Genesis 1: 3 Commentary

Gap creationism is a tiny bit better than YEC, but it still doesn’t make any sense:
1. It solves the problem of the age of Earth, but it doesn’t solve the problem of the age of the sun and the other stars.
2. It still leaves the order of creation intact, i.e. the sun and stars are still created after Earth.
3. It still leaves the days of creation at 24 hours apiece, so we still have entire forests forming in just one 24-hour day.
4. It still doesn’t accept the scientific reality that creation is not a one-time thing. New species are still being created while others die off; new stars are still being formed, etc. etc.
5. It still doesn’t make Earth round.

Young Earth Creationism, Day-age creationism, Gap Creationism… the more we fiddle with the words of the Bible the more meaningless we make it.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/10/2011 02:58 am

Lately I did some research on Genesis and I consider myself a Gap creationist. I believe that the events in Genesis 1:3 took place after a gap of millions of years from the events of the previous two verses. This makes more sense to me than for example Young Earth creationism.

Definition of Gap creationism:
***Gap creationism, is a form of Old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. In this it differs from Day-Age creationism, which posits that the ‘days’ of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from Young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.***

By Harry Rutherford (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/10/2011 01:00 am

RdeV: For post #134. Pls. adm. just 1 last comment…

Bin Laden was not deceived by the Big Big Lie on MARRIAGE….but he was deceived by his own wrong interpretation of their Holy Koran….Koran 29:46 tells true believers in God (Allah..Eli…) not to dispute/ fight with true Jews and true Christians…and that they should believe on the Bible…but what do we see some Muslims do?

And regarding MOhammad, adding more than four wives…it was a necesary thing for him to do. Do you know why? There was a war. and the husbands of the women he later married died from that war…in order to help the households of those dead but faithful men, he married their wives…though many of those women were quite old…and were not attractive physically…judge righteous judgement, we just don’t jumped to conclusions…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/6/2011 17:29 pm

Yes Charles, according to Islamic scholars Mohammed had between eleven and thirteen women (among them a six year old with whom Mohammed slept for the first time when she was nine or ten {sick})…

I searched how many wives Osama bin Laden had. The answer: 6 (so he was half as bad as the ‘Prophet’ Mohammed).

In the summer of 2000, weeks after his fifth marriage to 15-year-old Yemeni Amal al-Sadah, Bin Laden gave an interview to a jihadist publication in which he talked about the importance of keeping his family close despite the risks to them. “It is my desire that my children grow up in an atmosphere of jihad and absorb Islam in its true spirit,” he said. “Believe me, when your children and your life become part of your struggle, life becomes very enjoyable.”

This same wife, Amal al-Sadah, appears to have tried to protect Osama bin Laden by rushing the American Seal team as they stormed into his room. Amal was shot in the leg and remains under guard in a Pakistani military hospital as the US fights to try to access her.

By R de Velliers (wrote 9 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 20:55 pm

Re post 134: “Note that a muslim man may not take more than four wives.” Just an aside… don’t mean anything much by this observation. But it is my understanding that the 4-wife limit was established by Mohamed himself, who then went on to have about a dozen!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 20:39 pm

Matthew19:5

By Cleopas (wrote 61 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 19:07 pm

TUICHE
Can you come to matthew19 and discuss the issue you have raised

By Cleopas (wrote 61 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 19:04 pm

R d V:

Thanks for the information…I am not aware that some Muslim societies does that.But doing that prohibiting men to marry another wife…would violate Gods will. for God did not say all should have many wives. God did not say all should have no wife like eunuch for the Kingdom of heaven. He did not say that all should have only one wife. God is silent, and had given individual person to decide how many wife one wishes. when government or religion prohibit that which God did not prohibit…we know that they have made themselves higher than God. They made the Word of God void through their traditions and commandments of men. Such prohibition is describe in 1 Timothy 4:1-6..especially verse 1 and verse 3…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 17:17 pm

Tiuche, you wrote: “have you seen some of my comments about the BIG BIG LIE on marriage? I always repeat my warning regarding it…since it had engulfed almost the entire world except for those in the muslim society…big deception…wrecking havoc upon Christendom…” You refer to the taboo on polygamy. Osama bin Laden wasn’t deceived - according to your conviction - he was married to plenty of women…

Note that a muslim man may not take more than four wives. A muslim woman may, before marriage, make a stipulation that the husband is not allowed to marry any other women. A subsequent second marriage by the husband invalidates his first marriage.

