Genesis 1:2

[Guest shiloh357]

OK, how would you translate Genesis 1:2?

And please don't give me this-word-means-that. I asked for how the verse would read out.

 

 

 

"And the earth was formless (chaotic, out of order) and void (and empty space, nothingness) and darkness (absence of all light, heat) covered the serface of the deep and the spirt of God hovered over the surface of the water."

 

 

OK, I'll bite.

According to YEC when is eretz created? When is water created? What is the deep and when was it created? If God is light, why was there darkness?

 

 

Which part of what i said about the fact the YEC model not addressing those issues do you not understand??   I said that the YEC model doesn't try to answer where or how long the formless and void state of earth was in effect prior to the beginning of the creation week.  

 

When the Bible says God is light, it is reference to His character.  It is not saying that God is actually "light." 

 

Shiloh, I said where I came from, not where I went to. So would you lay off the OEC strawman?

 

 

How is OEC a strawman??   There are two and only two creastionist models:   YEC and OEC.  So far, your responses in all of these threads are in support of the OEC model.  If you reject YEC, then the only creationist model left to you is the OEC model.   So that is not a strawman.   Is there another creationist model I am not aware of?

 

Shiloh, you are assuming that just because I accept an older earth as more likely than a young earth I follow OEC hook, line, and sinker.

OEC is a strawman.

It would be nice if you actually defended YEC in relation to this verse, and justify how it fits.

Example, where does the YEC place the creation of water in the 6 days of creation?

 

 

So which parts of the OEC do you reject?   I don't see it as a strawman at all.   I am working from your responses.  I am not assigning something to you that you didn't claim.

 

You are asking me to defend YEC on the basis of claims YEC doesn't make and issues it isn't equipped to address.  How is that a fair demand?? 

 

The same thing can be said about YEC and you know it.

 

 

No, the same thing can't be said about YEC.   Who is accused of being insane or a crackpot for rejecting YEC??  

 

Isn't there a logical fallicy about attacking a person's reasons for asking questions rather than addresing the questions?

 

 

My response was not aimed at you or your questions but at the tendency of the scientific/evolutionist community and its amen corner in the church to belittle biblical iteralists and any one who rejects OEC or Evolution on biblical grounds as fanatics and uneducated.    OEC and theistic evolution are well respected in most if not all corners of the church today.

 

You should be on the brunt end of your own debate sometime.

 

That is nonsense. There is nothing "cultic' about my responses.   I guess when you can't offer up anything substantive, emotional reactive responses is all you can muster.

 

 

You are correct, they don't. All I said was the questions led me to question YEC. OK, maybe I should state that it was my understanding of YEC. And I only said that because you asked me why I asked the questions.

So instead of dealing with my apparent conflict, you threw out all these strawman attacks against your presumed conclusions about what conclusions I came to.

 

 

No, that is not true   Perhaps you need to go back and look at the trail responses a little better.   I initially asked you which if any of the questoins you asked in the OP could be answered by anyone without relying on pure speculation.     YOU are the one who responded to me with the fact that those questions are the reason you abandoned the YEC model.  

 

When you stated that you rejected YEC on the basis of its inability to address/answer those questions, the only natural and intuitive assumption available to me was that you had turned to OEC.  All of your responses in all of these threads have been defending OEC.   There is NOTHING in any of your posts that would lead anyone to see that you are anything but an  OEC'er.   That is how you have carried yourself in all of these discussions. 

 

Now when faced with an honest problem in your line of argumentation where YEC is rejected for not being able to answer your questions, but OEC is embraced despite having no satisfying answers to those questions,  I am being accused of raising a strawman in an apparent attempt to deflect attention away from your inconisistent logic.

 

I am working from your responses and how you have respresented yourself in these discussions.   Your accusation of me erecting strawman attacks have no basis in truth or reality.  It is all you can throw at me when you apparently cannot bring yourself to admit your mistakes in your line of argumentation.

 

Then prove how they are not a problem.

Is that difficult?

 

 

They are not a problem because YEC isn't concerned with how long the conditions listed in Gen1:2 existed prior to the creation week.  You are continually demanding YEC to answer questions that are not germane to the YEC model.

 

Good. I claimed I believe the earth is old, or rather that the old earth is more likely. I have multiple reasons for this, not just the questions. I never said I was in the YEC camp. Nor did I say I am in the Gap camp.

Your strawman is ashes.

