The Origin and Destiny of man

[Revelations won]

True religion should clearly answer the question of the origin and destiny of man.

1. Where did we come from?

2 Why are we here?

3. What is the eternal destiny of man?

May we hear your clear knowledge of the above questions.

[onewithhim]

True religion should clearly answer the question of the origin and destiny of man.

1. Where did we come from?

2 Why are we here?

3. What is the eternal destiny of man?

May we hear your clear knowledge of the above questions.

The true religion says thus:
1. We came from God Almighty, Jehovah, who caused our creation.

2. We are here because God wanted to share His happiness with other intelligent beings.

3. The eternal destiny of man has been to live forever on this beautiful planet that was prepared for us. (Genesis 1:28; 2:15) If Adam hadn't rebelled, he would still be here. Man was never created to die. Man would live as long as he obeyed his Maker. (Genesis 2:16,17) This wasn't difficult to do, as humans had everything they could possibly need and had no difficulty in leaving the one tree alone. They deliberately disobeyed and ate from the one tree. That is why all their progeny die. It's in our genes that we inherited from Adam who became imperfect when he rebelled. God immediately formulated a plan to save mankind from death. He commissioned Jesus to come here and buy back our lives, which he did. (Romans 5:12,18,19) God's plan that we could live forever on the earth has not been thwarted. Jesus made it possible for us to do that. (Psalm 37:9,11,29)

[myth-one.com]

To interject, I'm not saying John17_3 is right, but you're definitely adding to the text what isn't there when you say there is a transition from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:2 from a full, good earth, to an earth that is empty and void. God never says anything is good in Genesis 1:1.

God declares the heaven and the earth created in Genesis 1:1 to be very good in Genesis 1:31:

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

So the heaven and the earth were created very good in Genesis 1:1!

From that point, something occurred to change the state of the earth to "without form, void, and dark" for Genesis 1:2 to be a true statement.

Rather than taking this view, though, I would suggest that Genesis 1:1 is in fact just a narrative setup that summarizes Genesis 1 as a whole. It orients the audience to what they are about to read / hear. The actual act of creation doesn't get underway until Genesis 1:3 when God first speaks. (Put otherwise, Genesis 1:2+ unpacks and describes the summary of Genesis 1:1 and shows how God created the heavens and the earth from start to finish. Starting with 'the deep', i.e., an uncreated abyss of water and unseparated earth that is void of life.)

The "deep" was created as part of the earth in Genesis 1:1.

Take for instance the heavens. Genesis 1:1 says God created these in the beginning, but the heavens aren't actually created until Genesis 1:6, when the firmament is established to separate the waters.

The heavens can be empty space. I don't understand what you're saying.

Prior to this, again, it was nothing but a mucky deep, albeit now lit up per God's first creative act.

What mucky deep? Where did that come from? God created the heavens and the earth as good in Genesis 1:1.

Another point in favor for such an interpretation: when / where are the waters / deep created in Genesis 1? Spoiler alert: they aren't.

Those waters are on the earth which was created in Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

I don't see any creation of animal life mentioned in Genesis 1:1.

[onewithhim]

True religion should clearly answer the question of the origin and destiny of man.

1. Where did we come from?

2 Why are we here?

3. What is the eternal destiny of man?

May we hear your clear knowledge of the above questions.

The true religion says thus:
1. We came from God Almighty, Jehovah, who caused our creation.

2. We are here because God wanted to share His happiness with other intelligent beings.

3. The eternal destiny of man has been to live forever on this beautiful planet that was prepared for us. (Genesis 1:28; 2:15) If Adam hadn't rebelled, he would still be here. Man was never created to die. Man would live as long as he obeyed his Maker. (Genesis 2:16,17) This wasn't difficult to do, as humans had everything they could possibly need and had no difficulty in leaving the one tree alone. They deliberately disobeyed and ate from the one tree. That is why all their progeny die. It's in our genes that we inherited from Adam who became imperfect when he rebelled. God immediately formulated a plan to save mankind from death. He commissioned Jesus to come here and buy back our lives, which he did. (Romans 5:12,18,19) God's plan that we could live forever on the earth has not been thwarted. Jesus made it possible for us to do that. (Psalm 37:9,11,29)

.

