Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?

Bertot responds to me:

quote:

---

Rrhain, a piece of advice, you should stick to math, if that is your expertise, you are way out of you leauge in this respect. This one is not even worthy of a reply.

---

In other words, you don't actually have a response.I've got a piece of counter-advice: You stop worrying about me and I'll keep on not worrying about you.I'm still waiting for a reply (Message 280).Perhaps you could start a new thread and point out the difference between the two:What is the difference between: And: Remember, I'm the one who introduced the term "tautology" into the discussion, Message 75: Therefore, since it is clear that I was referring to the definition of tautology referring to logic rather than to rhetoric, claims that you were dealing with rhetoric automatically fail as an example of the logical error of equivocation.I'm waiting.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I became a Christian later in life, and so probably have a different view of Genesis 1 from most.First, it seemed to me that the chapter had originally been passed down verbally from one generation to the next. The division of creation into days and the repetition of the phrase ”And God saw that it was good’ seemed to me to be devices that helped story tellers to repeat it accurately.Second, imagine not knowing anything at all about God and hearing Genesis 1 for the first time (which is what happened to me). It is frightening! God just says "let there be light" - that’s all He has to do! Imagine what He could do to me! But then the orderliness of the following lines and the repetitions bring some reassurance that’s He’s not out to get me.What I’m thinking is that the availability of bibles and familiarity with Genesis 1 stops us from seeing the big message, and we concentrate on the detail instead. That the big message can be true without having to believe the literal detail. That the detail was never intended to be a prescription.As far as I know, Jesus never said one word about creation, presumably because the Good News is way more important. I have a suspicion that He wants us to see the big picture and not get bogged down in the detail. To go beyond the letter of the law and see the meaning.Anyone help?

---

There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made - Richard Feynman

Hi Rrhain, You have certainly told me God freely admits He'll lie his ass off.But you have not explained where He admitted it.You certainly told me that other people said He would.But you have not even attempted to show me where God said He would. Yes I remember how I changed the font size of the word "IF" I also remember I point out that Ezekiel was the one who made the statement.
God did not say it as you proclaim. You are the one claiming God lied in Genesis 2:17.Back it up with evidence. Sure I did.You have not one shred of evidence that the man formed in Genesis 2:7 lived past the first evening God declared in Genesis 1:5. No, they are the same person. They are all the same man. Evidence please. You have got too many irons in the fire. You are reading a little too fast.I said, that the spiritual death, separation from God had nothing to do with the man's physical death.That means that it was not a spiritual death as you have been told and led to believe.The man had to die a physical death the same day he ate the fruit.You say he did not.You say God lied.Evidence please. Well, No, actually we are talking about what took place: The day and events described in this verse and the following verses through Genesis 4:26Genesis 2:4 says it is the history of what happened in Genesis 1:1.So everything I have been talking about happened in Genesis 1:1.In Genesis 1:1 man showed up before evening.He also died before evening.Now if you could find a scripture that give the age of Abel when he was killed by Cain. Or the age of Cain and his descendants that would go along way toward proving there was day and night periods during this time and that the first man did not die the same day he ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Ambercab,Welcome to EvC. Ambercab don't pay any attention to us knowitalls.This is a debate site and we love to argue.In fact it makes me study and try to understand what God said to us in His Word.I would not put forth many of the things I do here at EvC anywhere else.But there are a lot of sharp brilliant minds here. They are from a totally different world than I am.They are from the natural world and view things from the natural world viewpoint.I was born again when I was 9 years and 11 months old so this world is not my home and I do not understand the natural world, as I view things from a spiritual world.So if you are a born again (Christian) child of God this is a good place to get your theology questioned.Again welcome and have fun.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Rrhain, Well no, the Bible does not say whales were before land animals. You say the Bible says whales were before land animals.There were no whales created in Genesis 1:1 as they are not recorded in Genesis 2:4 - 4:26 history of that day.Actually there was no fish mentioned in that history nor were there seas mentioned, in fact it had not rained. Land animals came first as no whales were created in Genesis 1:1. Well no, the Bible does not say water was first. You say the Bible says water was first.You been spoon feed too many false things about what the Bible says.The Bible says the earth was dry. It had not rained, therefore nothing could grow. God caused a mist to water the earth. Then God formed man from the dust of the earth. God planted a garden. God caused some trees to grow that was good for food. Then God had a river water the garden.The Bible and geology agree the earth was dry first before water. As attested by Genesis land was first before water even rain.So geology and the Bible agree the earth was dry first before water. Well no, the Bible does not say that. You say the Bible says that. Genesis 1:1 says the heaven was created first. That would include everything you can look up and see and even the things you can not see. That would be the sun, moon, stars everything.Then the earth was created. So the simple Bible answer is the stars were first.Then the earth.So cosmology and the Bible agree the stars were first, then the earth. Well no. I actually start with Genesis 1:1 and it's history as given in Genesis 2:4 - Genesis 4:26.You try to make Genesis 1:2 - Genesis 2:3 the history of Genesis 1:1 which it is not and does not claim to be. But Genesis 1:1 is the beginning.Genesis 1:2 just does not follow Genesis 1:1.You do know that there were no chapters and verses in the original manuscripts don't you? You do know that these were handed down stories until they were recorded don't you?You do know that it would be very easy to get things mixed up don't you?That means you have to let the Word speak for itself.Therefore Genesis 1:1 is the begining. Genesis 2:4 is the beginning of the history of Genesis 1:1. Now if your mind is so warped by what you have learned and been taught that you can not read Genesis 2:4 and understand that it is the generations (history)of the earth and the heavens when created in Genesis 1:1 I truly feel sorry for you.Now you can do your little tap dance and tell me how wrong I am and you can go on bashing the Bible because you don't want it to be true.Just remember the Bible says what it says.It does not say what you or I say it says.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