 

Yet you have put a significant degree of energy into defending the Gap theory for someone who doesn't claim to be in the Gap camp.   I never claimed you said you were in the YEC camp.   But you only have two options:  YEC or OEC.  Where do you stand, exactly?

[nebula]

No strawman is being thrown at you.   There are some theologians, who, when faced with the some of the theological problems the Gap Theory proposes, modified it in order to exclude humanity from the original pre-adamite earth. 

 

The Gap Theory has been used to explain pre-historic man, the dinosaurs, the fall of satan from heaven, and to serve as a bridge between the Bible and Evolution.  According to the original version of the Gap theory, Neanderthals and other pre-historic human belong to the pre-adamite race that was destroyed by God.

 

Gap Theory proponents argue that Adam was commanded to "replenish" the earth.  One proponent argues that "replenish" means to fill again and so Adam is fill the earth again, with human life.    Please note the quote that comes from Dake's annotated reference Bible which makes a huge case for pre-adamite earth and human civilization:

 

The command for Adam to "replenish" the earth (fill it again, not plenish it) proves the earth had been filled before this (Genesis 1:28). God gave the same command to Noah, after the second universal flood (Genesis 9:1-2). Should we conclude that God meant for Noah to fill the earth for the first time, and not refill it? Substitute the word fill (meaning supply for the first time) in Genesis 9:1; Isaiah 2:6; Isaiah 23:2; Jeremiah 31:25; Ezekiel 26:2; Ezekiel 27:25, as some do in Genesis 1:28 and see if it makes better sense. Whatever we conclude in the other places where "replenish" is used, we should be consistent and give the same meaning to Genesis 1:28. http://dakereader.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sonsofgod&action=display&thread=35

 

Of course, Mr. Dake in his lack of understanding of the old Elizabethan English didn't understand that the "re" of replenish wasn't verbal prefix indicating the repeating of a previous act.   It simply means "fill."   It doesn't mean "re-fill."   Replenish isn't "re-plenish."   

 

Finis Jennings Dake is one of the proponents of the original Gap Theory and only in the most recent years when faced with the biblical and theological problems associated with it, have theologians tried to side-step those problems by simply eliminating human beings from the equation.  

 

As for Pember and wherther or not refers to pre-adamite human beings, contrary to other one's claims that Pember doesn't mention, I found mentioned in Pember's book an interesting explanation of where demons come from .and this followed by an explanation of why (at the time Pember lived) the fossil record didn't support the existence of pre-adamite men  (pp. 70-74).   

 

Pember posits the suggestion that demons are really the diembodied spirits of the pre-adamite race of humans and he quotes Hesiod to further bolster that assertion.  Pember further connects demons with the ancient gods of the Greeks and other polytheists.

 

It has only been very recently, within the last 20 years or so that more modern thoelogians who are embarrassed by the actual and original Gap Theory proposed by Dake and Pember have conveniently modified their version to side step the realy theological problems that the theory proposes.

 

So before writing me off as giving you a strawman, you ought to do a little research.   It seems like you are too eager to grasp at whatever comes down the pike.   I know what I am talking about, here.    I am not  erecting a strawman.   You need to listen to sound theology and not just whatever sounds good to you on the surface.

 

Shiloh, once again, the only thing I said was that answer is the only answer that has been given that gives my questions an explanation.

 

And it irritates me that you keep saying things like: "You need to listen to sound theology and not just whatever sounds good to you on the surface." I would appreciate it if you would QUIT ASSUMING WHERE I AM COMING FROM. If you keep this up, I will not respond to you anymore on this thread.

 

Now, it's a strawman to the question(s) I asked because not once have you done anything to answer the questions nor even explain vs. 2 in the context of what you believe. Tearing down your opponent is may be the debate tactic that you have learned so well, but you need to present the other tactic of arguing for your case. THAT is what I am looking for, and that is what you are avoiding and dodging with fervor. It doesn't give me a bit of reason to consider your case at all.

[nebula]

You never asked: what is the eretz?  0.5)  eretz is the ocean floor, the land beneath the waters.

1)  The land was possibly formless  (chaotic) because the planet was in its early stages of formation, and there was possibly a lot of tectonic activity under the ocean. It was empty (void) because creation week had not commenced.

2) The land had existed for an unknown period, the bible does not say

3) I believe the darkness was there because the misty atmosphere was so thick that no light filtered down to the ocean surface.

4) The deep is the ocean.  This water came from the universe just like meteors contain a lot of ice, the bible does not say for what period it existed.

