Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[BeyondET]

1 hour ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

So evening ( the sun going down ) and morning ( the sun coming up ) definitely seems to me like a regular day. The fact that only 1 mention of evening and morning for each "day" also indicates 1 regular day. That in itself would not prove the earth to be young,  BUT it also says Man AND animals were created on the 6th day,  meaning man and animals ( including dinosaurs ) were created at the same time.  I just can't understand how the days of creation were not regular days when the exact wording of it strongly indicates it was. 

Where's the sun and a formed earth on the first couple of days? where in scripture does it say the sun was rising and setting during creation. Actually the sun doesn't move its earth spinning in front of the sun that creates day and night on earth. No one knows how slow or fast the earth was rotating, when it was void and formless I doubt it was and  there can't be a 24 hour day on a formless earth.

where in the bible does it say by the way of the days without a sun they too were 24 hour days?

Some animals was created on the 5th day, read it again.

Edited December 20, 2022 by BeyondET

[Tristen]

On 12/17/2022 at 5:08 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

No. The rules of the Hebrew language, grammar and poetry are important to me especially when it comes from someone the credentials

Actually no. You have no credentials so your methodology would be heretical.

I'm just using what the Jewish Publication Society would say based on Biblical scholarship.

Pre-Adamic race of humans is outside the written Biblical text. You can speculate all you want.

The Hebrew scholars you are referring to, what are their bona fides and where can I read their opinions? Because the KJV on which the NKJV is based on does not use any of the new manuscripts found at Qumran. Are you saying the KJV does not have any errors?

That is not how I see Genesis 1.

Fine.

 

“The rules of the Hebrew language, grammar and poetry are important to me especially when it comes from someone the credentials”

What I suspect this really means is, if you find someone with “credentials” that agrees with you, then you consider that to be the end of the conversation. For you the matter is forever settled; no further scrutiny is necessary – or even permitted. You don’t need to examine the details or arguments. All the expert needs to say is that you are correct because of “The rules of the Hebrew language, grammar and poetry” – and that’s all that is required because of the strength of your confirmation bias.

Contrary to your claim, “The rules of the Hebrew language, grammar and poetry” are not what is “important” to you. If they were “important” to you, you would provide the relevant arguments. What you venerate is “credentials”.

This idolization of “credentials” results in a straight-forward Appeal to Authority/Expertise – a recognized logic fallacy where the argument is relying on something about the person delivering it, rather than any pertinent facts. It’s kind-of a reverse Adhominem argument. From memory (and I may be confusing you with another user), the usual response is to compound this fallacy with another logic fallacy – a False Analogy – that confuses trusting the utility of expertise (e.g. trusting a doctor, mechanic etc. to make appropriate decisions in their respective fields), with scrutinizing and comparing arguments (e.g. what is supposed to happen in a forum such as this). It becomes increasingly difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who doesn’t understand basic rules of logic, or who thinks logic doesn’t apply to them.

 

“Consider my perspective - I could use the same methodology to change the meaning of literally any scripture - if I decided I was uncomfortable with the plain meaning of the text. I’m sure you can understand why I find this approach to interpreting scripture to be particularly concerning.

Actually no. You have no credentials so your methodology would be heretical.”

It’s not my “methodology”. I am simply proposing, as a matter of redundant logical consistency, that if a particular interpretation “methodology” is valid, then that “methodology” is valid - or else one would be employing a Special Pleading fallacy.

Following your reasoning, only experts in classical Biblical languages are permitted to interpret scripture. Therefore, all we non-experts must throw our Bibles in the trash – since it is “heretical” for us to come to conclusions about what scripture means. We must not think for ourselves, or “meditate on” scripture, or make any attempt to “rightly divide” God’s Word. Only people with “credentials” are permitted to do that. If we non-experts try to interpret scripture, we are heretics.

Are the millions of Hebrew-speaking Jews (many Christians amongst them) also heretics if they presume to try and read scripture without the oversight of someone with a doctorate?

