Genesis 1:2

Fire and Water

The earth was with­out form and void, and dark­ness was over the face of the deep. And the Spir­it of God was hov­er­ing over the face of the waters. Gen­e­sis 1:2

The earth was

Dare I even walk into the con­tro­ver­sy sur­round­ing this verse? That lit­tle word “was” is a Hebrew mul­ti­ple per­son­al­i­ty — it can mean either “to be” or “to become,” “to exist” or “to come to pass.”

In oth­er words, the earth was cre­at­ed in verse 1 as being “with­out form and void,” or there was some unspec­i­fied event which took place between vers­es 1 and 2 which result­ed in the earth becom­ing “with­out form and void.” The sec­ond idea is com­mon­ly called the Gap The­o­ry, which states that an inde­ter­mi­nate amount of time passed; this idea is often (though not always) held by those who attempt to rec­on­cile the Bible with the the­o­ries of geol­o­gists — if they say the earth is mil­lions of years old, the Bible must be inter­pret­ed accordingly.

That’s a nov­el approach, and I do believe that if the Scrip­tures do not reflect real­i­ty, then they are worth­less as a source of truth; how­ev­er, I do not believe the Gap The­o­ry is an ade­quate expla­na­tion of Gen­e­sis 1:1–2. Exo­dus 20:11, for instance, affirms that cre­ation took place in just the span of six days. The first day of the cre­ation week, then, began (fit­ting­ly enough) “in the begin­ning” with verse 1, and it con­tin­ued through verse 5.

with­out form and void

But what about this “with­out form and void” busi­ness? The Hebrew word for “with­out form” can refer to a waste­land, a desert, or a des­o­la­tion; the raw mate­ri­als of the earth sim­ply exist­ed, hav­ing yet to be giv­en any mean­ing­ful shape. The min­er­als swirled togeth­er with the waters, float­ing aim­less­ly in the empti­ness of space.

Fur­ther, this des­o­late mate­r­i­al was “void”: emp­ty of all life, for man, beast, and plant had yet to be created.

Swirl togeth­er some sand and water in a buck­et, and imag­ine the same thing on a scale bil­lions of times greater and you’ll have a vague sense of what exist­ed at this point in the cre­ation week. ((Isa­iah 45:18 states that God did not cre­ate the world “emp­ty” (the same Hebrew word used in Gen­e­sis 1:2 for “with­out form”); this is tak­en to sup­port the idea that some­thing must have hap­pened between the ini­tial cre­ative act in Gen­e­sis 1:1 and verse 2 to cause the earth to be “with­out form”; how­ev­er, such spec­u­la­tion is unnec­es­sary. The cre­ative week is just get­ting start­ed, and indeed, after the sixth day, you would be unable to accuse God of cre­at­ing an “emp­ty” world, and as Isa­iah 45:18 states, Earth indeed was formed to be inhab­it­ed. There is no rea­son to resort to fan­ci­ful spec­u­la­tion of what, if any­thing, took place between the first two vers­es of Scripture.))

and dark­ness was over the face of the deep

Light had yet to shine upon the watery mass of Earth mate­ri­als. The uni­verse exist­ed as a mind-bog­gling­ly large emp­ty space and a plan­et’s worth of water­logged min­er­als and ores, yet with­in just a few (24-hour) days, God will have worked these raw mate­ri­als into a beau­ti­ful, life-sup­port­ing sphere. ((Yes, I know that the earth is not a per­fect sphere.))

And the Spir­it of God

We are here intro­duced, how­ev­er briefly, to He who is known the­o­log­i­cal­ly as the Third Per­son of the Trin­i­ty. He is the Holy Spir­it (or, some­times, Holy Ghost). The Nicene Creed ((As artic­u­lat­ed at the First Coun­cil of Con­stan­tino­ple.)) says that we believe “in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giv­er of life, who pro­ceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son togeth­er is wor­shiped and glo­ri­fied, who spake by the prophets.”

Much of what the creed says about the Spir­it we do not here see exem­pli­fied; how­ev­er, with the last part of Gen­e­sis 1:2, we see part of the Spir­it’s role in the giv­ing of life.

was hov­er­ing

I’m dis­sat­is­fied with this par­tic­u­lar trans­la­tion — and every oth­er one I have in my col­lec­tion, actu­al­ly. When I look in my con­cor­dances for “was hov­er­ing,” I see that the Hebrew word is rachaph, which pri­mar­i­ly means “to brood.”