so the person who compiled the Genesis account got the order mixed up? The bible first verse should be Gen 2:4?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Hi cat, Then what would it be referring to if it was the first verse in the Bible.Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.Genesis 2:4 says "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"This verse declares it is the history of the earth and heavens in the day that the Lord God created them.It does not claim to be the history or an explanation of what happened in the 7 days of Moses as I call them.It covers one light period that ends when God declared the evening, as darkness had come. The following morning concluded the first day. Genesis 1:5.I came to this conclusion as a 10 year old and nobody has ever shaken this view.I finally just shut up about it until I came to EvC. You should see how a bunch of self righteous preachers react when I bring up the subject. They have believed for so long that the story in chapter 1 is the real story and the one in chapter 2 is just an expansion of it.You have seen them jump through all kind of hoops here to explain the different contradictions between the two stories.In other words they know what they believe and it doesn't make any difference what the facts are. Just keep the blinders on and full steam ahead. Kinda makes my side look like a bunch of idiot's.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Well honestly the only 'problem' I see with this explanation, assuming it were correct, is that all the revelatory work of God to mankind about the creation, is for naught, as only one person in the history of mankind, understands it correctly. And when you die where will we be?

Hi shalamabobbi,Welcome to EvC. Well maybe I am delusional and don't know what I am talking about.Maybe Genesis 2:4 don't say: Maybe those english words don't say they are referring to the time when the heavens and the earth were created.Maybe Genesis 1:1 does not say: So maybe Genesis 2:4 is not refering to Genesis 1:1.And maybe the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 and the woman that was cloned from one of his ribs in Genesis 2:22 are the same man and woman created at the same time in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27.Maybe just maybe the Hebrew word translated was in Genesis 1:2 really means was instead of the definition given in the Hebrew lexicons. They give the meaning as 1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out. I bolded the was I am refering too.The second was is not translated from any Hebrew word, it was supplied by the translators.So maybe the earth wasn't created in Genesis 1:1 as the Bible says and then it became formless and empty.Maybe God was not able to do a complete job in Genesis 1:1 and therefore created a mess.Maybe the heavens was not created in Genesis 1:1 as there was no stars moon and sun in Genesis 1:2.Maybe the teachers was right when I was in Bible college when they said I was crazy and did not have a clue as to what I was talking about.They told me the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago from a formless mass. I asked where that formless mass came from and I was informed God created that formless mass in Genesis 1:1.Well that is not what my Bible says.My Bible says "In the beginning" whenever that was."God created the heaven and the earth".Created says there was a heaven and a earth in existence prior to Genesis 1:2.Now if I can't believe Genesis 1:1 I can't believe anything else in the Bible.Maybe science is right but I don't like the scientific explanation any better than the theological one I got in college.I am told the universe smaller than a pea exists at T=10^-43.I ask, where did it come from?Best answer I have got so far is "We don't know".Next best answer is "We are working on it".I have been told it "just is", and "it has always been".I tend to go along with "it has always been" just maybe not in the form it is today.The reason I like this one is because in eternity I can't figure out when the beginning was.You care to set me straight? If you think you will go to far off topic my email is available.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANT,
I'm not sure if I'm following your entire argument so correct me where my perception's wrong.
