http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/11/02/let/ Geocreationism - Showing harmony between mainstream science and scripture Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:00:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/11/02/let/#comment-298 Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:27:20 +0000 http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/11/02/let/#comment-298 [...] Command number one, “bring forth”, appears to be a command to the waters.  In other words, God did not bring forth sea life… the waters did, though they did so by His will.  How was it the waters could do this?  Well, as discussed in “Let”, God’s creative commands were for Jesus to “let” something happen.  In this case, Jesus was to let the waters bring forth life, and the waters in turn did exactly that. [...] […] Command number one, “bring forth”, appears to be a command to the waters.  In other words, God did not bring forth sea life… the waters did, though they did so by His will.  How was it the waters could do this?  Well, as discussed in “Let”, God’s creative commands were for Jesus to “let” something happen.  In this case, Jesus was to let the waters bring forth life, and the waters in turn did exactly that. […]

]]> http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/11/02/let/#comment-68 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:58:59 +0000 http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/11/02/let/#comment-68 [...] In other words, the plants mentioned in Day 3 did not appear until long after Day 4.  Part of the solution to this dilemma is addressed in our word study on “Let“.  In that study, the creative pronouncements are interpreted as commands by God to remove some “insurmountable hindrence” to the appearance of the subject of a given creative pronouncement.  For example, Day 1 removed the hindrance of light, Day 2 removed the hindrance to a firmament, etc. With this approach, a given Creation Day does not have to contain the end result of removing that hindrance.  Let us apply this to Day 3. [...] […] In other words, the plants mentioned in Day 3 did not appear until long after Day 4.  Part of the solution to this dilemma is addressed in our word study on “Let“.  In that study, the creative pronouncements are interpreted as commands by God to remove some “insurmountable hindrence” to the appearance of the subject of a given creative pronouncement.  For example, Day 1 removed the hindrance of light, Day 2 removed the hindrance to a firmament, etc. With this approach, a given Creation Day does not have to contain the end result of removing that hindrance.  Let us apply this to Day 3. […]

]]> http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/11/02/let/#comment-41 Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:40:56 +0000 http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/11/02/let/#comment-41 [...] Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” - Genesis 1:6 [...] […] Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” - Genesis 1:6 […]

]]> http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/11/02/let/#comment-22 Fri, 01 Dec 2006 06:41:31 +0000 http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/11/02/let/#comment-22 [...] I discussed this verse in detail in the word study on “Let”.  The gist of it is that the word “be” in God’s pronouncement is as well suited for describing the removal of some hindrance to light, as it is for describing the sudden appearance of it.  Also, because the darkness was “over the deep” in verse 2, we know the light in verse 3 was “over the deep” as well. Therefore, interpreting God’s statement as “Let any hindrance to seeing light over the deep be removed” is appropriate, as long as other geological and theological evidence exists to support, or even suggest, it. [...] […] I discussed this verse in detail in the word study on “Let”.  The gist of it is that the word “be” in God’s pronouncement is as well suited for describing the removal of some hindrance to light, as it is for describing the sudden appearance of it.  Also, because the darkness was “over the deep” in verse 2, we know the light in verse 3 was “over the deep” as well. Therefore, interpreting God’s statement as “Let any hindrance to seeing light over the deep be removed” is appropriate, as long as other geological and theological evidence exists to support, or even suggest, it. […]

]]>