Or maybe we are employing a Special Pleading fallacy (I mean – why not at this point?). Maybe we are all permitted to interpret scripture according to common-sense rules. But only the experts are allowed to deviate from these common-sense interpretation rules – and only then when their conclusions agree with your conclusions.

 

“Furthermore, the more we delve into the issue, the more it seems that nothing in Genesis 1 means what it actually says; E.g. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is apparently not referring to the creation of the natural universe, but rather “the beginning of man and his environment”, And “the earth was without form” actually means “the form (or structure) of the earth became destroyed after the sinful corruption of some pre-Adamic race of humans”. There’s even a suggestion in this thread that we get to presume the right to reorder what God has written till it suits our sensibilities.

I'm just using what the Jewish Publication Society would say based on Biblical scholarship.”

Right – another Appeal to Authority. You’re not actually contributing any arguments to the conversation – you’re “just” telling me that you’ve found some authority that agrees with you.

 

“Pre-Adamic race of humans is outside the written Biblical text.”

Lol – so you agree that it’s not ok to insert ideas from “outside the written Biblical text”? What about “13.7 Billion Years” of cosmological history?

 

“The Hebrew scholars you are referring to, what are their bona fides and where can I read their opinions?”

It sounds like you now want me to start Appealing to Authority. Are you really unaware that there are Hebrew language experts that disagree with your preferred expert? It’s easy enough to provide a list of Hebrew language scholars who agree with me about the interpretation of Genesis. How many would you like me to list?

 

“Because the KJV on which the NKJV is based on does not use any of the new manuscripts found at Qumran. Are you saying the KJV does not have any errors?”

It now sounds like you are trying to muddy the conversation with a Red Herring fallacy. Instead of examining the logical weaknesses in your position, let’s talk about the Qumram manuscripts, and make some random, unsupported insinuation about me being KJV-only.

 

““In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth [around 13.6 and 3.9 billion years ago respectively. Then, God created life on the earth and evolved it over the next 3-or-so billion years, including into humans, who sinned and corrupted the earth – leading somehow to its ultimate destruction – and leaving the earth in a state of being] disheveled and empty. And therefore, everything else we read in Genesis 1 is a description of God starting over.” And this is me trying to be concise.

That is not how I see Genesis 1.”

A useful response would have been to correct my claim – but that would entail admitting that at-least some of what I wrote was correct.

 

“If there is an argument that possibly permits the “reordering of day details”, then I will gladly consider and scrutinize it. But simply claiming it to be “Hebrew poetry” is nowhere near good enough.

Fine.”

I say I am prepared to consider supporting arguments for your position. Instead of providing an argument, you just say “Fine”.

 

“The Bible isn't the result of a paranormal event. The right context for its interpretation isn't the church fathers, the Reformation, or evangelicalism -- it's the original ancient context that produced it. - Dr. Heiser”

So this expert of yours explicitly denies the participation of God in the Bible’s authorship – and this is the guy you expect me to mindlessly trust to interpret the Bible for me?

 

[Tristen]

On 12/17/2022 at 7:14 PM, BeyondET said:

Actually I don't change a single word of Genesis, in that particular passages I don't follow the verse and chapter number arrangement. who is it to know those additions was ordered by God do you know?, who gives you authority to know those additions to the word of God was  inspired to do so??? For hundreds of years someone always has a new and improved version. Am I to trust every one of them, even the early ones.

I believe some things are pretty straight forward in the bible doesn't take much faith to believe them to be correct and other things take alot of faith. One example is the four gospels it's like 52 pick up nothing is in order.

Not only do I read the days of Genesis as 1,2,4,3,5,6 the chapters as well in that order.

I don't have to wonder how plants grow without sun and God didn't create plants fully developed. God said let the earth bring forth vegetation not go and plant on earth. though He did plant a garden after the earth did its thing.

 

When God called the expanse sky He didn't stop creating the expanse and skip a day only to go back and put lights in it on day four, nor did He plant some grass than the next day create a nuclear reactor to supply it energy. There's order when God creates He doesn't jump around from day to day.

