Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[BeyondET]

57 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Then we should ignore all scripture translated by scholars which includes: KJV, NKJV, ESV, ASV, YLT, NASB, NIV, NET, Etc., and Amplified.

Nay just the ones that Tristen uses.

[Tristen]

On 12/21/2022 at 7:16 PM, BeyondET said:

It certainly isn't about authority or what should of been, but learning. Rather you think I'm nuts or not. 

I kind of like that no one sees it lol... I'm fine if no one else does.

I don't believe the original order is incorrect. I believe it's for a purpose. Some have a hard time with faith and others don't.  The current is fine for those who don't believe in 14 billion yrs old universe and Earth forming 4.5 billion yrs ago. If someone can't muster that up then certainly a reorder wouldn't flick any switches.

God is in the order of creating always new stars and black holes are created every second in the universe quit amazing. 

The detail process was not mentioned but you seem to think it was fully grown from the get go in another post.

I'm still interested in what you believe about the chapters and verses addition in 1500's, are they approved by God?

My answer is yes, for reasons like in Genesis since we are discussing it.

 

“It certainly isn't about authority or what should of been, but learning. Rather you think I'm nuts or not. I kind of like that no one sees it lol... I'm fine if no one else does.”

My objection is not against you personally. I find it incredibly strange, and concerning, that a supposed person of “faith” would give themselves the right (or “authority”) to rewrite scripture – as you have done in this thread.

You have not explained to me why you think you have that right. It looks like you think you know better than God. All I have to work with in this thread is you congratulating yourself on seeing something that no one else sees – because it isn’t actually there to see. You are arguing like a heretical gnostic – thinking highly of yourself for having gained some special knowledge.

By all accounts so far, you’ve simply decided that you don’t like the written order of Genesis 1, so you have reordered it to suit your own agenda and presuppositions.

 

“I don't believe the original order is incorrect. I believe it's for a purpose”

OK – what is God’s “purpose” in wording Genesis 1 out-of-order? Why did God swap the days around from the actual events? Is God being intentionally misleading? Is there any evidence from the text itself that the order of creation was different from what God says in Genesis 1? Or is it just your “special revelation” – which you apparently think supersedes the authority of written scripture?

 

“Some have a hard time with faith and others don't”

The logic fallacy you are employing here is called Innuendo. You have failed to provide any justification for your position. Yet you are happy to insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you is in some sense lacking “faith”. This is a rationally dishonest on your part.

 

“The current is fine for those who don't believe in 14 billion yrs old universe and Earth forming 4.5 billion yrs ago. If someone can't muster that up then certainly a reorder wouldn't flick any switches.”

This is just more Innuendo.

You mean, ‘The plainest, most obvious interpretation of the written text “is fine” for those intellectual plebs who can’t fathom the secular narrative. But you intellectual giants, with all your special knowledge and such, you have the right to play free and loose with God’s Word. Only we mental midgets are confined to the authority of scripture as it is written’.

 

“The detail process was not mentioned but you seem to think it was fully grown from the get go in another post”

The process of the earth bringing forth plant life was completed by the end of the same day it was commanded. That is, God first separated the water from dry earth, then God commanded the earth to bring forth plant life, then the earth brought forth plant life, then God saw that it was good - that was the third day. That’s how Genesis 1 describes the events.

 

“I'm still interested in what you believe about the chapters and verses addition in 1500's, are they approved by God?”

Chapter and verse numbers are not scripture - i.e. not “God breathed”. Chapter and verse numbers were added subsequent to scripture as a useful referencing system for Biblical studies.

Nevertheless, the order of creation is not reliant on verse numbers whatsoever, but what is written in the text of scripture itself.

 

“My answer is yes, for reasons like in Genesis since we are discussing it.”

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. What “reasons”?

 

[Tristen]

On 12/21/2022 at 7:18 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Ignore!!!

 

“Ignore!!!”

Lol. Does this mean you are ignoring me? Or do you want me to “ignore” you? Or are you imploring others to “ignore” me?

Either way, if this thread is anything to go by, I'm pretty sure the proper reply to not having an adequate response is the “Oy Vey” button.

 

[Tristen]

On 12/22/2022 at 3:09 AM, Vine Abider said:

Here's an interesting article, "If the Sun was Created on Day 4, What is the Light on Day 1?"   https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1

 

 

What I found interesting was that none of the “Traditional Interpretations” questioned what the Genesis text actually says; i.e. day 1 of creation – light, day 4 of creation – luminaries. They were simply brainstorming to find solutions as to how this might be true; given the observed reality that our light comes from the sun.

 

[BeyondET]

8 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 

“It certainly isn't about authority or what should of been, but learning. Rather you think I'm nuts or not. I kind of like that no one sees it lol... I'm fine if no one else does.”

My objection is not against you personally. I find it incredibly strange, and concerning, that a supposed person of “faith” would give themselves the right (or “authority”) to rewrite scripture – as you have done in this thread.

You have not explained to me why you think you have that right. It looks like you think you know better than God. All I have to work with in this thread is you congratulating yourself on seeing something that no one else sees – because it isn’t actually there to see. You are arguing like a heretical gnostic – thinking highly of yourself for having gained some special knowledge.

By all accounts so far, you’ve simply decided that you don’t like the written order of Genesis 1, so you have reordered it to suit your own agenda and presuppositions.

 

“I don't believe the original order is incorrect. I believe it's for a purpose”

OK – what is God’s “purpose” in wording Genesis 1 out-of-order? Why did God swap the days around from the actual events? Is God being intentionally misleading? Is there any evidence from the text itself that the order of creation was different from what God says in Genesis 1? Or is it just your “special revelation” – which you apparently think supersedes the authority of written scripture?