In oth­er words, the Spir­it of God is seen here brood­ing, which can mean any of a vari­ety of things, actu­al­ly. Per­haps the Spir­it was hov­er­ing over the waters as a hen broods over her eggs, warm­ing the waters in prepa­ra­tion for them to spring forth with life. Or per­haps anoth­er def­i­n­i­tion of brood is meant, and the Spir­it was hov­er­ing over the waters ((Remem­ber that the waters in this case rep­re­sents both the solids and liq­uids that the earth is made up of, as they are still a form­less, swirling mass.)) in order to mature them; if that is the case, could this action on the part of the Spir­it be the rea­son the earth seems so much old­er (read: mature) than it chrono­log­i­cal­ly is?

What­ev­er the case may be, the Spir­it was unques­tion­ably active dur­ing the cre­ation acts, and He has been active in the events of man ever since.

over the face of the waters

The Spir­it was flit­ting about the sur­face of the form­less earth, below Him a wishy-washy mass of unimag­in­ably dark water and dirt. Assum­ing grav­i­ty was “active” at this point in his­to­ry, it’s safe to assume that most of the sol­id mat­ter of the form­less Earth would have sunk to the cen­ter of the mass, cre­at­ing a murky sea which cov­ered the mass on all sides.

Per­haps the Spir­it encir­cled the mass, hov­er­ing upon the waters as if the whole thing were an egg ready to spring forth with life. Or per­haps the Spir­it was sim­ply mov­ing over the deep in appre­ci­a­tion of what has been cre­at­ed, glo­ri­fy­ing the First & Sec­ond Per­sons of the Trin­i­ty for their work.

Much like the true num­ber of licks for reach­ing the cen­ter of a Toot­sie Pop, the ques­tion of what the Spir­it was doing may linger on in mys­tery until all things are made clear to us in Heaven.

How­ev­er, if you have any insights, I’d very much appre­ci­ate them!

Unless oth­er­wise not­ed, all Scrip­tures quot­ed with­in this post come from the Eng­lish Stan­dard Ver­sion of the Holy Bible.

32 thoughts on “Genesis 1:2”

  1. The ‘Gap The­o­ry’ to which I used to sub­scribe, like the ‘Un-Gap The­o­ry’ become a some­what moot issue when we real­ize that the heav­en’s and earth were cre­at­ed in their mass inside eter­ni­ty. There was no day or night, no first day. On day one God brought this mass into time out of eter­ni­ty. ‘The begin­ning’ must be sep­a­rat­ed in our minds from day one- for ‘the begin­ning’ is eternity.

  2. Can “eter­ni­ty” be said to have (or be) a begin­ning at all, though? I’m not sure I under­stand what you’re proposing.

    The events of vers­es 1–4 could have eas­i­ly tak­en place dur­ing the day which leads into the evening of verse 5. That there was not yet day or night dur­ing that time would­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly mean that the events did­n’t occur in imme­di­ate succession.

  3. The Spir­it of God was ‘brood­ing’ on the face of the waters. It tells me that the form­less earth was in exis­tence. But there was not yet a day and hence no time. Earth was thus, I take it, cre­at­ed in eter­ni­ty and brought into the con­fines of time. If this is so, who is to say how eter­ni­ty ‘dates’ mat­ter? (Not that I am try­ing to apol­o­gize to unbe­liev­ing scientists.)

  4. I don’t know; I guess I’ll have to keep that in mind next time I revis­it the passage. :)

    Is this idea of Earth being ini­tial­ly cre­at­ed in eter­ni­ty (I guess in the same “realm” or dimen­sion as the Third Heav­en cur­rent­ly exists?) unique to you? Or is there some­one else that I can lookup who has gone into fur­ther detail?

  5. Why do you think of the Uni­verse cre­ation as a real act of creation.
    It is not.
    It is not cre­ation, but appearance.
    Like the dream appear in your con­scious­ness the same way the Uni­verse appeared in the thing which you call God.
    See­ing the dream, God made it alive and present.

    Psa 17:15 As for me, I will behold thy face in right­eous­ness: I shall be sat­is­fied, when I awake, with thy likeness.