5) The waters are also referring to the ocean.

6) The deep and the waters are the same thing, they are on top of the eretz

7) the darkness was above the ocean, the land was beneath the ocean (of course this means the land was also in darkness, it was even deeper)

8) refer to 6

 

Of course the wording does not have to be interpreted that way, I just think its pretty obvious, even if my view isn't conclusive.

 

That makes sense, too.

 

But it also means this planet existed before Day 1 of Creation.

[nebula]

 

 

 

 

Can you point to one question that cannot be answered without a complete reliance on pure speculation or assumption?    Why do you want answers to questions you know that no one alive today can actually answer.?

 

Looking at Genesis 1:2 this way, asking these questions, are the reason I first questioned the validity of the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1, why I eventually turned away from that intepretation, and why I cannot return to it.

 

 

Well roll on over to:  OEC MUST have a Local vs. Global Flood, and all you'll have left for OEC is the StarLight "begging the question" Fallacy.  GOD deals directly with that issue in Day 4.

 

Or,

 

You believe in a Local Flood and maintain the status quo.

 

Go on now

 

Or would you like me to post it here? (all you need is the OP post...you seen it a little while ago)

 

Goodness gravy. Will you lay off the strawman?

 

I'm asking for how people deal with Genesis 1:2, not with how I handle any conclusions I've come to from the questions or not.

 

Argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

1st can you define a Strawman Arguument.....?

 

Then

 

Could you point out the Specific Strawman....?

 

 

The reason I'm asking is....I'm not seeing you present any Argument.  Maybe I'm missing something....how does Genesis 1:2 have anything to do with or lead you to "turn away" from YEC?

 

It's late maybe I missed it

 

Thanks

 

You are arguing things I never stated as if I did. You are arguing things that avoid the question.

 

If Gen. 1:2 is such a perfect fit to YEC, what is your defense for this? How does it make sense to have created things existing before day 1 of Creation if nothing existed before God said, "Let there be light?" Unless you can show me that YEC allows for things to be created before the light of Day 1?

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Sis,

     Praise the Lord & good morning!Neb,I want to apologize in advance if I repeat something someone else may have said but I did not have the patience to read the posts fully,too long & the quotes always drive me nuts!lol    Not meaning to offend anyone but thats just me.....

      A long time ago (very long)I had these same questions in mind & really tried to dig down into the Hebrew text to try & fully grasp Gods Word better that I was able to at that time....What I  concluded was that this place that was formless & void was the place that the fallen angels were inhabiting therefore it was a place without order,it was a demonic place where there was no light &* chaos & confusion ,without  order ......you can spend alot of time & of course prayer in comparing the Hebrew "phrases" & see much of it refers to demonic "cities" & places occupied by such......I do hope that this helps to answer the "why "questions & I do believe that in realizing why it was this way helps to answer all the other questions that followed the first....

     God bless you,I don't have the paperwork readily at my fingertips as I do have years of notes & comparitive studies but of course,it is always best to look it up yourself anyway.....I have a beautiful Torah,also,that a friends grandma gave him at his bar mitzvah thathe gave me years ago & that is wonderful if you if you could get your hands on one....God bless you

                                                                                                                                          With love,in Chist-Kwik

[nebula]

OK, how would you translate Genesis 1:2?

And please don't give me this-word-means-that. I asked for how the verse would read out.

"And the earth was formless (chaotic, out of order) and void (and empty space, nothingness) and darkness (absence of all light, heat) covered the serface of the deep and the spirt of God hovered over the surface of the water."

OK. Thank you. But I do not see how this changes the nature of anything.

In a previous thread, you challenged me that God would not create anything chaotic. But when I asked how else would the "earth" have been in such a state if God did not create it that way nor did it become that way?

What I still see here is:

1. The eretz, water, and a structure of collected water called "the deep" were in existence before Day 1 of creation. There is no account of how they were formed nor how long ago they were in existence.

YEC claims the whole universe was created about 6000 years ago starting with "Let there be light."

I fail to see how this fits in with vs. 2.

 

 

OK, I'll bite.

According to YEC when is eretz created? When is water created? What is the deep and when was it created? If God is light, why was there darkness?

Which part of what i said about the fact the YEC model not addressing those issues do you not understand??   I said that the YEC model doesn't try to answer where or how long the formless and void state of earth was in effect prior to the beginning of the creation week.

But it insists the universe is about 6000 years old. That claim cannot be made if there is an uncertain period of time before Day 1.