In muslim countries like Azerbaijan, Tunisia and Turkey, for example polygamy is not legal!

By R de Velliers (wrote 9 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 16:59 pm

Marek:
It was more or less about 4158 B.C. when God created our first parent. I believe the very first to lie was the serpent and the lie the serpent made was if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they will not surely die,instead their eyes would be opened and would be as gods, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:1-5). The serpent have mixed truth and lie to poison the mind of the mother of mankind. The serpent said their eyes would be opened and they will become as gods..and indeed their eyes did open and they became as gods(see Genesis 3:7 22)…the only problem was the penalty of death for eating (Genesis 2:17; 3:22-24).

Some say that Eve was the first to lie (Genesis 3:2-3), but she was not lying. The instruction of God was not to eat (Genesis 2:17)…but note what Eve answered the serpent in Genesis 3:2-3. She added to God’s Sure Words- she said that God have instructed not to eat and also NOT TO TOUCH IT…the woman was deceived for she did not listen carefully but Adam was not. He ate the fruit thereof with full knowledge…most probably because of her love for his wife. He could have asked God for another mate…but their togetherness and camaraderie…so he opted to go to death with her…such love…

This was the LIE….why the lie? Some say because the serpent-personifacation of the devil, wanted to go against all that God had planned…some say the devil is envious of human because of our potential to become the children of God…personally, I cannot decide yet which is which or if there are other answer. Hope others would show us from the scripture any insight about this. One thing of note here…the devil always works through the woman in getting his evil plan to succeed….have you seen some of my comments about the BIG BIG LIE on marriage? I always repeat my warning regarding it…since it had engulfed almost the entire world except for those in the muslim society…big deception…wrecking havoc upon Christendom…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 16:38 pm

Tiuche,
Looking through my other translations of the Holy Scriptures I have came across a very interesting reference.

In The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures by the New World Bible Translation Committee of 1984 of the Jehovah’s Witnesses on the page 9 in the Bold text font, there are 3 subtitles:
Woman created. First lie. Origin of sin.

They 3 relate to the text below of the book of Genesis between chapter 2 verse 9 and chapter 3 verse 6.

The questions are about the subtitles and the responding texts in the book:

1. who was the first to lie? and
2. what was the lie about and why?

Any appropriate and reliable comments please?

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 12:56 pm

Jeremy S:
Yeah I know their reputation among Christians…some accusations are right …some are wrong…I don’t judge them…I get what is good, what is honorable, what is virtues…the things I consider wrong I throw away…If I say: that I am better than them and I am wrong in the sight of God, where would that put me? So it is better to esteem all others better than ourselves….I have also a KJV Bible from the Latter Day Saint with concordance…hehe..I bought it only for 20 pesos…it benefited me a lot….I consider them our equal in God sight….although many calls them cults!

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/3/2011 16:00 pm

Tiuche, I don’t have anything against individual Jehova’s Witnesses, but please be careful with their publications. They are notorious for translating the Bible in a way that suits their sectarian belief-system.

By Jeremy Sündholm (wrote 45 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/3/2011 15:36 pm

Marek:
I use the KJV…I also use a Diaglott (New Testament Greek w/ English Word for Word Translation) from the Watchtower Society…i bought it for 50 pesos only…good that you show interest on God Word…remember one thing important…your study of the Book should lead you into all GOODNESS & TRUTH….not doubt, not lost of love for people & God….the study of God’s pure Words will lead you into sincerity and more faith in Him….if your study leads you to…bad things…be aware that your /our enemy had sidetracked you…May the Lord our God paint your life with zeal in your walk with Him…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/3/2011 15:18 pm

Tiuche,
I thank you for link to Online Etymology Dictionary, very handy indeed.

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/3/2011 14:08 pm

Hi Tiuche,
I have bought myself a fabulous the Brown’s Self Interpreting Bible with numerous additional notes by the Rev. J.B.Patterson and the Rev.A.J.Patterson.
On the web, an average price of the book is £200, I paid slightly less.

