more desert hot regions at the equator, no extreme cold regions at the poles, just like the real ancient fossil record shows.

 

[SetFree]

Why was it destroyed?

Because of Satan's rebellion in coveting God's Throne. Satan still today wants to be worshiped in place of God. The Ezekiel 31 chapter is actually a type parable about that time when Satan was exalted by God, and then fell. It uses a lot of metaphors, but it makes an obvious statement about the Assyrian being in God's Garden of Eden, which is using that Assyrian title as a symbol for Satan himself (that old serpent of Genesis, per Rev.12:9).

God ended that old world because of that overthrow by Satan. Even Rev.12:3-4 reveals that ancient world when Satan first rebelled, with a beast system that had ten horns, seven heads, but only 7 crowns. The beast of Rev.13 is to have 10 crowns instead, so the two are not the same. And that beast of Rev.12:3-4 is linked with the time when Satan drew a third of the angels (stars) to earth in rebellion.

How would the presence of a gap destruction affect our theology?

Why does this gap matter?

For this present time, this matter is not understood by the majority, and won't be probably until Lord Jesus returns, and then it will be known of by all. At present, one would be surprised at how many pastors do... understand about that time gap, but don't let on. Most of them would be fired if they taught it to the congregation because of the present religious systems over many of today's Churches. They'd lose their pensions/jobs. I know of only one Protestant Church in my area that has an actual Hebrew/Greek scholar that teaches Bible only and doesn't evangelize, and according to a friend who goes there, that scholar taught this from the Hebrew. My friend said not many had a clue what he was talking about.

Why does understanding it matter? It won't matter unless God puts an 'unction' by The Holy Spirit into one's mind. My friend at that Church that heard it preached is very scientific oriented, an engineer and student of geology. He was having trouble reconciling what science says about an ancient earth and his belief in The Bible as being inerrant. I asked a pastor I met one time about it, and he got up close to me and said that no man showed him that, but that God showed it to him, and he said that twice to me to make sure I understood that God gave Him to understand, and not man.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

I don't know how you can put so much together out of a verse that is not even in the Bible (the verse between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2), nor how so much can be made (books have been written on it) out of a reference to 1000 years that occurs in one chapter of the Bible.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

That's an assumption, and is not accurate. The Hebrew tohu ("without form") is a Hebrew word that can apply to something in a good state going to a waste or nothing state (Job 6:18; Isaiah 29:21; Isaiah 40:23; Isaiah 45:18 where God said He did not create the earth tohu).

A nothing state would be the state stated in Genesis 1:2. Nothing had been formed or shaped from the raw materials that were initially created.

Notice also that Genesis 1:2 says "and the earth was without form and void." "Was," not "became."

Exodus 20:11: "In six days, the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." So if there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 it must be a gap of minutes or hours at most.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

In Romans 8, Apostle Paul said God put the creation into bondage of corruption for today. That means at some time in the past, this earth was NOT in bondage of corruption.

Correct. The earth was not in bondage until the events described in Genesis Chapter 3.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Exactly what I said, the "thousand years" reign by Lord Jesus and His elect of the future, per Revelation 20.

Rev 20:2-5
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
KJV

Surely you're not going to tell me that already happened?

I understand the doctrine called Amillennialism, which started around the same time the Gnostics crept into the Church in the 2nd century A.D. They do not believe the "thousand years" of Rev.20 is literal, I do.

Even at the end of Isaiah 24, it tells us the earth's kings are going to be locked in that future pit prison too, and after many days (i.e., the 1,000 years), they will be visited.

And Zechariah 14 reveals the leftovers that will come up against Jerusalem will after Christ's future return will be made to come up to Jerusalem to worship Him, and keep the feast of tabernacles.

And both the Revelation 3:9 and Revelation 22:14-15 Scripture reveal the wicked are still existing after Christ's future return, even outside the gates of the holy city in that future time when the Tree of Life is manifested for Christ's elect inside the gates.

There's just too much Scripture evidence against men's theory of Amillennialism, I could never accept it.

No, it didn't already happen. We are in the middle of it.

I see nothing about Jesus' future return in Zechariah 14.

Revelation 3:9 seems to be speaking of that future event where "every knee shall bow" (Romans 14:11).

I don't know that you can take the book of Revelation as being a chronological description of events. The wicked will exist after Jesus' returns to gather his church, they just will not exist in Heaven--Luke 16:23-26. Jesus' first return was not a bodily return but the bringing of destruction upon Jerusalem. His second return will be to gather all the saints at the end of time.

One could similarly say, there is just too much Scripture evidence against men's theory of Millennialism. I could never accept it.

 

[SetFree]

I don't know how you can put so much together out of a verse that is not even in the Bible (the verse between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2), nor how so much can be made (books have been written on it) out of a reference to 1000 years that occurs in one chapter of the Bible.

If you're referring to what I have posted, then your reasoning is laughable, since I covered many Bible Scriptures about it. If you think you can just disprove it by saying it ain't so as evidence, then that also is laughable.