  

When the Bible says God is light, it is reference to His character.  It is not saying that God is actually "light."

But the glory of God is manifested as radiant light. If we believe God is everywhere, then His glory should be there. Light had to have been taken away from the eretz in order for it to be dark.

Again, I am left with the impression that there was a prolonged period of time before "Let there be light," outside of the 6000 year model.

[nebula]

Shiloh, I said where I came from, not where I went to. So would you lay off the OEC strawman?

How is OEC a strawman?? There are two and only two creastionist models: YEC and OEC. So far, your responses in all of these threads are in support of the OEC model. If you reject YEC, then the only creationist model left to you is the OEC model. So that is not a strawman. Is there another creationist model I am not aware of?

I will say that I have come to a resolution on the matter that doesn't lock me into anyone's model because they all have problems. I will not say more because I have had enough of fighting side issues and not the OP.

Shiloh, you are assuming that just because I accept an older earth as more likely than a young earth I follow OEC hook, line, and sinker.

OEC is a strawman.

It would be nice if you actually defended YEC in relation to this verse, and justify how it fits.

Example, where does the YEC place the creation of water in the 6 days of creation?

So which parts of the OEC do you reject? I don't see it as a strawman at all. I am working from your responses. I am not assigning something to you that you didn't claim.

You are asking me to defend YEC on the basis of claims YEC doesn't make and issues it isn't equipped to address. How is that a fair demand??

You could start by defending how vs. 2 fits the YEC model.

The same thing can be said about YEC and you know it.

No, the same thing can't be said about YEC. Who is accused of being insane or a crackpot for rejecting YEC??

You have said a lot of things about people who reject YEC.

Isn't there a logical fallicy about attacking a person's reasons for asking questions rather than addresing the questions?

My response was not aimed at you or your questions but at the tendency of the scientific/evolutionist community and its amen corner in the church to belittle biblical iteralists and any one who rejects OEC or Evolution on biblical grounds as fanatics and uneducated. OEC and theistic evolution are well respected in most if not all corners of the church today.

Are you saying that this whole time you have never been talking to me or about my status, even though we have been conversing?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

1st can you define a Strawman Arguument.....

 

Then

 

Could you point out the Specific Strawman....?

 

 

The reason I'm asking is....I'm not seeing you present any Argument.  Maybe I'm missing something....how does Genesis 1:2 have anything to do with or lead you to "turn away" from YEC?

 

It's late maybe I missed it

 

Thanks

 

You are arguing things I never stated as if I did. You are arguing things that avoid the question.

 

If Gen. 1:2 is such a perfect fit to YEC, what is your defense for this? How does it make sense to have created things existing before day 1 of Creation if nothing existed before God said, "Let there be light?" Unless you can show me that YEC allows for things to be created before the light of Day 1?

 

 

"If Gen. 1:2 is such a perfect fit to YEC, what is your defense for this?"

 

(Genesis 1:2) "And 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."

 

Your question is Non Sequitur.  I have no defense because there is no offense.

 

 

"How does it make sense to have created things existing before day 1 of Creation if nothing existed before God said, "Let there be light?"

 

What "created things" existed before Day 1?

 

(Genesis 1:1-5) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 

{2} And 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. 

{3} And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 

{4} And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 

{5} And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

 

So you're position is Genesis 1:1 is before Day 1,  And Genesis 1:2 is the start of Day 1.  Yes?

[nebula]

You should be on the brunt end of your own debate sometime.

That is nonsense. There is nothing "cultic' about my responses. I guess when you can't offer up anything substantive, emotional reactive responses is all you can muster.

Here are the things you have spoken Shiloh -

"Should we give up on the Bible..." Translation, since YEC is your view the only valid and true interpretation of Genesis 1, then you are accusing anyone who rejects YEC to be rejecting the Bible.

How is that not manipulation?

"Evidently you have not really thought this unbiblcial Gap Theory through very well." - First you insulted my intelligence, then you add a description to the GAP theory that manipulates the reader towards an opinion of the topic in question.

"We don't give up on the Bible simply because the Bible doesn't provide us answers" - Again making the claim that anyone who gives up on YEC is giving up on the Bible. This is manipulation.

"Why are you so quick to jump on board to advance a theory" - I never stated my position on the matter, yet you charge me as if I had.