    In Eng­lish the phrase is mixed. It is:

    Psa 17:15 As for me, I will behold thy face in right­eous­ness: I shall be sat­is­fied with thy like­ness, when I awake.

  6. I’m unsure how you’re using Psalm 17:15 to sup­port that the uni­verse is a (if I’m under­stand­ing you cor­rect­ly) dream of God’s.

    Psalm 17:15 poet­i­cal­ly states that when David awakes (from nat­ur­al sleep or, more like­ly, from the sleep of death) he will be sat­is­fied with God, behold­ing His face in righteousness.

    Gen­e­sis 1:1 says that God cre­at­ed the heav­ens and the earth; that is why I believe it is the result of a, well, act of creation.

  7. No, that’s not poet­i­cal metaphor.
    Why do you sug­gest that some­one can awake from a death?
    This is poet­i­cal sug­ges­tion, my friend :-)

    David clear­ly said: “When I awake”.
    In the church you take the metaphors for true and the true for metaphor.

    Jesus said:

    Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascend­ed to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

    But the church still holds on to “the only Son of God”

  8. Okay, so Psalm 17:15 isn’t metaphor­i­cal of death (though I think it is, death being seen as “falling asleep” or sim­i­lar through­out the Scrip­tures, includ­ing the New Testament)…

    I fail to see how David wak­ing up from nat­ur­al sleep and behold­ing the glo­ry of God in any way means that the uni­verse is some­how a dream, vision, or man­i­fes­ta­tion which exist­ed in the sub­con­scious of God rather than in an actu­al cre­ation, as the Scrip­tures declare.

    Also, Jesus Christ is repeat­ed­ly called in Scrip­tures the only Son of God; He is unique­ly the only begot­ten Son of God, though many have been and will be adopt­ed as sons & daugh­ters, they are not nor will they ever be the Only Begot­ten of the Father.

  9. Well, there is no way to prove that this world is not a dream.
    All evi­dences and proofs must be con­scious­ly verified.
    And no one can say that the con­scious­ness is not ver­i­fy­ing its dream ;)

    The con­scious­ness works with the infor­ma­tion of the five tools.
    There is no real link between the con­scious­ness and the “real” object. All what we have is concepts.

    In Greek and Bul­gar­i­an lan­guages He is described with word which means “one and the same” with God. In the new Bul­gar­i­an trans­la­tions they changed the word with “the only begotten”.

    It is said that God will judge, but it is also said:

    (1Co 6:2) Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unwor­thy to judge the small­est matters?

    If the Son is one and the same with God it is nor­mal the saints (broth­ers of Jesus) to be one and the same with God and to judge the world.

  10. On what day of cre­ation were the angels cre­at­ed? When did the war in heav­en take place?

  11. j quig­gle: Wel­come to King­dom Geek! A cou­ple of good ques­tions, there… Here’s what I believe.

    Job 38:4–7 states that the sons of God (a term used for angels which appears ear­ly in Job as well as in Gen­e­sis 6) were present when God laid the foun­da­tion of Earth, deter­mined its mea­sure­ments, and laid its cor­ner­stone. It’s pos­si­ble that this is a descrip­tion of either the ear­li­est cre­ative act described in Gen­e­sis 1:1 or per­haps it refers to the unveil­ing of dry land on the third day.

    What­ev­er the case, angels were present either for all of Earth­’s his­to­ry or for all of it but two days. Per­haps they were includ­ed in the cre­ation of the heav­ens in Gen­e­sis 1:1 or, if the Cre­ation Week does­n’t refer to the Third Heav­en, per­haps angels have exist­ed for an inde­ter­mi­nate­ly long time in the past with God in Heaven.

    Suf­fice it to say, I don’t know; I can only guess.

    As for the war in Heav­en, I assume you are refer­ring to Rev­e­la­tion 12:7. This either took place dur­ing the days of the ear­ly church, after the “male child” Christ was “caught up to God and to his throne” or it will take place in the future dur­ing the sev­en year “Tribual­tion” peri­od. It all depends on how you want to look at Revelation.

    I want to believe that the pas­sage is future; that’s how I’ve always heard the pas­sage taught, any­way. Either vers­es 1–7+ refer to the lit­er­al birth of Christ by way of Israel* or it refers to a future sym­bol­ic rep­re­sen­ta­tion of such.