 

[SetFree]

A nothing state would be the state stated in Genesis 1:2. Nothing had been formed or shaped from the raw materials that were initially created.

A nothing state idea... is actually from men's tradition, and not actually what the Genesis 1:2 verse is describing per the Hebrew.

And the fact that it is declaring an existing earth with "the waters" that God's Spirit moved upon, along with the next verses about God moving those waters, it makes the nothingness idea silly.

Notice also that Genesis 1:2 says "and the earth was without form and void." "Was," not "became."

The 19th century British Christian Bible scholar E.W. Bullinger has an interesting side note on that Hebrew for "was"...

"Genesis 1:2
was = became. See Gen 2:7; 4:3; 9:15; 19:26; Ex 32:1; Deut 27:9; 2 Sam 7:24, &c. Also rendered came to pass Gen 4:14; 22:1; 23:1; 27:1; Josh 4:1; 5:1; 1 Kings 13:32; Isa 14:24, &c. Also rendered be (in the sense of become) Gen 1:3, &c, and where the verb "to be" is not in italic type. Hence, Ex 3:1, kept = became keeper, quit = become men, &c. See Ap. 7."
(from E. W. Bullinger's Companion Bible: Notes and Appendices. Biblesoft Formatted Electronic Database Copyright © 2014 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Per Bullinger, the meaning of "was" in Genesis 1:2 means 'became'. That reveals once again the usage of the Hebrew tohu ("without form") about something that was in a previous good state going into a waste and a ruin.

Exodus 20:11: "In six days, the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." So if there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 it must be a gap of minutes or hours at most.

Exodus 20:11 is referring to God's creation of this present world that He placed in bondage to corruption (Romans 8), not the old world which He originally created perfect before Satan rebelled. The 6 days for this present creation started at Genesis 1:2.

 

[SetFree]

Correct. The earth was not in bondage until the events described in Genesis Chapter 3.

There is nothing mentioned about God placing the creation in bondage at that time of Adam and Eve's sin. You are making an assumption with no Scripture proof.

Yet God's Word does... give proof of a previous destruction upon this earth prior to the days of Noah, as I have already shown in Scripture, which you have failed to address (all the Jeremiah 4:24-28 verses, all the Romans 8:18-25 Message by Apostle Paul, the 2 Peter 3:5-6 Scripture where Peter is pointing to a previous original creation with the earth standing in the the water, and out of the water, per Genesis 1:2-9, which perished. Even the Hebrews 12 Scripture I showed gives proof of a previous trembling and shaking of this old earth which is no where written of in Noah's days, nor in Adam and Eve's days.

So I have given you plenty of Scripture proof for that ancient destruction of the old world at Genesis 1:2.

 

[SetFree]

No, it didn't already happen. We are in the middle of it.

And now you want to argue men's theory of Amillennialism?

Christ's "thousand years" reign with His elect of the "first resurrection" has NOT started yet today. To think it has would mean the resurrection is already past, because that 1,000 years begins with Christ's future return, which is when the resurrection and being "caught up" happens (see John 5:28-29).

I see nothing about Jesus' future return in Zechariah 14.

No sense in me conversing with you, because if you deny that Zechariah 14 Scripture that does... reveal the event of Christ's return back to the Mount of Olives where He ascended to Heaven from, then I cannot be sure I am talking with a real Christian...

Zech 14:1-5
14 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when He fought in the day of battle.

4 And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with Thee.
KJV

 

[Lees]

I don't know how you can put so much together out of a verse that is not even in the Bible (the verse between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2),

I don't know exactly the post you are addressing. So I can only assume you wanted to create the confusion.

I responded in post #(68) to your questions and pretentions in post #(67).

Is your statement here a response to that? If so, I showed you how Satan's fall would fit in the time period between (Gen. 1:1) and (Gen. 1:2).

Satan was not fallen when God created the earth. (Job. 38:4-7) Correct?

(Gen. 1:1) is that creation. Correct?

Satan is fallen and in the garden in (Gen. 3:1). Correct?

So, according to you, when did Satan fall and rebel?

Lees

 

[Lees]

A nothing state would be the state stated in Genesis 1:2. Nothing had been formed or shaped from the raw materials that were initially created.

Notice also that Genesis 1:2 says "and the earth was without form and void." "Was," not "became."

Exodus 20:11: "In six days, the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." So if there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 it must be a gap of minutes or hours at most.

No. (Jer. 4:20) and (Jer. 4:23-26) show that (Gen. 1:2) is a picture of destruction and judgement.

It was already mentioned that the word 'was' often means 'became'. That word alone proves nothing. Context alone determines. Just as with the word 'And' in (Gen. 1:2). It indicates it follows. It doesn't indicate that it follows immediately.

As for (Ex. 4:20)...so? The Gap Theory doesn't deny the Six Day Creation. The Six Day Creation becomes Recreation.

Lees