Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,598 Year: 4,855/9,624 Month: 203/427 Week: 13/103 Day: 2/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 286 of 319 (495690)
01-23-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by ICANT
01-23-2009 10:08 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
Then you want me to explain how things could have gotten mixed up in Genesis.
You're the one claiming everything is consistent. Thus, you need to explain why a passage literally dozens of sentences away is the logical follower to a sentence rather than the one that immediately follows it. You're the one who needs to explain why Genesis is a story told by a four-year-old with the attention span of a gnat and after the very first sentence, got sidetracked on a completely unrelated matter.
I'm the one claiming that the text isn't consistent as it was written by multiple authors and thus, Gen 2 has no relation to Gen 1.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 10:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by ICANT, posted 01-24-2009 6:38 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 287 of 319 (495692)
01-23-2009 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by ICANT
01-23-2009 10:08 PM


Oh, by the way, ICANT, I notice that you completely ignore the big point of Message 278:
Your interpretation means that there is no reason for Jesus to exist. The fall of Adam, the eating of the tree of knowledge, the death of Abel at the hands of Cain, all of that happened to Gen 2 people. But all the generations of Gen 2 people ended with the flood. The only survivors were descendants of Gen 1 people who were never in Eden, never ate from the tree of knowledge, etc.
So why would Jesus need to redeem them?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 10:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by ICANT, posted 01-24-2009 2:30 PM Rrhain has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 288 of 319 (495823)
01-24-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Rrhain
01-23-2009 10:38 PM


Re Irrelevant
Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
Irrelevant. We're not talking about god.
But we are talking about God.
As we are talking about the beginning.
Since God is eternal never had a beginning.
Then the heaven and the earth has to be eternal also as there was no actual beginning.
The heaven and the earth may not have existed as we see it today but it had to be there in some form.
Rrhain writes:
quote:
So I ask the question again, "When was the beginning?"
Why does it matter?
It is very important.
Genesis 1:1 declares "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
But Genesis 1:2 took place about 6,000 years ago.
Therefore the heaven and the earth could not have been created then as they were created in the beginning.
So when was the beginning?
Rrhain writes:
Don't know. The text doesn't say. Why does it matter? We're not talking about the creation of the waters. We're talking about the creation of the heavens and the earth.
Since the water in inside the universe on the earth today the universe and earth had to be in existence for the water to exist.
Rrhain writes:
Indeed. What's the problem? Who said god created the waters? The text doesn't say anything about the waters. It simply says that god moved over the face of the waters and the first thing created was light.
So the waters just existed like whatever that was at T=0 in the other version. Is that what you are saying?
Rrhain writes:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Indeed. You will notice that nothing is said about the waters. Instead, the firmament (called "Heaven") is created and divides the waters from the waters. Thus, we don't know where the waters came from. What's the problem? Who said god created the waters? The text doesn't say anything about the waters. It simply says that god moved over the face of the waters and the first thing created was light.
Let me get this straight.
There was nothingness, emptiness just nothing.
There was water there but we don't know where it came from.
It was not created it just was.
But if it just was then light could not have been the first thing created.
The water would have to have been the first thing created.
Rrhain writes:
quote:
And you won't let me forget what you think it says either.
Incorrect. Are you claiming I am misquoting?
No I don't think you are misquoting.
I think you are misrepresenting and trying to impose your beliefs on the Bible and make it conform to what you want to say.
Rrhain writes:
Huh? You give a quote that uses the exact meaning I'm claiming and you conclude that I'm "twisting and streaching [sic]" the words?
You made the statement:
quote:
Every time the Bible uses "bohuw," it uses it along with "tohuw." The point is to call out the sheer nothingness, the imagery of emptiness and complete absence of substance and form.
I gave you the three times they are together and not one mentions nothingness.
I give you 16 times where "tohuw" is used by itself with one of them being translated as nothing.
Then you claim vindication for your statement in the quote above.
By saying, "Huh? You give a quote that uses the exact meaning I'm claiming and you conclude that I'm "twisting and streaching [sic]" the words?"
You have reached the top.
You are totally incorrigible.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 10:38 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2009 7:34 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 294 by Rrhain, posted 01-25-2009 2:41 AM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 289 of 319 (495836)
01-24-2009 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Rrhain
01-23-2009 10:54 PM


Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
Oh, by the way, ICANT, I notice that you completely ignore the big point of Message 278:
Lets decide if my interpertation is correct first.
If it is wrong there is no need to chase this rabbit.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 10:54 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Rrhain, posted 01-25-2009 2:58 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 290 of 319 (495840)
01-24-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Rrhain
01-23-2009 10:42 PM


Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
Huh? Last time I checked, Jesus was talking about the Pharisees. Since when were all Jews Pharisees?
Since when were all Pharisees Jews?
Rrhain writes:
And since god says he created the heavens and the earth and since the heavens and the earth get created after "the beginning," then it necessarily is the case that they didn't exist "before."
But Genesis 1:1 says the heaven and the earth was created in the beginning not after the beginning.
Rrhain writes:
But that contradicts the text which has heaven created on the second day
Well no there is no contradiction.
A heaven was created when the firmament was placed in the waters and divided them. But this heaven was a place "in the heaven" created in Genesis 1:1
Rrhain writes:
But that contradicts the text which has heaven created on the second day
Are you saying the earth's core the mantel and land mass was created on day 3?
Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. The Bible doesn't have anything until light is created in verse 3.
Genesis 1:1 says God created the heaven and the earth. They both existed.
Genesis 1:2 says there was a lot of water.
All this before light of verse 3.
Rrhain writes:
I did not write the Bible.
I'm glad.
Rrhain writes:
God. He creates heaven and the earth later than light. But these first six days all are "the beginning."
You could possibly call them days of the beginnings.
But you can't say they all happened in the beginning as that was in Genesis 1:1.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 10:42 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Rrhain, posted 01-25-2009 3:42 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 291 of 319 (495841)
01-24-2009 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Rrhain
01-23-2009 10:46 PM


Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
That's why we call it the "heavens."
Actually we call it the heavens because there are three of them.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 10:46 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Rrhain, posted 01-25-2009 4:08 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 292 of 319 (495880)
01-24-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Rrhain
01-23-2009 10:49 PM


Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
You're the one claiming everything is consistent.
Lets see:
I claim Genesis 1:1 is the beginning where the heaven and the earth is created.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I then jump to the history of that day.
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,
I then look at this history.
Genesis 2:7 Man was formed from the dust of the ground.
Genesis 2:8 God planted a garden in which He put the man.
Genesis 2:9 God caused every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; also the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to grow.
Genesis 2:10-14 we are given the history of a river that watered the garden and the rest of the land.
Genesis 2:15 We are then told the man is to keep the garden.
Genesis 2:17 The man is forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He is told the day he does he will die.
Genesis 2:19 God then formed out of the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:
Genesis 2:21 God caused the man to go to sleep and then He took a rib from the man.
Genesis 2:22 God then cloned a woman from the rib and brought her to the man.
Genesis 2:23, 24 The man said this is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone therefore man will leave everything and cleave to her.
Genesis 2:1-5 The woman is deceived into eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 3:6 The woman gives the fruit to the man and he eats the fruit cleaving to the woman.
Their eyes were opened and they knew evil as well as the good they had known. Genesis 3:7.
Genesis 3:23 God sent them out of the garden.
Genesis 4:1 They had a son named Cain.
Genesis 4:2 They had a son named Abel.
Genesis 4:3 In the process of time as there was no days Cain made an offering of the fruit of the ground to God.
Genesis 4:4 Abel brought the firstling of his flock that God had respect for.
Genesis 4:5 But Cain's offering God did not respect.
Genesis 4:8 Cain killed Abel. I suppose he thought if he killed Abel God would have to accept his offering.
Genesis 4:17-22 Cain had many descendants.
Then we have the insertion of Catholic Scientist's pet verses concerning this first man and woman having a son named Seth who had a son named Enos just as recorded in Chapter 5:3, and 6. But there are no ages mentioned in chapter 4 as they are in chapter 5.
Then I arrive at the condition of the earth in:
Genesis 1:2 which is a earth covered in darkness and water formless and empty.
Genesis 1:3 God then commences a restoration process. By calling for light.
Genesis 1:4 Since evening had come God divided the light from the darkness.
God called the light day and the darkness night It being evening the end of the first light period followed by the period of darkness God declared as the first day when he said, "the evening and the morning were the first day".
On the second day.
Genesis 1:6-8 God divided the waters by placing a firmament in the midst of the water. This firmament is then expanded into the heaven, and called heaven. Now we have two heavens we know of.
On the third day.
Genesis 1:9 God said let the waters under the heaven be gathered together in one place and let the dry land appear.
Note:
The dry land is not created but it is allowed to be seen above the water.
Genesis 1:10 The land He called earth and the water He called seas. earth.
Genesis 1:11 God then called for the earth to bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, earth.
Genesis 1:11 From the seed which was upon the earth.
On the fourth day.
Genesis 1:14 God said let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven. Nothing is said to be created.
Since nothing was created then it stands to reason that now that these lights are visible something must have been in the way and had to be removed.
They were to divide the day from the night and be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years
Genesis 1:15 makes a restatement of these lights in the firmament of the heaven being to give light upon the earth.
In Genesis 1:16 it says God made two great lights the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.
Made is used instead of created so with it being a continuing thought the were made visible at the same time the lights in Genesis 1:14 were made visible.
Then it seems like somebody added something, "he made the stars also". These were made visible in Genesis 1:14.
In Genesis 1:17 and 18 are repeats.
On the fifth day.
Genesis 1:20 God had the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life, and fowl.
Note:
The fowl here are bought forth out of the water. The fowl in Genesis 2:19 was formed from the ground.
Genesis 1:21 God created great whales, then repeated Genesis 1:20.
Genesis 1:22 God blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply.
On the sixth day.
Genesis 1:24, 25 God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind,"
Genesis 1:26, God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image, male and female.
Note:
They were created at the same time the woman was not made from a rib of the man.
Genesis 1:28 God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Genesis 1:29 I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Note:
Nothing was forbidden.
Genesis 2:1 Now we have a plurality of heavens that are finished and everything in them.
On the seventy day. ABE Correction seventh day.
Genesis 2:4 God ended his work. God ceased creating. It was finished as declared in Genesis 2:1.
Genesis 2:3 God blessed the seventh day because He had ceased from his creating.
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of the man that God created man, in the likeness of God.
Genesis 5:2 The male and the female in "the day" when they were created.
Genesis 5:3 Gives this man and woman's first born son's name and his descendants in the following verses through Genesis 5:32.
If that is consistent then so be it.
In conclusion:
There is a creation that takes place in the beginning when ever that was. That beginning is described in the history of the creation of the heaven and the earth in "the day" they were created as declared in Genesis 2:4 Everything that took place that day is recorded in Genesis 2:5 through Genesis 4:24. Verses 25 and 26 appear to be added as an afterthought, but maybe not.
The man formed from the dust of the earth sold all mankind into the bondage of sin by disobeying God and eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because of the disobedience of this one man all mankind and the earth has been separated from God and under the penalty of death. (Thus all objections to death to plants and animals prior to 6,000 years ago is removed).
Therefore for man to have fellowship with God it was necessary for a way that man could be reunited to the fellowship of God.
That way was provided by God coming to earth and taking on the flesh body of a man and being crucified on the Cross at Calvary.
Man has access to the fellowship of God by receiving the free, full pardon offered to man. You can't buy it and you can't earn it. All you can do is receive it or reject it.
In the not to distant past probably around 6,000 years ago the earth was in the condition found in Genesis 1:2 a wasteland covered by water and empty of life with no light shining on it for some undisclosed reason.
God's Spirit moved upon the waters and He began a healing process for planet earth. We have six days of extensive renovations including the introduction by creation of great whales and modern man.
The seventh day God ceased creating and has not started back yet, but He will in the future as we will have a new heaven and a new earth.
God Bless,
Since there is nothing else I can add to what I have outlined in the above I rest my case.
Edited by ICANT, : spelling

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 10:49 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Rrhain, posted 01-25-2009 4:29 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 306 by Peg, posted 01-29-2009 7:17 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 308 by Peg, posted 01-29-2009 8:51 PM ICANT has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 293 of 319 (495886)
01-24-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by ICANT
01-24-2009 12:46 PM


the waters
So the waters just existed like whatever that was at T=0 in the other version. Is that what you are saying?
Who knows where the waters came from? Nobody says. Have you ever read Enuma Elish? It begins with waters with no stated origins. It might be reference to the Persian Gulf which had a mixture of salt and fresh water, but who can know for sure?
quote:
When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Apsu is fresh water and Tiamut is salt water. Together, they were the waters. Genesis 1 is given a very similar structure, but is shockingly different. Imagine growing up with Enuma Elish and then you hear someone tell the story of Genesis 1. It would knock your socks off! Especially the way it jumps straight into separating the waters with the firmament which doesn't happen until after a whole load of events have passed in Enuma Elish.
quote:
Then the lord rested, gazing upon her dead body,
While he divided the flesh of the ... , and devised a cunning plan.
He split her up like a flat fish into two halves;
One half of her he stablished as a covering for heaven.
He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman,
And bade them not to let her waters come forth.
He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions thereof,
And over against the Deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud.
No debate, just throwing it out there for digestion.

