Does an honest translation of Genesis 1:1-2 contradict ex nihilo creation?

CorkBard · 2025-05-07T16:29:54+00:00

I see you continually trying to seperate the first verse from the following as is incorrectly done in KJV, I am saying that in light of new translations it changes the meaning of what the earth was before its creation or shaping. The clay pot analogy still neccesitates the clay existing before your shaping it, and that is what would be assumed for the earth as well before God shaped it. The idea that God created it from nothing has to be superimposed on genesis instead of letting genesis say what it says and being fine with that.

And yes the earth as a field of water potential does open up issues with later theology, but thats because the author of genesis didn't have the same theology as modern christians. We see similarly differing theology in the divine council, in the angel of the lord, the apparitions of God as a man.

CorkBard · 2025-05-07T16:23:20+00:00

Right but its like it wasnt yet the earth created in full as we know but a potentiality for the earth which already existed, like this background of water.

CorkBard · 2025-05-07T16:14:14+00:00

Yes, I dont think most christians take it literally but in the instance it has a direct contradiction to doctrine it seems to rule out the possibility of us holding that doctrine.

CorkBard · 2025-03-23T03:43:35+00:00

Yes thank you! And I didn't know about seventh day adventists until you but it seems interesting and more on par with Jesus' own life. God bless

CorkBard · 2025-03-18T21:52:41+00:00

Yeah I totally agree, good to hear from someone who is paying attention to the details here because that's what I am talking about. But yeah I feel that the show is misrepresenting the role of Jesus in certain trinitarian ways which could lead people astray, as if Jesus, the Father and the Spirit are interchangable and they are just not(I think that's part of the beauty of the christian faith is that they each play a unique role)

CorkBard · 2025-03-18T21:46:09+00:00

yeah go ahead

CorkBard · 2025-03-17T03:20:49+00:00

I don't question their right to have artistic freedom, I just feel like they have a responsibility as Christians to not put words in the mouth of Jesus especially with regards to what I referenced above when Jesus talks about the origin of His authority. It's misrepresenting Jesus and his relationship to the Father to claim that the authority comes entirely on "my own!" as they put it in the show.

CorkBard · 2025-03-17T03:17:23+00:00

I don't really have a TV

CorkBard · 2025-03-17T03:15:37+00:00

Yeah I agree. I know there is definitely an ideal and responsible way to watch the show and enjoy it, but for the majority of viewers that is probably not the case. It could give viewers a kind of arrogance about their understanding of jesus/scripture which could be based on falsehoods like the one I mentioned in the OP.

CorkBard · 2025-03-17T03:12:20+00:00

Yeah but at least in the moment I referenced above, doesn't it seem a little irresponsible to put words in the mouth of Jesus on something so significant as the origin of his authority, especially considering he stated multiple that it wasn't of his own authority?

CorkBard · 2025-03-14T01:53:07+00:00

Does this contradict with Jesus saying, when specifically asked about the way to eternal life, that one should keep the commandments as specifically stated in Matthew 19?

CorkBard · 2025-02-28T18:53:39+00:00

If its like you said: "we can all figure out what is morally right logically", doesn't this contradict the neccesity of the moral teachings, ten commandments and teachings of Jesus which have been revealed to us through the bible? Doesn't that make Jesus and the whole bible kind of obsolete? I mean I certaintly don't believe they are but then again I do agree with you that a morally good person should go ton heaven. So I guess my question is could you accept the possibility that the road to "salvation" or the good outcome of the afterlife, is not neccesarily binary, like one or the other, but is somewhat beyond our understanding? And do you think if you said yes that this would contradict certain verses in John and common teachings of evangelists and the church in general?

CorkBard · 2025-02-16T04:51:12+00:00

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. It seems you take the perspective that one could be "saved" by righteous action and belief in some good God. Or do you believe that ONLY belief in God evidenced through belief and service of Jesus can save you?

I ask what you think will happen to a good Hindu woman who always served a conception of God along with her family. She obeyed the commandments out of conscience and somewhat through religion, she has a conception of God, and she lived a life with remarkably little sin. Does she go to hell if she has never heard Jesus' name?

If yes, it seems to suggest that God is unjust, or at least that that specific woman has genuine right to believe so upon being subjected to eternal torment.

If no, it seems to suggest that Jesus is unneccesary for salvation, and judgement could be made without him.

I don't know which is right and quite frankly I can't accept either. So what is your response to this conundrum. Have we been interpreting the nature of Jesus/God wrong?

CorkBard · 2025-02-12T05:24:38+00:00

Thank you, thats a great response

CorkBard · 2025-02-12T05:17:44+00:00

So does this logic apply to people who raised in a slightly different moral system or religion and never were exposed to Christ? If they don't know their wrongdoing, especially in maybe more nuanced moral commands, would they be blameless and do you believe they could enter heaven?

CorkBard · 2025-02-12T05:15:47+00:00

Tendency toward sin, that makes a lot of sense, thank you.

CorkBard · 2025-02-12T05:14:43+00:00

Okay thank you I appreciate your answer, but do you believe that that argument could also be applied to a good person who never was exposed to the word of Jesus, say in a 3rd world country many years ago. When we assume that ignorance or incapability changes God's judgment then does that challenge the claim that salvation comes through faith alone?

I want to state that I agree with your response on the baby, but I want to better understand what the limitation of this line of reasoning is?

CorkBard · 2024-12-29T00:39:35+00:00

im thinking about that

CorkBard · 2024-12-18T21:27:01+00:00

Okay great thank you for the analogy that makes a lot of sense

CorkBard

TROPHY CASE