[myth-one.com]

Man was never created to die.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27)

[theophile]

To interject, I'm not saying John17_3 is right, but you're definitely adding to the text what isn't there when you say there is a transition from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:2 from a full, good earth, to an earth that is empty and void. God never says anything is good in Genesis 1:1.

God declares the heaven and the earth created in Genesis 1:1 to be very good in Genesis 1:31:

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

So the heaven and the earth were created very good in Genesis 1:1!

From that point, something occurred to change the state of the earth to "without form, void, and dark" for Genesis 1:2 to be a true statement.

Creation occurs during the 6 days of creation, right? With God resting on the 7th? Thus, anything before day 1, when light was created, is pre creation. This means anything we see in verses 1:1 and 1:2, like the deep and its waters, should be considered uncreated, or as the starting conditions for creation, not as created elements themselves. These primordial elements include the formless / empty earth, a dark deep, and God hovering against its waters...

Put otherwise, God's first creative act, God's firstborn, is the light, like Christ, not anything like the waters that precede the light. (Christ and the light being one and the same, per John 1.)

Rather than taking this view, though, I would suggest that Genesis 1:1 is in fact just a narrative setup that summarizes Genesis 1 as a whole. It orients the audience to what they are about to read / hear. The actual act of creation doesn't get underway until Genesis 1:3 when God first speaks. (Put otherwise, Genesis 1:2+ unpacks and describes the summary of Genesis 1:1 and shows how God created the heavens and the earth from start to finish. Starting with 'the deep', i.e., an uncreated abyss of water and unseparated earth that is void of life.)

The "deep" was created as part of the earth in Genesis 1:1.

No, the deep and its waters are far more cosmic in nature than the earth. We see this on day 2 when the heavens (and on day 3 the earth) are created within the deep, not the deep within the heavens and the earth, i.e.: "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water..." This vault encompasses the open expanse that is the heavens, within which the earth is formed, and keeps the waters outside at bay.

(What you have to picture here is something like a fluid-filled womb. On day 1, God lights it up. On day 2, God creates an open space within it by holding back its fluids. On day 3+, God starts to form dry land and life within the space created... Through all this and beyond, creation remains enveloped by the deep and its waters, just as new life is by the womb... A point made clear later in Genesis when the gates of the vault are opened up to let loose the waters and flood the earth within...)

Take for instance the heavens. Genesis 1:1 says God created these in the beginning, but the heavens aren't actually created until Genesis 1:6, when the firmament is established to separate the waters.

The heavens can be empty space. I don't understand what you're saying.

I agree the heavens are an empty space. What Genesis 1 says is that this empty space is created within the deep. The origins of the deep are not covered in Genesis 1. It's simply just there at the beginning with God.

(Another way to look at this is in terms of chaos and order. Loosely speaking, the deep and its waters represent an endless abyss of chaotic / constant change. Creation represents order / constancy within the abyss, but as such is surrounded by chaotic elements that forever threaten to wipe it away.)

Prior to this, again, it was nothing but a mucky deep, albeit now lit up per God's first creative act.

What mucky deep? Where did that come from? God created the heavens and the earth as good in Genesis 1:1.

Water and earth are both present / uncreated at the beginning. And we learn later (on day 3) that the earth is mixed in with the water, needing to be gathered up in order to form dry land. Hence it is logical to assume that the earth and water are all mixed up at the beginning as well. Hence, mucky deep. Like a pool of water thick with dirt, both fluid and formless per Genesis 1:2.

Another point in favor for such an interpretation: when / where are the waters / deep created in Genesis 1? Spoiler alert: they aren't.