I think you are saying that the first chapter of genesis is giving the account of 6 days of creation, with the notion that the first period of light being much longer in duration than 12 hours, right?
Then you read genesis 2:4-25 to refer back to genesis 1:1's first day? And that Adam died on this first day?Well let's see. In 1:1 the heaven is created.
Then on the 2nd day it says in 1:6 Let there be a firmament.
In 1:7 he made the firmament.
In 1:8 The firmament is called heaven.So by your logic, there are two separate firmaments/heavens being discussed?In 1:3 it says 'Let there be light" which implies the sun (if not feel free to correct me here)
That's on the first day..but in 1:16 on day 4 the sun is created.
by your logic there are two suns created..And you are saying this refers to the Big Bang theory, the version where the universe expands, stops, contracts, big crunch, then expands again, in continuous cycles?
And you see a 'crunch' between 1:1 and the rest of the 6 days?Anyhow to put a quicker end to this, you responded to Rrhain saying something to the effect that Adam died in the day he partook of the fruit. I am assuming in this first extra long light period of 1:1?
But note 5:4,5 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years and he died.So the scripture says, regardless of the length of time involved with Adam's duration, that it encompased days (plural) not singular, so your argument falls apart here, if nowhere else.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

But you have not explained where He admitted it.

---

Already done. What do you think you're trying to rationalize away?

quote:

---

Yes I remember how I changed the font size of the word "IF" I also remember I point out that Ezekiel was the one who made the statement.

​

God did not say it as you proclaim.

---

Incorrect. You were pointing out that god was pointing that he hadn't lied, instead a conditional was brought forth.I responded that a conditional is irrelevant. A being that cannot lie would put forth a scenario that would result in him lying.Why do you think you're trying to rationalize it away?

quote:

---

You are the one claiming God lied in Genesis 2:17.

​

Back it up with evidence.

---

Already done. Adam was told that if he ate from the tree of knowledge, he would be dead within 24 literal hours.Adam ate from the tree of knowledge.He lived for nearly another 1000 years.Ergo, god was either massively mistaken and didn't know what the consequences of eating from the treee of knowledge were or god lied to Adam.Since it is extremely unlikely that god didn't know what the tree of knowledge would do if you ate from it, that must mean that god lied. We've been through this countless times.

quote:

---

You have not one shred of evidence that the man formed in Genesis 2:7 lived past the first evening God declared in Genesis 1:5.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? There were no humans in Gen 1:5 (the first day). They wouldn't get created until Gen 1:27. And since the days in Gen 1 are literaly, 24-hour days, the statement to Adam that he would be dead by the end of the day means within 24 hours.Therefore, if Adam lives for more than 24 literal hours beyond eating from the tree of knowledge, then god was lying to Adam.Adam lived for nearly 1000 years after eating of the tree of knowledge: Now, Seth came after Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden: Thus, the man that was told by god in Gen 2:17 that he would be dead within 24 hours of eating of the tree of knowledge managed to get kicked out of Eden, have three sons, and live for 800 years after the third one was born.800+ years is longer than 24 hours.God lied to Adam.

quote:

---

I said, that the spiritual death, separation from God had nothing to do with the man's physical death.

---

There is no such thing as a "spiritual death." You're reading Genesis as if you were a Christian and that is wrong. Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. When god warned Adam he would die, he meant a physical death.But Adam didn't die in 24 hours the way god said he would.Ergo, god lied to Adam.

quote:

---

The man had to die a physical death the same day he ate the fruit.

​

You say he did not.

​

You say God lied.

​

Evidence please.

---

Already given. What do you think you're trying to rationalize away?

quote:

---

So everything I have been talking about happened in Genesis 1:1.