Hmm, should probably read at least the first page of a debate rather than the last few before deciding to add input.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by ICANT, posted 01-24-2009 12:46 PM ICANT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 294 of 319 (495903)
01-25-2009 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by ICANT
01-24-2009 12:46 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
But we are talking about God.
No, we're not. We're talking about the history of the universe and the timeline of when certain events happened such as the creation of the earth. God is a secondary concern, important only insofar as he is the one who actually made the things. The "who" is irrelevant. It is the "when."
quote:
As we are talking about the beginning.
Indeed.
"The beginning" is not god. The beginning is a point in time.
quote:
Since God is eternal never had a beginning.
But we're not talking about god. We're talking about everything else. Gen 1:1 is not about the beginning of god. It is about the beginning of the world.
quote:
Then the heaven and the earth has to be eternal also as there was no actual beginning.
So "beginning" means "not beginning." And the text that directly states that god created heave on the second day and earth on the third is a lie.
You weren't kidding when you said you had abandoned the text.
quote:
The heaven and the earth may not have existed as we see it today but it had to be there in some form.
But the text directly contradicts that statement:
Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And 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.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
No wonder you have abandoned the text. It says the exact opposite of what you wish it did.
Look, this entire thread can shut down by you simply coming to terms with that. You're not following the text. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the Bible says: You're not basing your claims upon it. Fine. Nobody can argue with your theology because it's yours, it isn't based upon any text anybody else can look at. When your justification comes down to words not actually meaning what they do, then it's clear that you don't actually care what the text says. "Beginning" means "later," "without form" means "has a form," "void" means "extant," "firmament" means "not the firmament," "earth" means "not the earth."
When your justification is that "The earth does not exist" really means "The earth exists" simply because it mentions the earth, you have abandoned the text.
quote:
It is very important.
Genesis 1:1 declares "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
But Genesis 1:2 took place about 6,000 years ago.
Therefore the heaven and the earth could not have been created then as they were created in the beginning.
So when was the beginning?
According to the Bible, just under 6000 years ago.
And your claim makes no sense. Since heaven and earth were created on days two and three, respectively, your claim that they could not have been created then is simply false. The text directly contradicts you:
Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And 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.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
When your claim is that a direct statement by the text that god made the firmament means that god didn't make it, that it already existed, you have abandoned the text. When your claim is that a direct statement by the text that god made the earth means that god didn't make it, that it already existed, you have abandoned the text.
So why are you trying to use the text to justify your claim? It directly and specifically contradicts you. Why would you try to use a source that specifically says you're full of shit?
quote:
Since the water in inside the universe on the earth today the universe and earth had to be in existence for the water to exist.
Irrelevant. We're not talking about when the waters came into existence. The Bible doesn't say and thus it is irrelevant. Instead, we're talking about when the earth came into existence in relation to the waters, when the stars came into existence in relation to the earth, when whales came into existence compared to land mammals, when fruit-bearing trees came into existence compared to insects.
In all cases, the Bible contradicts the evidence. The Bible says water first, earth second while geology says it's the other way. The Bible says earth first, stars second while astronomy says it's the other way. The Bible says whales first, land mammals second while biology says it's the other way. The Bible says fruit-bearing trees first, insects second while biology says it's the other way.
And yes, the Bible says "the beginning" happened less than 6000 years ago. That's why it's called the "first" day. And since the days in Gen 1 are literal, 24-hour days, the ending of the first day happened 24 hours after "the beginning." Cosmology says it was billions of years ago.
quote:
So the waters just existed like whatever that was at T=0 in the other version. Is that what you are saying?
I'm saying we don't know. The text doesn't say. Rather than forcing my opinion on the text, rather than abandoning it, I simply let it be.
quote:
Let me get this straight.
There was nothingness, emptiness just nothing.
Incorrect. The earth was nothingness. When the passages says that "the earth" was without form and void, then it is talking about "the earth," not "the universe and everything within it." That statement is about the earth. We later find out that there was no light, heaven, sun, moon, stars, or life either because god creates them on the various days listed, but the statement of Gen 1:2 is only about the earth not existing.
quote:
There was water there but we don't know where it came from.
Correct. The text does not say where it came from.
quote:
It was not created it just was.
Incorrect. The text does not say how it came into existence. There are many things that the Bible does not tell us. For example, it does not tell us how god created light, only that he did. It does not tell us how he created life, only that he did.
The text does not tell us how the water came into existence, only that it was.
quote:
But if it just was then light could not have been the first thing created.
Incorrect. Light is the first thing we are told god created.
We don't know about the water. We cannot make any assumptions about it. God might have created it, he might not have. Nothing in the text tells us.
And, of course, it is irrelevant if god created it or not. This isn't about god, but about time. How the water got there and who put it there is immaterial. We only are about when it got there.
It got there before the earth. According to the text, the universe was placed within the water so that they might be divided and the earth was pulled out of them.
Astronomy and geology deny that sequence. You will note that when I am invoking astronomy and geology, I am not concerned about how. The process by which planets get made or that water accumulated on the surface of the earth is immaterial. The only thing that is important is the temporal sequence.
The Bible has the order being: Water, light, the universe, the earth, fruit-bearing trees (among other plants), sun/moon/stars, whales (among other animals), and then insects and other land animals.
The sequence we have learned from studying the world around us is: The universe, light, stars (including the sun), earth, moon, water, land animals and insects, and then whales and fruit-bearing trees.
quote:
But if it just was then light could not have been the first thing created.
The water would have to have been the first thing created.
Irrelevant. How the water came into existence and who put it there is of no concern. We are only discussing the time sequence.
quote:
No I don't think you are misquoting.
Then how does one claim that it is what I "think" it says? If it says the earth was without form and void, how does that get interpreted to mean "with form and extant"? How does a direct statement that god made the firmament on day two get interpreted to mean that no, god didn't make the firmament on day two because it already existed? How does a direct statement that god created the earth on day three get interpreted to mean that no, god didn't make the earth on day three because it already existed?
The only way to justify your claims is to have all the words of the text do not actually mean what they do. "Beginning" means "later," "firmament" means "not the firmament," "earth" means "not the earth," "first" doesn't mean "first," "second" doesn't mean "second," "without form" means "with form," "void" means "extant."
Why do you keep trying to justify your claims using a text that directly and specifically contradicts you at every step? You've admitted that you have abandoned the text. Why do you keep returning to it?
quote:
I gave you the three times they are together and not one mentions nothingness.
Incorrect. In all three of them, they mean nothingness. Gen 1:2, which is the one we're talking about, "without form and void."
Ergo, "nothingness."
Isa 34:11, "confusion and emptiness."
Ergo, "nothingness."
Jer 4:23, "without form and void."
Ergo, "nothingness."
All the passages of tohuw and bohuw are interpreted to mean "nothingness."
And here you are, trying to say that "nothingness" doesn't actually mean "nothingness."