Those waters are on the earth which was created in Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

I don't see any creation of animal life mentioned in Genesis 1:1.

Fair, but the animals don't play as significant a role from the get-go in creation as the waters do. The animals are also explicitly created somewhere in the text unlike the waters, which aren't created anywhere.

[myth-one.com]

Creation occurs during the 6 days of creation, right?

The second period of creation required 6 days.

The entire original creation of the earth is described in Genesis 1:1 and it likely occurred about 4.54 billion years ago:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

This is all we are told about the original creation of the earth -- as it does not involve us anyway.

But the original good earth created 4.54 billion years ago in Genesis 1:1 became formless, void, and dark.

So God returned about 6,000 years ago and returned the earth to its original good condition. This is the creation (or re-creation) that took 6 days, with Adam and Eve being created and God resting on the 7th day.

Thus, anything before day 1, when light was created, is pre creation.

Day 1 in Genesis would be post first creation:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

This means anything we see in verses 1:1 and 1:2, like the deep and its waters, should be considered uncreated, or as the starting conditions for creation, not as created elements themselves.

No, those things would be from the first creation. The one back 4.54 billion years ago.

The second creation which occurred about 6,000 years ago started with the existing earth created in Genesis 1:1, which had become formless, void, and dark.

[theophile]

Creation occurs during the 6 days of creation, right?

The second period of creation required 6 days.

The entire original creation of the earth is described in Genesis 1:1 and it likely occurred about 4.54 billion years ago:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

This is all we are told about the original creation of the earth -- as it does not involve us anyway.

But the original good earth created 4.54 billion years ago in Genesis 1:1 became formless, void, and dark.

So God returned about 6,000 years ago and returned the earth to its original good condition. This is the creation (or re-creation) that took 6 days, with Adam and Eve being created and God resting on the 7th day.

Well, it's certainly an interesting view. I have no clue where it's biblical justification is, i.e., that there is a creation event prior to that of the 6-days of creation in Genesis 1, but if it floats your boat...

Personally, I'd tend towards a simpler interpretation that doesn't have to make such huge, unmentioned additions to the text. But I suppose I also have no issue with the idea that God didn't create everything from scratch. That God worked with pre-existing materials just as a potter does clay. I find there's many benefits taking that path, not least of all a bridge to materialism (/atheism) for those willing to see it and move past what are often unhelpful theological assumptions.

[myth-one.com]

Creation occurs during the 6 days of creation, right?

The second period of creation required 6 days.

The entire original creation of the earth is described in Genesis 1:1 and it likely occurred about 4.54 billion years ago:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

This is all we are told about the original creation of the earth -- as it does not involve us anyway.

But the original good earth created 4.54 billion years ago in Genesis 1:1 became formless, void, and dark.

So God returned about 6,000 years ago and returned the earth to its original good condition. This is the creation (or re-creation) that took 6 days, with Adam and Eve being created and God resting on the 7th day.

Well, it's certainly an interesting view. I have no clue where it's biblical justification is, i.e., that there is a creation event prior to that of the 6-days of creation in Genesis 1, but if it floats your boat...

Genesis chapter 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 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.

Verse 2 describes the earth created in verse 1 as without form, void, and dark.

It was either created that way, or it came to be that way after it's creation.

But God states that everything He created was "very good":

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

So the earth that God made in Genesis 1:1 was created "very good."

It the earth was made very good in Genesis 1:1, and it is described as formless, void, and dark in Genesis 1:2, then it had to have become that way between verses 1 and 2, as it was created "very good."

In Genesis 1:3 God begins the first step in returning the earth to its original very good state by turning the lights back on:

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)

Here's a summary:

verse 1 -- The earth is created as very good.

verse 2 -- The earth has become formless, void, and dark.

verse 3 -- light is restored as first step in returning the to its original very good state.