    Either Satan is cast down now, know­ing that his time is short (and that fits with the descrip­tion Paul gives him as a roar­ing lion walk­ing to and fro) or he will be cast down in the future.

    What­ev­er the case, we are to be assured that Christ has won the vic­to­ry and that Satan is defeat­ed forever.

    * It’s inter­est­ing here that the focus of this whole pas­sage about Christ’s birth refers to the nation of Israel rather than to Mary specif­i­cal­ly. I find that the Scrip­tures repeat­ed­ly reveal the mis­placed pri­or­i­ties of cer­tain groups…

  12. Tru­den: If the sons of God are not angels, it can at least be deduced they are a high­er or at least more ancient being than we are — they were present at the earth­’s for­ma­tion where­as we came a few days later.

    Like­wise, the sons of God were able to present them­selves to God in the court of Heav­en accord­ing to Job 1 & 2. Sim­i­lar­ly, the cou­pling of the sons of God with the daugh­ters of men pro­duced extra­or­di­nary offspring.

    The best def­i­n­i­tion I have heard of “a son of God” is that it refers to some­one whom God cre­ates in sin­less per­fec­tion. Jesus is eter­nal­ly begot­ten of the Father in sin­less­ness, thus He is the Son of God; Adam & Eve were cre­at­ed in per­fec­tion, thus they were sons of God. Angels too. Dit­to those who have received the new birth in Christ and the recre­ation into a new crea­ture that goes along with it.

    The term “angel” may sim­ply point out their func­tion as mes­sen­gers; “sons of God” refers to their state; “morn­ing stars” to their glo­ri­fi­ca­tion by the Father (such glo­ri­fi­ca­tion would seem to await all the elect as well, accord­ing to Romans 8:30).

    In the Scrip­tures which ascribe a great many names to God, it should­n’t be sur­pris­ing that His crea­tures may be known by numer­ous names.

  13. Rick, how do you assume that “sons of god” is term for “angels”!?
    All texts in the Bible’s books clear­ly dis­tin­guish God’s Sons from angels.

    Here is one example,
    Jesus pray­ing to God and angel comes to com­fort Him:

    Luk 22:42 Say­ing, Father, if thou be will­ing, remove this cup from me: nev­er­the­less not my will, but thine, be done.
    Luk 22:43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heav­en, strength­en­ing him.

  14. Rick, the prob­lem with the angels and the sons of God comes when the church insist that those who observed the cre­ation of the Uni­verse were not sons of God, because He has ONLY one Son.

    This argu­ment proves that Jesus is not the only begot­ten Son of God.
    There are many more Sons of God.

    The angels…
    They are some­thing that is not that sim­ple to describe as entities.
    The most easy way to do it is:
    The Son is not dif­fer­ent than the Father.
    The Angel is the one who helps the Son to returns to the Father as one who is not dif­fer­ent than Him.

  15. Walt Dickinson

    My ques­tion is:

    How can Jesus in any way be “begot­ten” if he has eter­nal­ly exist­ed with the Father?

    Now, the whole “begot­ten” thing may be resolved if this is in ref­er­ence to his vir­gin birth. But if indeed that is what we are talk­ing about, there are more problems.

    Who “begat” Jesus? To “beget” rough­ly means, “To father,” or to pro­vide the semen in order for con­cep­tion to occur. This would lead us to believe that it was God the Father who “begat” Jesus. But time and time again, we are told in the Bible that it was the God the Holy Spir­it who begat Jesus. Even the Apos­tle’s Creed states, “I believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was con­ceived (or begat) by the Holy Spir­it, born of the Vir­gin Mary…”

    Clas­sic trini­tar­i­an the­ol­o­gy, to the best of my knowl­edge, states that the Spir­it and the Father are not the same Peo­ple. So, who fathered Jesus?

    If it was God the Father, then why does the Bible say it was the Holy Spirit?

    If it was God the Spir­it, then why does­n’t Jesus call the Spir­it his Father?

  16. There is con­fu­sion in the “begot­ten” translation.
    It comes from “the only born” (from God) which is also not pre­cise trans­la­tion of the word which means “one and the same” (with God) — единосъщен (Bul­gar­i­an).

    So the right term for Jesus is “one and the same” (with God).

    That term was used in the ear­ly Bul­gar­i­an trans­la­tions but was changed in the new Bible translations.