FYI verse 15 He made the stars as well the other planets once called wondering stars because they are the only stars that move, ancient people had no knowledge of other planets.

You need to read verse 11 again because fully developed plants didn't just pop up out of the ground.

 

Genesis 1

6And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate the waters from the waters.” 7So God made the expanse and separated the waters beneath it from the waters above. And it was so.

8God called the expanse “sky.”And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The Third Day

14And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and let them be signs to mark the seasons and days and years.

15And let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.

17God set these lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, 18to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

13And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

The Fourth Day

9And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. 10God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. 12The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

 

“Actually I don't change a single word of Genesis, in that particular passages I don't follow the verse and chapter number arrangement. who is it to know those additions was ordered by God do you know? who gives you authority to know those additions to the word of God was  inspired to do so???”

No-one is talking about chapter and verse numbers. The written text of Genesis (apart from verse numbers) states explicitly both the order of days and events – in the text. Read it again. The order, as stated by the words “of Genesis” declares plainly that plants were created on day 3, and that the sun was created on day 4.

“Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”

See how it says what order the events occurred, and on what days they occurred, even without chapter and verse numbers.

 

“For hundreds of years someone always has a new and improved version. Am I to trust every one of them, even the early ones”

Hebrew is a normal human language. It exists for the purpose of communication to humans. It is not some ancient language of riddles. Sure, over time we learn new things about how the language was used in ancient times – and so occasionally, we have to update our understanding in some areas. But the fact that updates are occasionally required does not give us the authority to wholesale rewrite, or reorganize, what is written – for no reason whatsoever.

This approach to the scripture completely invalidates God’s authority in the Bible.

 

“I believe some things are pretty straight forward in the bible doesn't take much faith to believe them to be correct and other things take alot of faith. One example is the four gospels it's like 52 pick up nothing is in order”

Very few, if any, events are out of order in any of the Gospels. Some events seem to be in a different order when compared to other Gospels – but that is because of differences in narrative focus. An historian such as Luke will try and put events in correct order, for the sake of historical accuracy, whereas another author might choose to associate a teaching with an event (even if other things happened between the event and the teaching). That is simply explained through narrative choice. There is no logical Contradiction in such instances.

But in Genesis 1, we are directly given an order in the text; both an order of days, and a series of joining “then” statements – demonstrating that each described event happened after the one previously described. Therefore, presuming to reorder the events Contradicts the written Word of God.

 

“Not only do I read the days of Genesis as 1,2,4,3,5,6 the chapters as well in that order”

If you “read the days of Genesis as 1,2,4,3,5,6”, then you are directly Contradicting the Bible.

 

“I don't have to wonder how plants grow without sun”

Nor do I. I explained why in my first response to you. And I don’t have to contradict the Bible.

 

“and God didn't create plants fully developed. God said let the earth bring forth vegetation not go and plant on earth”

Whether it was immediate, or a process, Genesis states that it all occurred in a single day. So it was supernatural regardless.

 

“When God called the expanse sky He didn't stop creating the expanse and skip a day only to go back and put lights in it on day four”

Really? Because you say so? Because the Bible says He did it in the order you contest. Should I believe you, or the Word of God? God was there – were you there? I think I’ll stick with trusting what God says happened.

 

“nor did He plant some grass than the next day create a nuclear reactor to supply it energy”

Both of the claims in this statement misrepresent anything I’ve claimed about the Bible. God commanded plants into existence on the third day of creation – and on that very same day, “God saw that it was good”.

 

“There's order when God creates He doesn't jump around from day to day”

And God explicitly told us the “order” according to His present eyewitness. God’s “order” (the true “order” of events) does not have to agree with what you think should have been the “order”.

 

“You need to read verse 11 again because fully developed plants didn't just pop up out of the ground”

Genesis 1:11-13 - Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.”

It's all pretty clear – After the completion of the second day (verse 8), God commanded the earth to “bring forth” plant life, the earth complied and “brought forth” plant life, God saw it, and the third day ended. The detailed process of plant formation is not clear, but the timing is certainly clear.