"Are you so desperate to have answers to unanswerable questions that you are willing to support a theory that challenges God and brings a reproach upon Him???" - I walked and wrestled with these and other questions for years, yet your response treats me as if I made a rash decision. That is insulting. (And then you wonder why I get emotional?) Then you describe this theory in such a way that makes charges against the spirituality of anyone who even considers the matter. Again, this is manipulation.

"The alternative is to actually believe God's word on the matter." - This accuses anyone who does not believe unequivocally does not believe God's word. This is manipulation.

You are correct, they don't. All I said was the questions led me to question YEC. OK, maybe I should state that it was my understanding of YEC. And I only said that because you asked me why I asked the questions.

So instead of dealing with my apparent conflict, you threw out all these strawman attacks against your presumed conclusions about what conclusions I came to.

No, that is not true Perhaps you need to go back and look at the trail responses a little better. I initially asked you which if any of the questoins you asked in the OP could be answered by anyone without relying on pure speculation. YOU are the one who responded to me with the fact that those questions are the reason you abandoned the YEC model.

I was actually answering your second question:

"Can you point to one question that cannot be answered without a complete reliance on pure speculation or assumption? Why do you want answers to questions you know that no one alive today can actually answer.?

I asked because I [wrongly] hoped that you would take my questions seriously enough to provide answers, not attack any answers that do not line up with your beliefs.

When you stated that you rejected YEC on the basis of its inability to address/answer those questions, the only natural and intuitive assumption available to me was that you had turned to OEC.

This is why you should guard yourself against arguing your assumptions rather than what was actually presented.

All of your responses in all of these threads have been defending OEC. There is NOTHING in any of your posts that would lead anyone to see that you are anything but an OEC'er. That is how you have carried yourself in all of these discussions.

Just because I believe planet earth is old doesn't mean I identify myself by a particular theory.

The reason you have not seen me argue against OEC is because I found no reason to.

Now when faced with an honest problem in your line of argumentation where YEC is rejected for not being able to answer your questions, but OEC is embraced despite having no satisfying answers to those questions, I am being accused of raising a strawman in an apparent attempt to deflect attention away from your inconisistent logic.

When I answered your question, I wrongly assumed that making the answer as simple as possible would avoid a lot of unnecessary fights over rabbit trails to the topic. Vs. 2 was not the only issue I struggled with. While it was the first line of questioning that gave me courage to critically analyze YEC without feeling like a transgressor, it was not the only issue I found reason to critically analyze. If I uncovered everything I examined, what are the chances you would not have been challenging everyone single one of these in order to convert me to your position? Was I wrong?

I am working from your responses and how you have respresented yourself in these discussions. Your accusation of me erecting strawman attacks have no basis in truth or reality. It is all you can throw at me when you apparently cannot bring yourself to admit your mistakes in your line of argumentation.

OK, so what do you call it when someone argues against your point based on assumptions and addresses the assumption rather than addressing the actual issue in question?

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, once again, the only thing I said was that answer is the only answer that has been given that gives my questions an explanation.

 

And it irritates me that you keep saying things like: "You need to listen to sound theology and not just whatever sounds good to you on the surface." I would appreciate it if you would QUIT ASSUMING WHERE I AM COMING FROM. If you keep this up, I will not respond to you anymore on this thread.

 

Then why did you defend it against the points I made against it?  That you defended the veracity of the theory without any qualifying statement that you didn't agree with it led me to believe you were giving it credence.  If I was mistaken about that, I apologize, but your responses clearly indicated that you seemed to view it as a valid explanation.

 

Now, it's a strawman to the question(s) I asked because not once have you done anything to answer the questions nor even explain vs. 2 in the context of what you believe.

 

I didn't offer any strawman arguments to the questions you presented.  I am not sure you understand what a strawman argument is.

 

Secondly, I have answered every question you asked me to answers.  You asked me to translate verse 2 and I did.  I have dealt with your questions by explaining that they are unanswerable with the light we have at at this time.   The only answers people can give are speculation and I didn't think you were asking for speculative answers, only factual ones.  The fact is, your questions are part of a long list things we won't understand until another time.

 

 

Tearing down your opponent is may be the debate tactic that you have learned so well, but you need to present the other tactic of arguing for your case. THAT is what I am looking for, and that is what you are avoiding and dodging with fervor. It doesn't give me a bit of reason to consider your case at all.

 

I would love to present the case for YEC, but all you want to talk about s what happened BEFORE the earth was created and how long the conditions of v.2 existed  and YEC doesn't make a case for that.  It doesn't address that.   I am not dodging anything.  If I was interested in dodging your questions, I would not show up on these threads.

