Creation

This argument is ridiculous and would easily be shot down in a high school debate. The most that can be drawn from the first sentences is that the Bible does not disagree with science. Science says that the universe is old, and the Bible, saying nothing about whether the universe is young or old, does not disagree.Genesis is also silent about the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the existence of Big foot, and about the content of the world's best omelet. If science manages to uncover one or another answer to those question, would you then claim that Genesis is in agreement with science because it does not give a contrary answer? Or would that be ridiculous.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are right about that in some part, but being no correction true to the text can save your argument. What the text does say is that the earth existed prior to the creation of light. Despite the fact that the creation of the earth is not described, it is quite clear that the description of the earth and its waters existing before the creation of light as told in Genesis is not consistent with science. At least not if you want to insist on a very particular definition of 'created' to mean formed for the very first time.In actuality, science tells us that there were first and second generation stars that were born, that shone, and then died in tremendous super nova explosions well before (billions of years prior) there was any solid material available to create this solar system. So the text does not agree with science. And the problem is not merely the duration, but the order of events.Similarly the events of day four as per Genesis are not in the order given given by science relative to the creation of the earth. Nor is the sky a vault or dome over the earth and there is no vault that separates water above from water below. The description of the vault may be poetic licence, put not the order of creation.In addition the order given for the creation of life on earth in days 5 and 6 is not in agreement with science.These things are all true regardless of the length or definition of a day or a "light period". Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Verses 1 and 2. Verse 1 describes a formless earth with God hovering over the waters, and then verse 2 tells us that God then created light and saw that it was good.Can I assume that you have no issues with the rest of my post? Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

And does the text not then say that evening and morning were the first day? Clearly there is something strange going on about the definition.Do you yourself not distinguish between night and day. Are your days 24 hours or something less than 12 hours during the winter?It is pretty clear that the term day is used in at least two ways in Genesis just as we use it that way today. Why pretend otherwise?

I am not at all concerned with what was created in verse 1 because I don't want to argue about the contents of that verse. Verse 1 is ambiguous enough to support many interpretations. I acknowledge that verse 1 is silent about any ordering. But it does indicate that the earth was created.My point is that regardless of whether verse one includes an ordering regarding the creation of the earth or not, verse 2 describes the universe before God said let there by light. Even if you want to claim that verse 1 subsumes verse 2, verse two and 3 describe God hovering over the waters and then saying let there be light. So earth first then light is the order. Not according to science.I see that you claim that Genesis does not describe an earth without form. Sorry, but that's going to be a tough argument for you to make.Verse 2
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."Of course we've had these exact identical discussions in several threads now. At some point we might get to the point of showing that science is not exactly as you state either. It may be easier to gain agreement on what the Bible says, but I don't have my hopes up.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are not addressing the question at all. By your logic, everything was created in Genesis 1:1. And yet no human's existed until day 6. Where does that fit in the order described in Genesis 1:1?And saying that the universe was created does not mean that everything in the universe was created. There are stars in existence which were created well after the earth was created. So simply saying that the universe was created does not say that the sun and moon existed.Where do you get the idea that darkness was created in verse 2 anyway ? Nothing in Genesis 2 says any such thing. All that is said is that darkness was in existence. It is light that is said to be created after Genesis 2. Do you know what darkness is? Do you think darkness is a thing rather than the absence of something? But more to the point, where is the creation of darkness described or mentioned? What is the textual basis for your completely unscientific statement regarding the nature of darkness. And what about the earth being without form? Was that the case or not?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why isn't the creation of man a part of creation?

I suppose that if I am going to pound on a bad argument, I should acknowledge a good one. God could have been illuminating an earth covered with clouds. A formless and void earth. That's fine. It is not in accordance with science that the universe contained every star and planet at the time of formation of the earth. So what does being complete mean to you. Quite obviously the earth was not finished at the end of Genesis 1:1 or even during the time of Genesis 1:2. So what does 'perfect and complete even mean? Okay. But that would be the case because Genesis 1:1 says nothing about the condition of anything in the universe. How is it that you make up things in the absence of any information. You seem to be putting forth that the world was complete in Genesis 1:1, then only partially formed and in fact formless in Genesis 1:2, only to become fully formed, well who knows when. I suppose you are free to fill in such things, but does the Bible actually say those things, or do you make them up because you think science is correct?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