 

“Genesis 1

6And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate the waters from the waters.” 7So God made the expanse and separated the waters beneath it from the waters above. And it was so. 8God called the expanse “sky.”And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The Third Day

14And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and let them be signs to mark the seasons and days and years. 15And let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well. 17God set these lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, 18to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

The Fourth Day

9And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. 10God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. 12The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.”

Wow! So you’ve seriously given yourself the authority to rewrite scripture. That is both astonishing and highly concerning.

 

[Tristen]

On 12/17/2022 at 8:50 PM, DeighAnn said:

Which verses tell us He brought it into existence un molded, in chaos and in darkness? 

Would that have sounded like 'I BRING together a bunch of elements to hang out in the dark as nothingness and void till I get ready to form it? 

Not sure WHY God wouldn't just speak its 'existence' 'in wonder', but can't wait to see what words He used Himself


1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

What meaning do you see this as having?

 

“Which verses tell us He brought it into existence un molded … ”

“un molded” = unstructured = unformed = “without form” (Gen 1:2) = not organized etc.

 

“… in chaos … ”

The negative connotation associated with this interpretation is not justified by the context.

 

“… and in darkness? ”

Not sure why this was included – but OK. “and darkness was on the face of the deep” (Gen 1:2)

 

“Would that have sounded like 'I BRING together a bunch of elements to hang out in the dark as nothingness and void till I get ready to form it? Not sure WHY God wouldn't just speak its 'existence' 'in wonder', but can't wait to see what words He used Himself”

Sure – God could have created the universe in a fraction of a millisecond. But instead, He decided on a process of creation which He says took place over six days.

The “words He used Himself” to describe this process can be found in Genesis 1.

 

“1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: What meaning do you see this as having?”

I wouldn’t claim any expertise in Eschatology. Based on a quick read of Revelation 12, I would guess that the woman is the nation of Israel. That seems to fit. But I could be completely wrong here.

 

[BeyondET]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

“Actually I don't change a single word of Genesis, in that particular passages I don't follow the verse and chapter number arrangement. who is it to know those additions was ordered by God do you know? who gives you authority to know those additions to the word of God was  inspired to do so???”

No-one is talking about chapter and verse numbers. The written text of Genesis (apart from verse numbers) states explicitly both the order of days and events – in the text. Read it again. The order, as stated by the words “of Genesis” declares plainly that plants were created on day 3, and that the sun was created on day 4.

“Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”

See how it says what order the events occurred, and on what days they occurred, even without chapter and verse numbers.

 

“For hundreds of years someone always has a new and improved version. Am I to trust every one of them, even the early ones”

Hebrew is a normal human language. It exists for the purpose of communication to humans. It is not some ancient language of riddles. Sure, over time we learn new things about how the language was used in ancient times – and so occasionally, we have to update our understanding in some areas. But the fact that updates are occasionally required does not give us the authority to wholesale rewrite, or reorganize, what is written – for no reason whatsoever.

This approach to the scripture completely invalidates God’s authority in the Bible.

 

“I believe some things are pretty straight forward in the bible doesn't take much faith to believe them to be correct and other things take alot of faith. One example is the four gospels it's like 52 pick up nothing is in order”

Very few, if any, events are out of order in any of the Gospels. Some events seem to be in a different order when compared to other Gospels – but that is because of differences in narrative focus. An historian such as Luke will try and put events in correct order, for the sake of historical accuracy, whereas another author might choose to associate a teaching with an event (even if other things happened between the event and the teaching). That is simply explained through narrative choice. There is no logical Contradiction in such instances.

But in Genesis 1, we are directly given an order in the text; both an order of days, and a series of joining “then” statements – demonstrating that each described event happened after the one previously described. Therefore, presuming to reorder the events Contradicts the written Word of God.

 

“Not only do I read the days of Genesis as 1,2,4,3,5,6 the chapters as well in that order”

If you “read the days of Genesis as 1,2,4,3,5,6”, then you are directly Contradicting the Bible.

 

“I don't have to wonder how plants grow without sun”

Nor do I. I explained why in my first response to you. And I don’t have to contradict the Bible.