    Jesus is begot­ten and born as nor­mal human, but Christ is born from water (mat­ter) and spirit.

    Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Ver­i­ly, ver­i­ly, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spir­it, he can­not enter into the king­dom of God.

    So, know­ing and being the flesh you are only human.
    But know­ing the true essence of your nature, which is Spir­it, you know the Source and you are the Source (who get to know itself).

  17. Jesus Christ is indeed the “only begot­ten” of the Father (John 1:14). He is the “only Son from the Father” (ESV) in that He is the only Son who shares in the Father’s sub­stance. Angels are sons in the sense of sin­less cre­ation; the elect are sons in the sense of adop­tion. Only of Christ can it be said that He shares the same nature of the Father.

    Walt: In the incar­na­tion, the Father fathered Jesus by (or through the pow­er of) the Spir­it. Like­wise the Father cre­at­ed by (or through the pow­er of) the Son.

  18. Tru­den: Just because some­thing is in paren­the­ses does not mean the text is added. For exam­ple, the KJV uses ital­i­cized words to indi­cate added words, yet it still ren­ders that phrase in John 1 in parentheses.

    A par­en­thet­i­cal phrase is not nec­es­sar­i­ly a lat­er addition.

  19. All addi­tion­al texts in the bible are marked with ( ) [ ] or ital­ic.
    In the new Bible trans­la­tion they don’t even both­er to do it any­more but still:

    Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glo­ry, the glo­ry as of the only begot­ten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    As you can see and check in your Bible the “only begot­ten” place is added lat­er in the Bible.

    Be care­ful, Rick, for you deceive your­self and the peo­ple around you.

  20. Rick,

    ALL [(par­en­thet­i­cals)] are lat­er addi­tions which are not found in the scrip­tures from which the trans­la­tions are made.
    The ital­ic texts are lat­er added descrip­tive texts which are sup­posed to bring sense to the orig­i­nal text.

    That’s it.
    We can not argue about it.
    It is well known fact and rule in read­ing the Bible and you should be informed about it by the one who put the Bible in your hands.

  21. Tru­den: I hope you don’t mind my ask­ing, but as I’ve nev­er heard of this before (and I’m by no means a neo­phyte when it comes to these things) could you point me to some references?

    I’m mak­ing note that there are 223 vers­es with paren­the­ses in the KJV, 269 in the ESV, 189 in the LITV, 240 in Dar­by’s Trans­la­tion, and 240 in the NASB (which 3 less than the ’77 NASB).

    Can you real­ly be sure that all par­en­thet­i­cal com­ments are added lat­er and are (pre­sum­ably) not to be con­sid­ered inspired? If they are to be con­sid­ered inspired, that they are added lat­er is irrelevant.

    Like­wise, if we are to be cau­tious of them, what one sin­gle trans­la­tion should we look to as the defin­i­tive source of par­en­thet­i­cal addi­tions? The trans­la­tions vary wild­ly in the amount of par­en­thet­i­cal phras­es they include.

    If you’re telling peo­ple to dis­count what amounts to about 200 words, phras­es, or entire vers­es as being sim­ply unin­spired addi­tions, then you are car­ry­ing a rather large bur­den of proof.

  22. Can you real­ly be sure that all par­en­thet­i­cal com­ments are added later

    I am sure in one only thing, that God exists.

    The thing with the brack­ets is a lit­tle confusing.
    The round brack­ets ( ) used to show that these words were not found in any ear­li­er scrip­tures. Lat­er on some of the trans­la­tors start­ed to use them in com­mon way as sep­a­rat­ing one phrase from anoth­er in long sen­tences, thus mak­ing dif­fi­cult to know which places are added later.

    The [ ] brack­ets are to show that the text is not present in the ear­li­est scrip­tures but present in lat­er such.

    Since the Bible is self explana­to­ry (for those who know it well) it is easy to find out which places are added later.
    Yet, even not being absolute­ly sure about the text, one can know the mean­ing if is guid­ed by God.

    Do not read the Bible as source of information.
    Read it as you would read the book writ­ten by your dear­est beloved person.
    Try to get inside.
    Try to clean your mind and be not bias in your faith.
    Do not defend doc­trines and under­stand­ing giv­en to you by church authorities.
    Try to be silent and ten­der when you have The Book in your hands.
    Do not argue about it.
    Do not make it leather for the heights of your EGO, but use it for reach­ing the heights of Love.