---

Nothing happened in Gen 1:1. The days of Gen 1 are literal, 24-hour days. Humans didn't show up until much later, Adam was told he would be dead within 24 hours if he ate of the tree of knowledge. He lived for at least 800 more years after eating from it.Ergo, god lied to Adam.

quote:

---

Now if you could find a scripture that give the age of Abel when he was killed by Cain.

---

Irrelevant. Adam was kicked out of Eden for eating of the tree before he had any children. Adam had Seth after Cain. Adam was 130 when Seth was born. Adam was 930 when he died. Adam lived at least 800 years beyond the eating of the tree.

quote:

---

Or the age of Cain and his descendants that would go along way toward proving there was day and night periods during this time and that the first man did not die the same day he ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

---

Irrelevant. We're talking literal 24-hour days. Adam lived for over 800 years beyond that day, not within 24 hours.Ergo, god lied to Adam.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hi shalamabobbi, The account given in Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 has nothing to do with the creation.The only things created was listed as great whales in 1:21 and mankind in 1:27.The creation took place in Genesis 1:1 in the beginning whenever that was.All the things from Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:24 took place the same day.If you will notice there are no ages given to anyone in these verses.
But Cain had sons who had sons who had sons etc.How long was this period of light? From the beginning whenever that was. .Actually the heaven and the earth and everything created in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 2:25. This heaven referred to here is an expanse between the waters below and the waters above.So how high do you have to go to find water? Actually evening had come as there was darkness and God said let there be light and there was light.So no this was not the sun but it could have been light from the sun as it was in existence already.Or it could have been light from another source as God is light. The Hebrew word ‘ which means create, birth or form was not used in Genesis 1:16.That is the reason was translated make which means to do, work, make.So if it was not created and was there, there needed to be some work done so it would be visible. Like it would have to be if a huge meteor impacted the earth or something of that sort. I don't call it a big crunch just an event of some kind.It is very possible that there was more than one event and I have no idea how long ago the beginning was. There is no detail given anywhere. I only have what there is in Genesis to go on.I do understand that God has destroyed all life on earth at least one time which He said prior to the flood when He told Noah to build an ark.But it is plainly recorded in Genesis 8:21, "neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."So it seems God has destroyed all life forms on the earth at least one time in the past prior to the flood. The light period that ended with the evening in Genesis 1:5 when God declared the evening and the morning were the first day. The Hebrew word is not a proper name. The transliteration is adam but the meaning is man or mankind.So when you say adam you have not said anything.Now the generations of the man in Genesis 5:1 is the man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27.This man and his wife were created at the same time in Genesis 1:27 This man had no son named Cain.He had no son named Abel.The man who ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had a son named Cain who killed his son named Abel. Cain had many descendants.This man was formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7.His wife was cloned from a rib taken from the man after many things had been created. Yes you have proved the man created in Genesis 1:27 whose firstborn son was Seth lived 930 years.I have known that since I was 10 years old.What you have not shown is that the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 saw a sunset or evening, must less a morning.Show me the ages for any of the men listed in Genesis 2:7 through Genesis 4:24.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I can't find who told the man that.But I believe he died physically before the the evening came.I have repeated myself enough, we have wasted too much bandwidth and space already.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Amen brotha..
We will wrest now..

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Well no, the Bible does not say whales were before land animals. You say the Bible says whales were before land animals.

---

Incorrect. I did not write the Bible. You really are going to make me quote the entire thing to you, aren't you? Fine: Whales don't exist until the fifth day (Gen 1:21) but land animals don't exist until the sixth day (Gen 1:25).Thus, the Bible says that whales come first and are not descended from land animals. Biology says that land animals come first and whales are descended from them.

quote:

---

Land animals came first as no whales were created in Genesis 1:1.

---

That's not what the text says.Gen 1:21: Whales
Gen 1:23: End of fifth day
Gen 1:25: Land animalsIf you are going to abandon the text, then just say so. There was nothing in Gen 1:1. That's the point behind saying that it was the beginning.

quote:

---

Well no, the Bible does not say water was first. You say the Bible says water was first.

---

Incorrect. The Bible says water first (Gen 1:2).If you are going to abandon the text, then just say so.

quote:

---

The Bible says the earth was dry.

