The Literal Genesis Account of Creation

And then after that: How did those 49 things happen when the earth was without form and void?

Shapeless and empty, is how I would define it.You could just look it up in a dictionary if you are just asking what the words mean.What are you really asking?

I realize that.My point still stands.How did all those 49 things happen on a formless and void earth? You have things happening in Gen 2:X that are happening in Gen1:1 before the earth was even still without form and void.Hold it... You're sooooo wrong...Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.coupled with:Gen 2: 4 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,But:Gen 2: 2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.Which is before Gen 2:4, right?Which is ALL before Gen 1:2, right?So then how did all this happen:Gen 1: 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day... after the seventh day if it was before the second? Hmm?You're full of shit, no offense.

It doesn't matter about the time span. You still have Adam and Eve running around on a formless and void earth. That doesn't make any sense. "Don't quote me boy, I ain't said shit."What makes you thin that I believe that? I trying to make sense out of what you are saying. But there doesn't seem to be any come on now... don't 'tard out on me. Actually, its not.You're cutting it up and rearranging it.And you doing a poor job of defending your arrangement.I think it makes more sense as written.You've failed to convince me of your 'theory'.

I'm trying but you're hindering me and I'm losing patience.Answer this first:How did all the Adam and Eve stuff happen on a void and formless earth? Isn't that the implication of your theory? If you type {qs=some duck} (but with square brackets)
it will say Just to clean up a bit: Or you could do it like this: Or you could do it the other way: Hit the reply button and then switch my message to peak mode at the top right of my message you're replying too to see exactly what I typed to get the differences.Just FYI. I see where the confusion came from. I meant that I realize that that is one of the premesis. Not that I really think that the premise is true.My original reply assumed that the time span was in there. You re-iterating it didn't make my reply any different.And my point still stand.... (question first above) I'm not really sure, but for the sake of argument I can say 'yes'. So now what?

So there was an extinction event in between Gen1:2 and Gen1:2 that made the earth formless and void?You're just making stuff up to try and get the ends to meet. Its intellectually dishonest. I believe that the earth is old, that god exists and Jesus was his son, and that we as humans have a special place with god.I think Genesis is not literal but that it could still contain info from god within it. It does not.But we can still argue your premises even if I don't think they are true. I'll just assume that they are true for the sake of argument. I mean, this is a debate board. But that doesn't fit with what the text says. You have to perfom mental gymnastics in order for it to work.

Yeah, that was a typo. No. I'm saying there have been no extinction events in between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2, according to the Bible.Its not in there. And a huge span of time isn't even implied in which to have the event. It is something that you have to make up in order for your account to fit with the text. Bleh, no thanks.I'm not here to offer my account. I'm here to tell you that your account does not fit with a literal interpretation of Genesis, which it doesn't.

They (nobody specifically) must accept the science that is blatantly obvious, but they don't want to accept the science that conflicts with their world view.

A person that would want to maintain the belief that the Bible is the literal word of god (and inerrant), but found the scientific evidence for an old Earth convincing, would try to interpret the Bible, literally, in a way that meant that the Earth was old.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think its a literal interpretation either (upthread I called it 'intellectually dishonest' and 'mental gymnastics').I was trying to say that they - the person doing the interpreting - would try (or think they were trying) to interpret the Bible literally but in a way that is congruent with their worldview. Whether or not they are actually interpreting it literally, was not answered in my post.Sorry for the misunderstanding. (or was it mine?)

If you want to maintain that the Bible is literal and inerrant, then you should form your beliefs around the Bible and not form the Bible around your beliefs.If you want to accept what science says, then you should not maintain that the Bible is literal and inerrant.Trying to meld the two requires 'mental gymnastics' and is intellectually dishonest to both the Bible and science.Its wrong, IMHO.

Nope. The Bible doesn't imply that there was billions of years between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2. This isn't very close to what science says: It didn't really appear out of nowhere. Science doesn't know what happened before, like, 10^-34 sec, or something like that. There was not time before the singularity, so there was no time for the singularity to appear from out of. And if there was, then it wasn't nowhere. Poor word choice. It wasn't like an explosion from a bomb, although it was rapid expansion. The univers was the singularity. The singularity did not create the universe. Well, its not no idea... There's theories on it:How:

quote:

---

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

​

1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.

​

2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.

​

3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).

​

4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.

​

5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

​

source

---

when:

quote:

---

In the physical sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when liquid water first flowed on the Earth, and 2.7 billion years ago when the earliest uncontroversial evidence of life is found in the form of stable isotopes and molecular biomarkers pointing to photosynthesis.

​

same source (at the top)

---

why:It is inevitable. Given these same conditions anywhere in the univers and life must form, because of scientific laws. Ummm, no, not at all.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : changed subtitle

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

Actually, it means the exact opposite. "and the earth was without form, and void" means that the earth didn't exist yet.If I say that my child has not been born yet(or conceived even), am I saying that my child already exists? Of course not! How can you think that I am? I don't have a child, but I plan on having one some day. My child doesn't exist yet.But the way you read, you're saying that because I mentioned the child that it means that it already exists!? Seriously, ICANT, that's gotta be one of the supidest things I've read. Are you just having fun with us (trolling)? or are seriously trying to duscuss this?You've got to be trolling.

That is why I'm calling you a troll, smartass.You're replies are practically worthless. They don't adress what is being discussed. Mostly, they just tend to excite anger or disorder. Thus they are inflammatory, thus you are a troll..|.. ^.^ ..|.Good day, sir.

No. Piss off.You're adding ridiculous stuff to the Bible (lots'o'years between Gen1:1 and 1:2 for just one example) and not backing up your claims or providing good reason why your interpretation should even be considered. And you're doing it throughout an entire thread, then you have the gall to ask me for a reference for a simple definition!?? Fuck you.