    That’s all I can say, my friend.
    I can not give you ref­er­ences from Eng­lish sources, because I am Bulgarian.
    Try to find them yourself.

    If you’re telling peo­ple to dis­count what amounts to about 200 words, phras­es, or entire vers­es as being sim­ply unin­spired addi­tions, then you are car­ry­ing a rather large bur­den of proof.

    Did I say that there is no God?
    Did I say that Jesus is not Sun of God?
    Did I use it to teach you not to believe in God?
    I’m sim­ply point­ing out wrong inter­pre­ta­tions of the Bible.

  23. Tru­den: The bur­den of proof is large because you are telling us that we essen­tial­ly can­not trust por­tions of the Scrip­tures; is Jesus the only begot­ten of the Father or isn’t He? That deals with the nature of God and is there­fore no small detail.

    You tell us not to read the Bible as infor­ma­tion, but the Apos­tle Paul tells us that all of the Scrip­tures are prof­itable for teach­ing, for cor­rec­tion, for doc­trine. The Bible is infor­ma­tion; if we allow a heart- or emo­tion-based inter­pre­ta­tion to over­rule the infor­ma­tion pre­sent­ed in the Scrip­tures, we are being deceived, for the heart is deceitful.

    I have only ever seen square brack­ets ([]) used in one trans­la­tion of the Bible that comes to mind: the Ana­lyt­i­cal-Lit­er­al Trans­la­tion. In it, they are used to des­ig­nate explana­to­ry text or oth­er pos­si­ble trans­la­tions, as in this trans­la­tion of John 1:14: “And the Word [or, the Expres­sion of [divine] Log­ic] became flesh and taber­na­cled among us, and we beheld His glo­ry, glo­ry as of an only-begot­ten [or, unique­ly-begot­ten] from [the] Father, full of grace and truth.”

    In a pre­vi­ous com­ment, you said that all par­en­thet­i­cal text was added at a lat­er time and was not part of the Scrip­tures as orig­i­nal­ly writ­ten. In your lat­est com­ment, you are now say­ing that you are only cer­tain of one thing, that God exists, and that the paren­the­ses issue is a bit confusing.

    All I’m ask­ing for is some­thing to back­up your claim that par­en­thet­i­cal text was added in lat­er. I have searched a bit on Google for infor­ma­tion about that but have come up emp­ty. Like­wise, I have checked com­men­ta­tor John Gill — whose com­men­tary is loaded with infor­ma­tion about the ear­li­est Bible trans­la­tions and oth­er trans­la­tion­al issues — and I haven’t found any­place where he points out that these texts are added.

  24. All I’m ask­ing for is some­thing to back­up your claim

    I don’t have to back­up my self, just because you assume that I’m wrong.

    Joh 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whith­er I go; but ye can­not tell whence I come, and whith­er I go.

  25. Walt Dickinson

    You don’t have to, of course. No one is say­ing you do. But it would cer­tain­ly be nice if you did.

  26. Walt, it would be nice of me to do it if some­how my state­ment about Jesus not being the only begot­ten appears to be wrong.
    But if you read my com­ments from the begin­ning you’ll see that the oth­er side must pro­vide some proves, not me.

    I “backed up” myself with the words of Jesus against the words of John put in brackets.

    What log­ic are you fol­low­ing to tell me that I’m wrong and I hold the bur­den of proof !?

  27. Tru­den: You claim that parts of the Scrip­ture are untrust­wor­thy or do not belong or are not original.

    Jesus said that the Scrip­tures are sound, unbreak­able, and are more per­ma­nent than the Heav­ens and the Earth.

    I believe Jesus, and I humbly request that you give some rea­son why I should dis­re­gard cer­tain por­tions of the Scrip­ture based upon noth­ing more than your state­ment that I should do so.

    Quot­ing John 8:14 does noth­ing to help your case; Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and He owes no man any­thing. You are no more or less than I am, so if you are want­i­ng to teach, be big enough to be thor­ough and pro­vide evi­dences for your teaching.

    Until then, you are no more cred­i­ble than those who claim the Bible con­dones & endors­es homo­sex­u­al­i­ty, and what you are sug­gest­ing may even be worse: the removal of words from the Scrip­tures (Rev­e­la­tion 22).