---

Incorrect. The Bible says that dry land came up out of the water (Gen 1:9).If you are going to abandon the text, then just say so.

quote:

---

It had not rained, therefore nothing could grow.

---

But this that you are quoting (Gen 2) is in direct contradiction to Gen 1 which has water first (Gen 1:2). Which is it?

quote:

---

Then God formed man from the dust of the earth.

---

But this that you are quoting (Gen 2) is in direct contradiction to Gen 1 which has humans last (Gen 1:27). Which is it?

quote:

---

God planted a garden.

---

But this that you are quoting (Gen 2) is in direct contradiction to Gen 1 which has plants coming before humans (Gen 1:12). Which is it?

quote:

---

God caused some trees to grow that was good for food.

---

Again, this that you are quoting (Gen 2) is in direct contradiction to Gen 1 which has plants coming before humans (Gen 1:12). Which is it?

quote:

---

The Bible and geology agree the earth was dry first before water.

---

Incorrect. The Bible says water first (Gen 1:2). The dry land doesn't come until later (Gen 1:9).If you are going to abandon the text, then just say so.

quote:

---

Well no, the Bible does not say that. You say the Bible says that.

---

Incorrect. The Bible says the stars come after the earth:Gen 1:9: Earth
Gen 1:16: StarsIf you are going to abandon the text, then just say so.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:1 says the heaven was created first.

---

Incorrect and irrelevant. First, Gen 1:1 simply says that god created the heavens and the earth. It does not give an order. You will notice that Gen 1:2 then says that the earth was without form and void, thus indicating that at first, there was no earth. "Without form." "Void." Those terms have meanings.Second, the first thing god makes is not the earth but rather light. Then, heaven gets created. However, there are no stars within it. That happens later.Gen 1:7-8: Heaven made in the midst of the waters (note, water first)
Gen 1:16-17: Stars created and set in the firmament which is called "heaven"If you are going to abandon the text, then just say so.

quote:

---

That would include everything you can look up and see and even the things you can not see.

---

Incorrect. The stars don't get put into the firmament until Gen 1:16. But earth is made before that.Gen 1:9: Earth
Gen 1:16-17: Stars created and set in the firmament which is called "heaven"If you are going to abandon the text, then just say so.

quote:

---

So the simple Bible answer is the stars were first.

​

Then the earth.

​

So cosmology and the Bible agree the stars were first, then the earth.

---

Incorrect. The exact opposite:Gen 1:9: Earth
Gen 1:16-17: Stars created and set in the firmament which is called "heaven"If you are going to abandon the text, then just say so.

quote:

---

Well no. I actually start with Genesis 1:1 and it's history as given in Genesis 2:4 - Genesis 4:26.

---

So you are abandoning the text. Thank you. You completely ignore Gen 1:2 - 31. I will keep that in mind.

quote:

---

You try to make Genesis 1:2 - Genesis 2:3 the history of Genesis 1:1 which it is not and does not claim to be.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Gen 1:2-31 has nothing to do with Gen 1:1?

quote:

---

Genesis 1:2 just does not follow Genesis 1:1.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?

quote:

---

You do know that there were no chapters and verses in the original manuscripts don't you?

---

Indeed, but it isn't like you can mix-and-match the sentences into any order you wish. They were split into verses because that is the order in which they were said. When one recited Genesis, 1:2 immediately followed 1:1. You did not skip to statements about Eden and then come back in some circuitous route to the discussion of when heaven was made and when the stars were put in it.

quote:

---

You do know that these were handed down stories until they were recorded don't you?

---

Nice try, but that's my point (Message 220): Try again.

quote:

---

Genesis 2:4 is the beginning of the history of Genesis 1:1.

---

Incorrect. Genesis 1:2 is the beginning of the history of Genesis 1:1. That's why it comes immediately after Gen 1:1. If Gen 2:4 was supposed to be the description of what happened in Gen 1:1, then it would have immediately followed Gen 1:1.If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.

quote:

---

Just remember the Bible says what it says.

​

It does not say what you or I say it says.

---

Indeed. So since I have now quoted the entirety of Genesis 1:1, you can show me where it says anything about Eden, Adam, rivers, mists, etc.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.