Personally, I'd tend towards a simpler interpretation that doesn't have to make such huge, unmentioned additions to the text. But I suppose I also have no issue with the idea that God didn't create everything from scratch. That God worked with pre-existing materials just as a potter does clay. I find there's many benefits taking that path, not least of all a bridge to materialism (/atheism) for those willing to see it and move past what are often unhelpful theological assumptions.

Which "theological assumptions" above do you disagree with?

Thanks in advance.

[theophile]

Creation occurs during the 6 days of creation, right?

The second period of creation required 6 days.

The entire original creation of the earth is described in Genesis 1:1 and it likely occurred about 4.54 billion years ago:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

This is all we are told about the original creation of the earth -- as it does not involve us anyway.

But the original good earth created 4.54 billion years ago in Genesis 1:1 became formless, void, and dark.

So God returned about 6,000 years ago and returned the earth to its original good condition. This is the creation (or re-creation) that took 6 days, with Adam and Eve being created and God resting on the 7th day.

Well, it's certainly an interesting view. I have no clue where it's biblical justification is, i.e., that there is a creation event prior to that of the 6-days of creation in Genesis 1, but if it floats your boat...

Genesis chapter 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 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.

Verse 2 describes the earth created in verse 1 as without form, void, and dark.

It was either created that way, or it came to be that way after it's creation.

Or it simply always was. Uncreated, per my view. That's one big theological assumption you're making: God created everything ex nihilo. Out of nothing. Versus there being uncreated elements with which God creates.

But God states that everything He created was "very good":

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

So the earth that God made in Genesis 1:1 was created "very good."

If I stick with your logic, I would still say this doesn't necessarily follow. God's benediction in 1:31 only pertains for sure to what was made in the 6 days prior. It's a leap to say it applies to the heaven and earth created in 1:1. In fact, given that world completely died out, it's a bit hard to justify calling it good, isn't it?

Personally, I'd tend towards a simpler interpretation that doesn't have to make such huge, unmentioned additions to the text. But I suppose I also have no issue with the idea that God didn't create everything from scratch. That God worked with pre-existing materials just as a potter does clay. I find there's many benefits taking that path, not least of all a bridge to materialism (/atheism) for those willing to see it and move past what are often unhelpful theological assumptions.

Which "theological assumptions" above do you disagree with?

Thanks in advance.

The biggest is that you seem to want an interpretation of Genesis 1 that fits the notion that God literally made everything, ex nihilo, which brings with it other common theological assumptions like omnipotence that are necessary in order for God to be capable of such feats.

I find such notions of God very challenging to uphold. The main problem being, where does such a powerful God come from? In contrast, I would assume something like a base materialism. Hence my focus on the deep and its waters, not only because of their prevalence in Genesis 1, but because such a concept makes rational sense as a primordial starting point. i.e., An infinite abyss of fluid matter / energy from which, frankly, anything could emerge. (Although the God I see emerging from this abyss is definitely not the omnipotent super-being of classical theology, but something much weaker and insubstantial in form, at least to begin with.)

[myth-one.com]

I find such notions of God very challenging to uphold. The main problem being, where does such a powerful God come from? In contrast, I would assume something like a base materialism. Hence my focus on the deep and its waters, not only because of their prevalence in Genesis 1, but because such a concept makes rational sense as a primordial starting point. i.e., An infinite abyss of fluid matter / energy from which, frankly, anything could emerge. (Although the God I see emerging from this abyss is definitely not the omnipotent super-being of classical theology, but something much weaker and insubstantial in form, at least to begin with.)

Long ago there were many gods. There was a Moon God, Sun God, God of War, God of Love, God of Fire, a God of This, and a God of That. But as knowledge progressed and we came to understand these mysteries, the associated gods vanished and the number of gods steadily decreased.

If it is the case that the number of gods decreases as knowledge increases, and knowledge continually increases, then the number of gods should eventually approach zero.

On the other hand, if it can be shown that mankind will never understand everything, will mankind always require at least one God? If so, the number of gods will approach one -- and the debate on God's existence will be never ending.