    If you do not at least pro­vide a link to some schol­ar­ly work some­where that demon­strates why par­en­thet­i­cal phras­es are not orig­i­nal Scrip­tures, then I will be delet­ing any future com­ments you make here, leav­ing you to use your own (or at least not mine) web­sites to spread your base­less ideas.

    Thank you.

  28. Rick, you behave as a lit­tle angry boy.
    That is not the way to talk about God.

    As I said, I’m Bul­gar­i­an and it is dif­fi­cult for me to find Eng­lish references.
    It is dif­fi­cult to find read­ing of what are and why are brack­ets used in the Bible.
    Why it is so dif­fi­cult I can only guess.

    Yet I found one Eng­lish page where they men­tion the brack­ets in the Bible:

    About the “only begot­ten” term used in John:
    In Greek it is “monogenous”, which means asex­u­al repro­duc­tion, not “begot­ten” nei­ther “born by”. There­fore it can not be “the only”, because that would lim­it the pow­er of God to asex­u­al­ly repro­duce Itself.

    Why did I quote John 8:14?
    Because they also want­ed from Jesus to pro­vide proof and “ref­er­ences”.
    John 8:14 was His answer.
    That is my answer too.

    Farewell, my friend.

  29. Tru­den: I’m not angry; I find your dis­trust of cer­tain por­tions of Scrip­ture to be a dan­ger­ous teach­ing which you have still not man­aged to back up. I choose not to spend my time going back and forth with you about the issue, so I sim­ply asked that you, to put it blunt­ly, “put up or shut up.”

    I’d pre­fer even a Bul­gar­i­an source as to none at all. The link you pro­vid­ed seems to be some whack-job claim­ing every Bible he gets his hands on is an unre­li­able trans­la­tion for what­ev­er rea­sons. Yes, the arti­cle points out that brack­et­ed por­tions are pos­si­bly added in, and I agree with that; those por­tions of Scrip­ture are the rea­son why the KJV has more vers­es than some of the new­er versions.

    How­ev­er, that has noth­ing to do with par­en­thet­i­cal phras­es like in John 1; paren­the­ses are a gram­mat­i­cal nota­tion, not an edi­to­r­i­al one. They do not denote added vers­es, they denote explana­to­ry text (just like if I were to use them in my own writing).

    Thanks for visiting.

  30. kin­da inter­est­ing even that i find god hard to believe in.
    with all the destruc­tion and suf­fer­ing humans had to go through in the near his­to­ry, god if exist­ed should have clear­ly get involved.

  31. The above com­ment, from “Free Movies,” was clear­ly post­ed as spam; how­ev­er, it’s an inter­est­ing kind of spam in that while the name & web­site clear­ly gave the com­ment away as spam, the con­tent of the com­ment itself, I feel, is worth­while. As a result, I have allowed the com­ment; how­ev­er, I have removed the web­site address.

    To reply to the ques­tion, which is essen­tial­ly the famed “Prob­lem of Evil” that objec­tors of The­ism like to throw around, I say this:

    God allows human­i­ty to have exact­ly what it wants. From the begin­ning, mankind has active­ly reject­ed God, His laws, and His wis­dom. We have cho­sen defi­ant, will­ful dis­obe­di­ence, and God has allowed us to have what we have cho­sen. The nat­ur­al out­come of going against God is the destruc­tion and suf­fer­ing men­tioned in the above comment.

    There is a sub­set of human­i­ty that does not get what they want, how­ev­er; these are the elect who are dragged against their will to the Sav­ior Jesus Christ, and it is in the incar­na­tion of Jesus Christ that God involved Him­self most in the affairs of man — almost, if not total­ly, to the point of inter­rupt­ing our will­ful rebellion.

    Pri­or to the First Advent of Christ, God was still plen­ty involved in the affairs of men, and for those who have had their eyes opened, God’s activ­i­ty in our world is often quite plain to see.

    Per­haps most of all, were God not active in our world, mankind like­ly would have wiped itself out already. The poor would be tram­pled over, the old would be for­got­ten, the sick would receive no care, and who­ev­er is left would fight every­one else for rich­es and pow­er… Until no one is left.

    It is the Spir­it of God which restrains us, which caus­es there to be good in the world.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Rick Beckman