Genesis 1:2

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

I clarified it over and over and over,...

I am sorry, Shiloh, but it seems that you and I have a different perspective on what makes for a clear point.

 

Which part of "The YEC model isn't equipped to address the length of time the conditions of Gen. 1:2 existed before day 1"   was unclear to you???  

 

The "why" part.

 

(Answer being YEC does not consider the creation of the stuff that makes up the universe to be a part of the creation of the universe.)

 

You will have to ask a bigger man than me about that.   I didn't invent the YEC model.   The YEC model is concerned with how long it took God to order, organize and fill the universe/earth. 

[nebula]

How can you have a creation model that ignores part of creation?

 

I don't know either.

 

Nor do I understand how YEC can expect the scientific community to give their theory any credence if they have a completely different definition of the universe than everyone else?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

How can you have a creation model that ignores part of creation?

 

I don't know either.

 

Nor do I understand how YEC can expect the scientific community to give their theory any credence if they have a completely different definition of the universe than everyone else?

 

Why should those of us who hold to the YEC model be too concerned about credence form the scientific community, when the scientific community has nothing but untested assumptions about the origns of the universe??

 

I find it highly hyporcitical for the scientific community to demand, from us,  answers to questions they can't answer themselves, but fault us for not being able produce the answers.

[ARGOSY]

 

How can you have a creation model that ignores part of creation?

 

I don't know either.

 

Nor do I understand how YEC can expect the scientific community to give their theory any credence if they have a completely different definition of the universe than everyone else?

 

 

Nor do I understand how the Bible community can give their theory any credence if they have a completely different definition of the word eretz in verse 2 than the Hebrew meaning. 

[LookingForAnswers]

How can a creation model ignore part of creation?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

How can you have a creation model that ignores part of creation?

 

I don't know either.

 

Nor do I understand how YEC can expect the scientific community to give their theory any credence if they have a completely different definition of the universe than everyone else?

 

 

Nor do I understand how the Bible community can give their theory any credence if they have a completely different definition of the word eretz in verse 2 than the Hebrew meaning. 

 

The problem with that is that YOU are penciling in YOUR definition of eretz and are trying to make that the working definition.    The word eretz simply means "land."   The condition of "eretz" was that it was formless and empty. IT had no form.   You have tried to make "eretz" mean "land mass" and that is incorrect.

[ARGOSY]

 

 

 

How can you have a creation model that ignores part of creation?

 

I don't know either.

 

Nor do I understand how YEC can expect the scientific community to give their theory any credence if they have a completely different definition of the universe than everyone else?

 

 

Nor do I understand how the Bible community can give their theory any credence if they have a completely different definition of the word eretz in verse 2 than the Hebrew meaning. 

 

The problem with that is that YOU are penciling in YOUR definition of eretz and are trying to make that the working definition.    The word eretz simply means "land."   The condition of "eretz" was that it was formless and empty. IT had no form.   You have tried to make "eretz" mean "land mass" and that is incorrect.

 

 

I believe both the context of verse 2 and verse 9 are consistent with the land being under the ocean:

 

Now the land was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

 

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

 

 

 

T

[nebula]

Why should those of us who hold to the YEC model be too concerned about credence form the scientific community, when the scientific community has nothing but untested assumptions about the origns of the universe??

YEC proponents seek to promote the theory as a viable scientific theory. Having a completely different definition and understanding of what "the universe" is creates a huge snag in this.

Look, I'm not stating this as an argument; this is an observational fact.

[nebula]

How can a creation model ignore part of creation?

 

I would like to know this, too.

[other one]

well, i still think Pember makes the most sense.