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by ICANT, posted 01-24-2009 12:46 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by ICANT, posted 01-27-2009 12:13 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 295 of 319 (495904)
01-25-2009 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by ICANT
01-24-2009 2:30 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
Lets decide if my interpertation is correct first.
No, let's talk about it now. I'm assuming that your interpretation is correct, that the "Adam" of Gen 1 is not the same as the "Adam" of Gen 2-4.
By your claim, Gen 2 Adam has his story continue in Gen 3 and Gen 4, but Gen 5 refers back to Gen 1 Adam, not Gen 2-4 Adam.
But Gen 5 gives the generations of its Adam to Noah which leads us through Gen 6, 7, 8, and 9 when everybody died:
Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
But if that's so, then the only people who lived through the flood and survived to create the population we have today are descendants of Gen 1/5 Adam, not Gen 2-4 Adam.
But Jesus was sent to redeem humanity from the sin of Adam:
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
But your interpretation of the relationship between the "Adam" of Gen 2 who is the one who "transgressed" and the "Adam" of Gen 5 who was never in Eden and thus never transgressed means that all those who had suffered the iniquity of the "transgression" died in the flood.
So what is the point of Jesus? There wasn't anybody left to redeem. They all died about 2500 BCE when god killed everybody in the flood.
You've just led yourself to a contradiction. This necessarily means that what we assumed to be true (that the "Adam" of Gen 2 is not the same as the "Adam" of Gen 5) cannot be. If it is true, it leads to a contradiction. Thus, it cannot be true.
Either that or there was no point to Jesus.
Guess the Jews were right: Jesus was not the Messiah.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by ICANT, posted 01-24-2009 2:30 PM ICANT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 296 of 319 (495908)
01-25-2009 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by ICANT
01-24-2009 2:52 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
Since when were all Pharisees Jews?
(*blink!*)
You're implying that there were non-Jew Pharisees? The Pharisees were one of four main divisions/sects of Judaism from the first century CE along with the Essenes, the Sadducees, and the revolutionaries (though the revolutionaries could be further subdivided). The Pharisees were opposed by the Sadducees during the Second Temple period.
quote:
But Genesis 1:1 says the heaven and the earth was created in the beginning not after the beginning.
Indeed. The first six days constitute "the beginning." Heaven gets created on the second day and the earth gets created on the third.
quote:
quote:
But that contradicts the text which has heaven created on the second day
Well no there is no contradiction.
Huh? How does your claim that heaven existed before the second day not contradict the direct statement that heaven was created on the second day?
quote:
A heaven was created when the firmament was placed in the waters and divided them. But this heaven was a place "in the heaven" created in Genesis 1:1
That's not what the text says:
Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Note, the firmament IS heaven. It is not placed "in" heaven. God created the heavens. "The heavens" is the firmament. Just as the dry land IS earth. God gives a name to the thing he's just created. That doesn't subdivide it or make it something different. It simply attaches a moniker to it.
quote:
Are you saying the earth's core the mantel and land mass was created on day 3?
The text says "the earth," doesn't it?
quote:
Genesis 1:1 says God created the heaven and the earth. They both existed.
Huh? How does one create something that already existed? You can only create something that doesn't exist.
And, indeed, the heavens and the earth get created on the second and third days, respectively.
quote:
Genesis 1:2 says there was a lot of water.
All this before light of verse 3.
Irrelevant. That something existed before light doesn't mean everything else did. Heaven wouldn't be created until the second day and the earth wouldn't be created until the third.
Besides, the text does not say god created the water. We don't know where the water came from.
quote:
You could possibly call them days of the beginnings.
Or, I could just call it "the beginning." It is not misleading, confusing, or problematic in any way.
quote:
But you can't say they all happened in the beginning as that was in Genesis 1:1.
Incorrect. "The beginning" mentioned in Gen 1:1 is the six days described in Gen 1:2 through Gen 2:3. That's the entire point.
But, it is not surprising that you are having trouble since you interpret "beginning" to mean "later."