 

“and God didn't create plants fully developed. God said let the earth bring forth vegetation not go and plant on earth”

Whether it was immediate, or a process, Genesis states that it all occurred in a single day. So it was supernatural regardless.

 

“When God called the expanse sky He didn't stop creating the expanse and skip a day only to go back and put lights in it on day four”

Really? Because you say so? Because the Bible says He did it in the order you contest. Should I believe you, or the Word of God? God was there – were you there? I think I’ll stick with trusting what God says happened.

 

“nor did He plant some grass than the next day create a nuclear reactor to supply it energy”

Both of the claims in this statement misrepresent anything I’ve claimed about the Bible. God commanded plants into existence on the third day of creation – and on that very same day, “God saw that it was good”.

 

“There's order when God creates He doesn't jump around from day to day”

And God explicitly told us the “order” according to His present eyewitness. God’s “order” (the true “order” of events) does not have to agree with what you think should have been the “order”.

 

“You need to read verse 11 again because fully developed plants didn't just pop up out of the ground”

Genesis 1:11-13 - Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.”

It's all pretty clear – After the completion of the second day (verse 8), God commanded the earth to “bring forth” plant life, the earth complied and “brought forth” plant life, God saw it, and the third day ended. The detailed process of plant formation is not clear, but the timing is certainly clear.

 

“Genesis 1

6And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate the waters from the waters.” 7So God made the expanse and separated the waters beneath it from the waters above. And it was so. 8God called the expanse “sky.”And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The Third Day

14And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and let them be signs to mark the seasons and days and years. 15And let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well. 17God set these lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, 18to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

The Fourth Day

9And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. 10God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. 12The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.”

Wow! So you’ve seriously given yourself the authority to rewrite scripture. That is both astonishing and highly concerning.

 

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.

Edited December 21, 2022 by BeyondET

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

“The rules of the Hebrew language, grammar and poetry are important to me especially when it comes from someone the credentials”

What I suspect this really means is, if you find someone with “credentials” that agrees with you, then you consider that to be the end of the conversation. For you the matter is forever settled; no further scrutiny is necessary – or even permitted. You don’t need to examine the details or arguments. All the expert needs to say is that you are correct because of “The rules of the Hebrew language, grammar and poetry” – and that’s all that is required because of the strength of your confirmation bias.

Contrary to your claim, “The rules of the Hebrew language, grammar and poetry” are not what is “important” to you. If they were “important” to you, you would provide the relevant arguments. What you venerate is “credentials”.

This idolization of “credentials” results in a straight-forward Appeal to Authority/Expertise – a recognized logic fallacy where the argument is relying on something about the person delivering it, rather than any pertinent facts. It’s kind-of a reverse Adhominem argument. From memory (and I may be confusing you with another user), the usual response is to compound this fallacy with another logic fallacy – a False Analogy – that confuses trusting the utility of expertise (e.g. trusting a doctor, mechanic etc. to make appropriate decisions in their respective fields), with scrutinizing and comparing arguments (e.g. what is supposed to happen in a forum such as this). It becomes increasingly difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who doesn’t understand basic rules of logic, or who thinks logic doesn’t apply to them.Lewis was

“Consider my perspective - I could use the same methodology to change the meaning of literally any scripture - if I decided I was uncomfortable with the plain meaning of the text. I’m sure you can understand why I find this approach to interpreting scripture to be particularly concerning.

Actually no. You have no credentials so your methodology would be heretical.”

It’s not my “methodology”. I am simply proposing, as a matter of redundant logical consistency, that if a particular interpretation “methodology” is valid, then that “methodology” is valid - or else one would be employing a Special Pleading fallacy.

Following your reasoning, only experts in classical Biblical languages are permitted to interpret scripture. Therefore, all we non-experts must throw our Bibles in the trash – since it is “heretical” for us to come to conclusions about what scripture means. We must not think for ourselves, or “meditate on” scripture, or make any attempt to “rightly divide” God’s Word. Only people with “credentials” are permitted to do that. If we non-experts try to interpret scripture, we are heretics.