 

OK. Thank you. But I do not see how this changes the nature of anything.

 

You're right it doesn't change the nature of anything at all.  I don't think anyone said it did.  So....?

 

In a previous thread, you challenged me that God would not create anything chaotic. But when I asked how else would the "earth" have been in such a state if God did not create it that way nor did it become that way?

 

Well, a little more context to what i said would be helpful.   I said that God did't create things to be chaotic and empty.  God is all about bringing things into order and fullness.  What we have in Gen. 1:2 is not a statement of God's act of creation.  It is simply a statement of the conditions of the earth and universe at that point.   It doesn't tell us how it got that way,  and for how long it was that way, and where the water came from, how God created the water that was there and  so on.  Any answers to those questions are pretty much an act of speculation.  It is best to be silent where the Bible is silent.

 

 

What I still see here is:

1. The eretz, water, and a structure of collected water called "the deep" were in existence before Day 1 of creation. There is no account of how they were formed nor how long ago they were in existence.

YEC claims the whole universe was created about 6000 years ago starting with "Let there be light."

I fail to see how this fits in with vs. 2.

 

YEC doesn't answer the question about how long things were in the state they were in, in verse 2.  The Bible doesn't tell us and science can't answer the question about how hold the universe really is. 

I seem to think there is an assumption that God created unvierse and that for some 10 billion years the earth was just hanging there in space unformed covered in water and about 5 billion years ago God started the process of creating the earth.  No one has come straight out and made the claim, but I tend to think that is an underlying assumption.   Am I right about that?

 

The YEC model tends to see the entire universe is this empty chaotic state as far as I can tell, since the YEC model views the earth and the universe being created and ordered at the same time, based on the account given in the Bible.

 

But it insists the universe is about 6000 years old. That claim cannot be made if there is an uncertain period of time before Day 1.

 

 

YEC doesn't speak to that as far as I am aware.  I have seen nothing in the YEC line of argumentation that addresses that, which leads me to believe that YEC is only making the case for the universe as we know it, and is not seeking to address what was happened before day 1.  

 

In fact, I would also say that I have not seen anything from the OEC model that even seeks to make the case for an old earth based on an indeterminite period prior to day 1, either.   The ONLY place anyone has ever brought that up is on this board, which leads me to believe that it is really not germane to either the OEC or YEC lines of argumentation.   If you know of an OEC mainstream web page that makes an argument for what you are suggesting I would be happy to read it.

 

Again, I am left with the impression that there was a prolonged period of time before "Let there be light," outside of the 6000 year model.

 

 

That may be possible, but that doesn't really make the case or an OEC model.   Keep in mind, the OEC model pertains to the creation period mentioned in Genesis 1.  The OEC model, as far as I can tell, doesn't claim the earth is old based on an indeterminite period per Genesis 1:2.    It is a model that tries to substantiate the view that the creation week is really a long succession of epochs of millions of years.

 

You are diverting the OEC/YEC debate to something that neither model has anything to do with.

 

I will say that I have come to a resolution on the matter that doesn't lock me into anyone's model because they all have problems. I will not say more because I have had enough of fighting side issues and not the OP.

 

 

Okay so the OEC/YEC debate isn't really what you are addressing.  You are trying refute YEC based on your own customized version of the OEC which you are at this point unwilling to reveal.   Will you reveal it on a new thread?

 

You could start by defending how vs. 2 fits the YEC model.

 

 

Again, you are asking me to defend the YEC model on the basis of claims YEC doesn't make in the first place.  The length of time the conditions mentioned in v2 existed doesn't really make any difference to the YEC model.  The model wasn't designed to debate that issue.  

 

You are asking me to defend it against the contradiction that you think verse 2 contains against the YEC and that is simply not logical as YEC can only refute argumentation that addresses the claims the YEC model actualy makes.

 

You have said a lot of things about people who reject YEC.

 

Like what?

 

Are you saying that this whole time you have never been talking to me or about my status, even though we have been conversing?

 

 

No, I was addressing  one specific comment I made that you took as referring to you, and I explained that this one comment was meant to be a general comment about the OEC/ Evolutionist community in the secular and in church.   Preachers today will preach OEC because they know the firestorm of responses they will get if they don't fall in line.  In the Scientific community there are assumptions like the Big Bang and Evolution that if you don't accept them as fact and toe the line you will lose funding for your research and/or your job as a scientist.   It's that cultic mentality of do what I say or be rejected by the community.