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 01-24-2009 2:52 PM ICANT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 297 of 319 (495912)
01-25-2009 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by ICANT
01-24-2009 2:55 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
Actually we call it the heavens because there are three of them.
Actually, Jewish mysticism lists seven: Velon, Rai'a, Sheakim, Zebul, Ma'on, Makon, and 'Araboth.
Velon is the "curtain" that is stretched out for the sun. Rai'a is where the sun, moon, and stars are fixed. Sheakim is where manna is ground. Zebul is where the angel Michael offers his sacrifice. Ma'on is the home of the angels that sing by night and are silent by day. Makon is where snow, hail, rain, dew, and mist reside behind doors of fire. 'Araboth is where the ayyot, the ofanim, the seraphim, the ministering angels, the throne of god, and god himself dwell.
But surely you're not about to claim that a phrasing in English ("heavens," plural, as a reference to "outer space") is to be retrofitted onto a phrasing in Hebrew, are you? The reason why English calls it the "heavens," plural, has nothing to do with Genesis.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by ICANT, posted 01-24-2009 2:55 PM ICANT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 298 of 319 (495916)
01-25-2009 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by ICANT
01-24-2009 6:38 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
I claim Genesis 1:1 is the beginning where the heaven and the earth is created.
Indeed, but it isn't a singular instant in time. It is the period of six days where in heaven, earth, and all life on earth are created. That's the entire point behind Gen 1:2 through Gen 2:3: To describe that "beginning." Gen 1:1 is not a description of action but rather a summary of events: "In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth and here is how it happened."
Remember how you were trying to remind me that this text is not actually broken down into chapters and verses? It is time for me to remind you of that. The verses describing the first six days of creation flow directly from that opening statement and must be included in the interpretation of the entire story. Your insistence that there is a separation is artificial. Your jumping to Gen 2:4 from Gen 1:1 is naught but lunacy.
quote:
I then jump to the history of that day.
No, you don't. You skip over the description of the first six days to wander into verses literally dozens of sentences away, completely ignoring everything in between.
I guess we've got even more words that don't mean what they mean. If the "first" day isn't the "first" day, why is it called the "first"? How can there be any days before it when it is the "first"?
quote:
Then I arrive at the condition of the earth
Then why on earth is Gen 1:2 placed right after Gen 1:1? If the first thing that happened after Gen 1:1 was Gen 2:4, why isn't Gen 2:4 the next verse? Why is the story of Genesis being told by a four-year-old, incapable of holding a single thought in his head for more than half a second?
quote:
Since there is nothing else I can add to what I have outlined in the above I rest my case.
Indeed.
You have abandoned the text, which you have already admitted. You perform a hatchet job on it where Gen 2:4 follows Gen 1:1 despite the text having Gen 1:2 following Gen 1:1. "Beginning" means "later," "first" means "not the first," "firmament" means "not the firmament," "god created" means "god didn't create it for it already existed," "earth" means "not the earth," "without form" means "has a form," "void" means "extant."
Please, do rest your case. Your theology has no connection to the Bible and that's fine. Nobody can argue with you about what you believe. The only reason we are talking about it is because you claim that it is based in the Bible which you admit you have abandoned.
So why are you trying to use a text you admit you don't use to justify your claim?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by ICANT, posted 01-24-2009 6:38 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 299 of 319 (496203)
01-27-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Rrhain
01-25-2009 2:41 AM