Are the millions of Hebrew-speaking Jews (many Christians amongst them) also heretics if they presume to try and read scripture without the oversight of someone with a doctorate?

Or maybe we are employing a Special Pleading fallacy (I mean – why not at this point?). Maybe we are all permitted to interpret scripture according to common-sense rules. But only the experts are allowed to deviate from these common-sense interpretation rules – and only then when their conclusions agree with your conclusions.

“Furthermore, the more we delve into the issue, the more it seems that nothing in Genesis 1 means what it actually says; E.g. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is apparently not referring to the creation of the natural universe, but rather “the beginning of man and his environment”, And “the earth was without form” actually means “the form (or structure) of the earth became destroyed after the sinful corruption of some pre-Adamic race of humans”. There’s even a suggestion in this thread that we get to presume the right to reorder what God has written till it suits our sensibilities.

I'm just using what the Jewish Publication Society would say based on Biblical scholarship.”

Right – another Appeal to Authority. You’re not actually contributing any arguments to the conversation – you’re “just” telling me that you’ve found some authority that agrees with you.

“Pre-Adamic race of humans is outside the written Biblical text.”

Lol – so you agree that it’s not ok to insert ideas from “outside the written Biblical text”? What about “13.7 Billion Years” of cosmological history?

“The Hebrew scholars you are referring to, what are their bona fides and where can I read their opinions?”

It sounds like you now want me to start Appealing to Authority. Are you really unaware that there are Hebrew language experts that disagree with your preferred expert? It’s easy enough to provide a list of Hebrew language scholars who agree with me about the interpretation of Genesis. How many would you like me to list?

“Because the KJV on which the NKJV is based on does not use any of the new manuscripts found at Qumran. Are you saying the KJV does not have any errors?”

It now sounds like you are trying to muddy the conversation with a Red Herring fallacy. Instead of examining the logical weaknesses in your position, let’s talk about the Qumram manuscripts, and make some random, unsupported insinuation about me being KJV-only.

““In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth [around 13.6 and 3.9 billion years ago respectively. Then, God created life on the earth and evolved it over the next 3-or-so billion years, including into humans, who sinned and corrupted the earth – leading somehow to its ultimate destruction – and leaving the earth in a state of being] disheveled and empty. And therefore, everything else we read in Genesis 1 is a description of God starting over.” And this is me trying to be concise.

That is not how I see Genesis 1.”

A useful response would have been to correct my claim – but that would entail admitting that at-least some of what I wrote was correct.

“If there is an argument that possibly permits the “reordering of day details”, then I will gladly consider and scrutinize it. But simply claiming it to be “Hebrew poetry” is nowhere near good enough.

Fine.”

I say I am prepared to consider supporting arguments for your position. Instead of providing an argument, you just say “Fine”.

“The Bible isn't the result of a paranormal event. The right context for its interpretation isn't the church fathers, the Reformation, or evangelicalism -- it's the original ancient context that produced it. - Dr. Heiser”

So this expert of yours explicitly denies the participation of God in the Bible’s authorship – and this is the guy you expect me to mindlessly trust to interpret the Bible for me?

Ignore!!!

[BeyondET]

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

Ignore!!!

I find it humorous the quoted post. Through out the bible, God didn't use the knowledgeable the educated the scholars most of the time but the opposite.

[Vine Abider]

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

The order, as stated by the words “of Genesis” declares plainly that plants were created on day 3, and that the sun was created on day 4.

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

Quote

Here, God creates the sun and the moon to separate day from night and to shine upon the earth. But the distinction between day and night is already noted in day one! Moreover, if the sun was only created on day four, and the sun is what determines day and night, as we all know, then what is the light on day one?

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, BeyondET said:

I find it humorous the quoted post. Through out the bible, God didn't use the knowledgeable the educated the scholars most of the time but the opposite.

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

[Guest]

1 hour ago, 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

Genesis is NOT a scientific treatise either in the original Hebrew or any of the languages that came from it. God never intended it to be so.