 

“Some have a hard time with faith and others don't”

The logic fallacy you are employing here is called Innuendo. You have failed to provide any justification for your position. Yet you are happy to insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you is in some sense lacking “faith”. This is a rationally dishonest on your part.

 

“The current is fine for those who don't believe in 14 billion yrs old universe and Earth forming 4.5 billion yrs ago. If someone can't muster that up then certainly a reorder wouldn't flick any switches.”

This is just more Innuendo.

You mean, ‘The plainest, most obvious interpretation of the written text “is fine” for those intellectual plebs who can’t fathom the secular narrative. But you intellectual giants, with all your special knowledge and such, you have the right to play free and loose with God’s Word. Only we mental midgets are confined to the authority of scripture as it is written’.

 

“The detail process was not mentioned but you seem to think it was fully grown from the get go in another post”

The process of the earth bringing forth plant life was completed by the end of the same day it was commanded. That is, God first separated the water from dry earth, then God commanded the earth to bring forth plant life, then the earth brought forth plant life, then God saw that it was good - that was the third day. That’s how Genesis 1 describes the events.

 

“I'm still interested in what you believe about the chapters and verses addition in 1500's, are they approved by God?”

Chapter and verse numbers are not scripture - i.e. not “God breathed”. Chapter and verse numbers were added subsequent to scripture as a useful referencing system for Biblical studies.

Nevertheless, the order of creation is not reliant on verse numbers whatsoever, but what is written in the text of scripture itself.

 

“My answer is yes, for reasons like in Genesis since we are discussing it.”

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. What “reasons”?

 

Well since the title of the thread isn't about a young earth, maybe its not for you to know or even engage in the discussion.

[Vine Abider]

So let's maybe redirect things a bit and look at one word in Genesis 1:2.  "The earth was formless and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."  The meaning in Strong's for the 3rd word "was" (h1961) is this: "To exist, i.e. Be or become, come to pass."  Therefore some would say that "became" can be inserted, as "The earth became formless and void . . ."

Then the quote below explains the words translated as "formless" and "void."

From here: https://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/blog/the-earth-becomes-without-form-and-void-part-1/

Quote

The second verse of Genesis introduces us to the condition of the earth at some point after the creation. Most read this verse and assume that it describes the state of the earth as God originally created it in verse 1. This idea would have us believe that God created a world completely in darkness without any substance and order. The words “without form” and “void” are translations of the Hebrew words tohu and bohu. Tohu and bohu are often paired together in the Old Testament and portray a “place of chaos, formlessness, emptiness, a wasteland” (Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon).

The idea that God created the earth as the wasteland of darkness described in this verse contradicts God’s nature and character revealed elsewhere in the Bible. Deuteronomy 32:4 shows us that God’s “work is perfect.” In 1 Corinthians 14:33 Paul tells us that “God is not the author of confusion.” In 1 John 1:5 John reveals that “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.”

Perfection and a complete lack of confusion and darkness define God and everything that God directly creates. This is the opposite of the state of tohu and bohu we find in Genesis 1:2. In fact, Isaiah wrote authoritatively that God “did not create it [earth] in vain [tohu], who formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18).

This is the basis of the Gap Theory (or Ruin & Reconstruction) from my understanding.

[BeyondET]

37 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

So let's maybe redirect things a bit and look at one word in Genesis 1:2.  "The earth was formless and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."  The meaning in Strong's for the 3rd word "was" (h1961) is this: "To exist, i.e. Be or become, come to pass."  Therefore some would say that "became" can be inserted, as "The earth became formless and void . . ."

Then the quote below explains the words translated as "formless" and "void."

From here: https://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/blog/the-earth-becomes-without-form-and-void-part-1/

This is the basis of the Gap Theory (or Ruin & Reconstruction) from my understanding.

What I find interesting in 1:2. It appears there was two distinct places, one was the face of the deep and the other was the face of the waters.

[Tristen]

6 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Well since the title of the thread isn't about a young earth, maybe its not for you to know or even engage in the discussion.

"Well since" the thread was posted in an open forum, "maybe" the poster (and ilk) should have been clearer about their reluctance to "engage" with anyone who dares to disagree with them.

No one was forced to respond to my posts. But if someone does so, and we disagree, I have the rational right to challenge their position and defend my position. That's how actual "discussion" works.

 

[BeyondET]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

"Well since" the thread was posted in an open forum, "maybe" the poster (and ilk) should have been clearer about their reluctance to "engage" with anyone who dares to disagree with them.

No one was forced to respond to my posts. But if someone does so, and we disagree, I have the rational right to challenge their position and defend my position. That's how actual "discussion" works.

 

You were pretty quick to respond to the thread second post. so an open forum means to jump in and throw a wrench in the peace, I get you don't agree with it but the title seemed pretty clear what it is about. Im learning discussions are more likely to be productive with like minded most of the time. Debating with someone who will not consider anything else, is beating your head against the wall. Most of the time it turns into slug match who enjoys that. I'm learning to just carry on and not get drag into those kinds of Debates. 

Edited December 23, 2022 by BeyondET

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

You were pretty quick to respond to the thread second post. so an open forum means to jump in and throw a wrench in the peace, I get you don't agree with it but the title seemed pretty clear what it is about. Im learning discussions are more likely to be productive with like minded most of the time. Debating with someone who will not consider anything else, is beating your head against the wall. Most of the time it turns into slug match who enjoys that. I'm learning to just carry on and not get drag into those kinds of Debates. 

Good post. That was my purpose, to avoid the stress to give my heart a break. I already take enough pills, three, for just my heart. I am trying to avoid fights that have no purpose.