As I have remarked to you on previous occasions, saying you cannot 'find' something is not an argument. In this case what you appear to be doing is simply declaring a hole in your own knowledge. I recall that you advanced a similar 'argument' to claim that you could not find a description of gravity as the warpring of space-time by mass despite the fact that I provided you with three article references and a textbook stating exactly that principle.I can easily find references to proper nouns in ancient Hebrew in the following places:http://www.hebrew4christians.com/..._construct_relation.htmlHebrew Bible & Ancient Near Eastern Studies (HBANES) | Near Eastern Languages & Civilization | University of Washingtonhttp://www.ancient-hebrew.org/lessons_14.htmlCategory:Hebrew nouns - WiktionaryAnd in many other places. It turns out that proper nouns in ancient languages are both distinct from indefinite nouns, and are defined pretty much the same way we define them in English. Why is it that one self described expert fails to notice that even ancient folks had definite names for person, places and things?Beyond that, I am sure everyone noticed that nothing you have posted refutes the point kbertsche actually made. Namely that the term day is used both to refer to the daylight of a day and to the entire 24 period including evening and morning. Can I resume that you have no response to that question other than to admit your own lack of knowledge within a topic on which you claim to be proficient?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Unknown cause? Neither cause nor effect is described in the text.

There appear to be uncountable ways to look at the text, all of which are at least self-consistent. I personally have always looked at Genesis 1:1 as an introduction to Genesis, similar in construct to the "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." in a Tale of Two Cities. I don't think there are any real strong cues forcing my interpretation, but in my opinion, the interpretation seems to work.On the other hand, ICANT's interpretation requires making up stuff. The universe was created in 1:1, and then silently fell apart before 1:2? Where does that come from? Then a complete denial that day 4 is part of creation? No creation week then? ICANT claims that the ancient Hebrew used in 1:1 absolutely requires his reading.I think ICANT's reading comes from an attempt to manage some kind of consistency with science. He buttresses his reading with an appeal to expertise in ancient Hebrew. But any of us who have seen his debates with other people having some knowledge understand that his language interpretation arguments quickly devolve into a kind of numerology with meaning swinging from hinges that are fastened in a door frame of ambiguity.Defending OEC based on a literal reading of the text requires a far greater straining against the text than does defending YEC. In fact I have seen many atheist on these forums express the opinion that YECs are at least sincere about their reading of the Bible as compared to OEC. Of course being a YEC absolutely requires denial of current reality. Neither approach is viable in my opinion.Genesis 1 and 2 are written by someone who may or may not have been capable of smelting iron. Some things written therein don't seem to be right. Is that really surprising?

Right. I seem to recall you explaining some of that to me before. At least I remember the part about needing to move verses 4:25-26 because they were complete inconsistent with ICANT's favored narrative in their current location. I don't see ICANT spelling all of that stuff out here. Perhaps we are not ready for that yet? Because I know I would decide that I've heard enough. Isn't that what this thread is about. If there is any interpretation that can fit the premise of this thread, then ICANT is still right?

Actually you did not say where you had searched. Again, saying that ICANT cannot find it does not mean jack. Perhaps you should not have tossed in that zinger that people were assuming ancient Hebrew was a modern language if the real issue is that you cannot find something. It is pretty clear that you were claiming that the rest of us were ignorant. Names for people, places, and things are nouns. And probably proper nouns to boot. What Moses may have lacked was capital letters. Seriously, ICANT, please move on to some point. None of this discussion about formalities matters one wit. Genesis clearly uses the word day in more than one way. If there are no proper nouns, then your position is even more hopeless.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So what period is an evening and a morning? The same as a morning and an evening? Do you have a point?

Surely you meant to say 1:2, given that there is no description of condition in Genesis 1:1.But regarding Jeremiah,Perhaps you don't believe Jeremiah when he claimed that his description was of things to come and not of things past. Or perhaps there is even more of the Bible that supposedly took place on the Genesis 1:1 earth than just those parts you have mentioned so far. Or perhaps your argument is breaking under its own weight.Any port in a storm I guess.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.