A Few Questions
Hi Rrhain,
I had a few questions about this post and a couple of comments.
Rrhain writes:
No, we're not. We're talking about the history of the universe and the timeline of when certain events happened such as the creation of the earth.
No, you are talking about the six days in Genesis 1:2-31.
The history of the creation of the heavens and the earth are found in Genesis 2:4 - Genesis 4:24.
Rrhain writes:
And yes, the Bible says "the beginning" happened less than 6000 years ago.
Could you produce a book, chapter, and verse to that effect?
If not I will assume Rrhain says the Bible says it happened 6000 years ago.
Rrhain writes:
...since the days in Gen 1 are literal, 24-hour days,
Which of the six day's is the generations (history) of the heavens and the earth referring to in:
Genesis 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,
Rrhain writes:
the ending of the first day happened 24 hours after "the beginning."
So what happened in the beginning?
Rrhain writes:
Cosmology says it was billions of years ago.
And the Bible agrees as it contains no date for the beginning.
Rrhain writes:
There are many things that the Bible does not tell us. For example, it does not tell us how god created light,
Actually it does not tell us God created light.
The Bible says:
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
So the Bible does not say God created light.
Rrhain says the Bible says God created light.
Where was this light?
Rrhain writes:
It does not tell us how he created life,
Sure it does.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
The first living man was formed from the dust of the ground and God breathed the breath of life into him. This was the first life on earth.
Rrhain writes:
It got there before the earth. According to the text, the universe was placed within the water so that they might be divided and the earth was pulled out of them.
So you are telling me the universe was in the water.
Was and is the earth in the universe?
Rrhain writes:
All the passages of tohuw and bohuw are interpreted to mean "nothingness."
According to the assertions of Rrhain PHD in Hebrew.
But not according to any Hebrew Lexicon I can find.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Rrhain, posted 01-25-2009 2:41 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Rrhain, posted 01-31-2009 5:27 AM ICANT has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 319 (496306)
01-27-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ICANT
01-23-2009 7:52 PM


You did the same circle you always do when you discuss this.
That's because you have never rebutted it.
All you ever do is run away when we get to it.
Why did you not address my reasons for them being different.
Learn some logic. Its called: Reductio ad absurdum (aka Proof by Contradiction):
quote:
proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
.
Please explain how these two men and women can be the same.
It remains unnecessary even though I've proved that you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 7:52 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by ICANT, posted 01-27-2009 7:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024