Just about to start to read it and judging by the first its notes and references, it is a very good and reliable translation of KJV.
Looking forward to share my observations based on this book.

What translation are you using at present Tiuche, please?

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/3/2011 14:06 pm

ETYMOLOGY OF BEHOLD…

Bihalden…behealdan…meaning to give regard to…to hold in view….to keep hold of….you can see this in the “Online Etymology Dictionary”…I asked if you were a Jew for salvation is of the Jews and I thought you were translating from a Hebrew Bible…one Jew who I have a high regard to is Bob Dylan…he had become a follower of Jesus Christ too…if you are not a Jew it is okay…most of us here are not…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/2/2011 13:50 pm

Hi again,
Do you have any knowledge about the word ‘Behold’ its etymology etc.
I would appreciate your share about it, please?
Marek

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/2/2011 12:57 pm

Marek:
Correction please I did not say that a lot of Bible translation is corrupted…although that maybe true…I have not examined all Bible translation…what you maybe referring was my statement in post#114…pls read it again…I do not know of a reliable Bible translations …since childhood I have relied on the KJV..it had taught me all I knew…I know it is not perfect as all of us are but I just think of the Lord Jesus statement about imperfection… He said:suffer it to be so now!
But you might like to visit sites regarding bible Prophecies: one I recently visited was “www.the trumpet.com” using Google…I hope we remember that our study of the scripture should lead INTO ALL GOODNESS…for if our study leads us to jealousy, doubts on God and the Bible then someone/something sidetrack us…either our deceitful heart or the prince of the power of the air..anyway thanks for the encouragement and kind words…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/1/2011 15:18 pm

For some reason the message cannot be delivered, copy below:
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

webmaster_vbvbc@yahoo.com

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 554 554 delivery error: dd This user doesn’t have a yahoo.com account (webmaster_vbvbc@yahoo.com) [0] - mta1253.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (state 18).

—– Original message —–

Received: by 10.227.197.83 with SMTP id ej19mr2967500wbb.105.1304260005802;
Sun, 01 May 2011 07:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path:
Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([92.25.4.160])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o6sm2826579wbo.54.2011.05.01.07.26.44
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Sun, 01 May 2011 07:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Verse by Verse Bible Commentary on every Bible Passage] New Comment On: Genesis 1: 3
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Marek Zielinski
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To:
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 15:26:05 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id:
References:
To: VBVBC.org follow up commentaries notification
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)

Hi TIUCHE,

Does it really matter whether am I a Jew or a Gentile?

I am who I am and if you struggle with my posts, the simplest thing is to ask.

My Father used to say:
‘Asking does not cost money but you might receive the answer!’

I am looking forward to talking things through with you

Marek Zielinski

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/1/2011 15:04 pm

TIUCHE,
I agree with you what you’ve said above that a lot of translations are corrupted. I use them, compare them, to acknowledge the subject of discussion and usually conclude with my personal observation.

Yes, the link is about the name of Eashoa, Joshua, Jesus and how the name is used in various translations.
Please do find the main link to this particular translation of the most of the Bible:
http://www.v-a.com/bible/index.html.

As said, I research on any available material around the net and with the support of a meditation I come to realization and conclusions I humbly offer to others to acknowledge.

If that is not too much to ask you, can you share with me any links to good and reliable translations of the Bible, unfortunately I do not read or speak Hebrew but I use this link: http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=1&chapter=1&verse=26&portion=1 as translation of the Torah.

Looking forward to further cooperation and exchanging ‘glances’.

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/1/2011 14:53 pm

Marek, what you wrote about Zechariah in Post 119 are not your words. You copied everything from http://www.v-a.com/bible/zechariah.html. This website claims that in the 6th century BC Zechariah prophesied Jesus. It also claims that all Bible translations are a “deliberate distortion of the Scriptures”, as you also copied. That would include the KJV, which is the standard chosen by VBVBC.

The website that you copied is (a) deceptive, and (b) not relevant to Genesis 1:3. I would gladly debate you on it if you start a thread in its appropriate verse (Zechariah 3:1), but not here. Genesis 1:3 is about the first day of creation and belongs to the Pentateuch whereas Zechariah puts us in the 6th century BC and belongs to Prophesy – two totally different subjects.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/1/2011 14:18 pm