Old Earth Creationism

[GenemZ]

Many planets were referred to as stars, as were things like comets. They were later given the names of gods because they were believed to be controlled by divine beings because they moved independently of the other stars (actual stars).

Since that concept originated in pagan religions? I believe it was the fallen angels who desired to be worshiped and were still living in the glory they had when they were like the stars and planets that affected the life in the prehistoric worlds. God was giving them a glory to be a part of the creation and to learn to appreciate life. Who knows? Maybe as stars they would be able to herd certain animals to flock other areas as to keep the vegetation replenished. They were as gods over the animal life.

After Satan's fall the prehistoric creation transformed like it had after Adam's fall. That is when we see meat eaters appearing as to show an example to Satan and his angels what it means to devour one another. After all, Satan learned to see himself as being that way from the lessons he learned by how dinosaurs had changed into representative forms of expression, so God could teach them concepts.

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks
about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour." 1 Pet 5:8​

Satan learned that concept with the likes of T Rex.

But, there was once concept that Satan could not learn until after man was created. Something that Satan committed from the beginning of his fall, but had no way to make a connection with its reality. That concept was to be taught soon after man fell.... Murder.

Satan was a murderer from the beginning. But, he did not understand murder. God did. And, set out to show him so Satan could know that he is to blame for his own judgment...

...more to follow...

 

[coffee4u]

But, to stay there after 31 years?

You must be talking about yourself since I have twice now said that I am not a baby Christian. If I was I would say. At this point I am going to put you on ignore since you have no manners.

 

[GenemZ]

You must be talking about yourself since I have twice now said that I am not a baby Christian. If I was I would say. At this point I am going to put you on ignore since you have no manners.

I have manners. Just hard to maintain when one is rude to what the Word of God says...

You can put me on ignore. I still might use what you say as a means to better clarify what the Word of God reveals to those who are willing to learn and grow in better understanding the Word of God.

 

[Yarddog]

What are your thoughts?

I believe that scripture is truth but that God didn't mean to make it easy to understand. When we read Genesis, we see it begin, "In the beginning". We also see these words at the start of the Gospel of John "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....And the Word became flesh."

Have you ever wondered why John chose to open his Gospel with those words? The Jew of his time would have recognized them as the start of the Book of Genesis and maybe they would understand that Genesis was a revelation of the coming of Jesus Christ, into the world. A world with God, in it, is not complete but a world of darkness and without form.

Genesis 1:3 Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light.

John 1:3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4. through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; 5. the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

On the sixth day, of Genesis, God finished the works which he had set out to accomplish. He then rested on the 7th day.

What is the most important 6th day for Christians? Good Friday.

On this day, God the Son had finished all of the works which had been set for him to complete, and as John tells us his last words on the cross were, "It is finished".

He then rested on the 7th day.

I believe that there is much more in the Book of Genesis than a literal reading of those sacred words.

 

[GenemZ]

I believe that scripture is truth but that God didn't mean to make it easy to understand.

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." Prov 25:2

And, we are to be "kings." For He is the King of kings.

The Lord wants us all to reign with Him. We must qualify.

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter.....


grace and peace.....

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

How we know the creation account is literal:

• The account of creation, as written by Moses, was God-breathed and meticulously worded—for man.
• God spoke things into existence, which is instantaneous. He could've created all things in one day if He had wanted to. The keeping of time is deliberate—for man (Genesis 1:3, Genesis 1:6, Genesis 1:9, Genesis 1:11, Genesis 1:14, Genesis 1:20, Genesis 1:24, Genesis 1:26).
  • God set forth the concept of a literal 24-hour day from the outset on day one—for man. Genesis 1:5, Mark 13:19
    
  • God created for six consecutive days—for man. (Genesis 1, Genesis 1:26)
  • The end of each creation day is deliberately recorded—for man. (Genesis 1:4, Genesis 1:10, Genesis 1:12, Genesis 1:18, Genesis 1:21, Genesis 1:25)
    
  • God rested on the seventh day, blessing and sanctifying it as a memorial of creation (Genesis 2:1-3)—for man (Mark 2:27).
• If God had intended for the creation days to be eons or some other indeterminate amount of time, He would not have created the concept of the 24-hour day on the first day of creation. God effectively started time—for man—before man was even created, signifying a literal plan—a clockwork that would continue until the second coming.
• God has no constraints, but deliberately observed time with purpose and intent, so that we would take notice and come to the understanding that the creation account happened exactly as described; in a literal six days, with one day of rest. In observing the time of man, God set forth an example—for man.
• To this day, man observes the seven day week that God set forth at creation. Man lives within the constraints that God set on day one. God's design was for man to work for six days of the week and observe the seventh as a holy day of rest and worship, a memorial of creation that venerates our Creator.

I once heard someone who claimed to both believe Genesis and believe in billions of years actually say that the fact that it is written that God did not create the sun until day 4 meant that the six creation days could not have been 24-hour periods! Which, of course, was not only an asinine thing to say, and a non-argument, but also, it blew up right in his face; because, as I told him, as a period of, say, 4.5 billions of years would merely be a staggeringly huge multiple of 24-hour periods, then, if the sun's being created on day 4 means no 24-hour periods, it also means no billions of years. Surprise, surprise: he never responded to my observation. And, I'm not even saying it was a profound observation; really, it's very elementary. But it is true. It never ceases to amaze me, the glaring foolishness to which people will commit themselves in their war against God's Word!

To not believe God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods is to not believe the first chapter of the first book of Moses.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

It never ceases to amaze me, the glaring foolishness to which people will commit themselves in their war against God's Word!

Their “war” is not against the word of God; their “war” is against the recent interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that says that it is an accurate account of historical events—an interpretation that was ably refuted by Christians in the 3rd century and is blown out of the water by the Hebrew text itself!

To not believe God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods is to not believe the first chapter of the first book of Moses.

No, it is to believe what the Hebrew text of Genesis actually says.

 

[GenemZ]

I once heard someone who claimed to both believe Genesis and believe in billions of years actually say that the fact that it is written that God did not create the sun until day 4 meant that the six creation days could not have been 24-hour periods!

God did not provide the sun for daylight for the first fours days because all angels were watching. God was providing daylight as he had done for the prehistoric creation that had been destroyed.

One thing for those four days was missing though.

Lucifer was no longer heralding in the morning light as he had done for the prehistoric worlds...... Its why Isaiah referred to Lucifer as the morning star. Its even why some decided in translation to use the word Lucifer. For Lucifer means "light bearer."

"O Lucifer, son of the morning" - The Sounding of an Alarm

If we fail to understand the GAP Fact in creation, we will fail to see why Satan is doing what he is trying to accomplish now...

 

[PrincetonGuy]

God did not provide the sun for daylight for the first fours days because all angels were watching. God was providing daylight as he had done for the prehistoric creation that had been destroyed.

One thing for those four days was missing though.

Lucifer was no longer heralding in the morning light as he had done for the prehistoric worlds...... Its why Isaiah referred to Lucifer as the morning star. Its even why some decided in translation to use the word Lucifer. For Lucifer means "light bearer."

"O Lucifer, son of the morning" - The Sounding of an Alarm

If we fail to understand the GAP Fact in creation, we will fail to see why Satan is doing what he is trying to accomplish now...

This post is imaginative fiction. The name Lucifer appears only once in the Bible (Isaiah 14:12), and only in some translations of the Bible (most notably the KJV and the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims version). It comes to us from the Latin Vulgate,

Isa. 14:12. quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

The Latin Vulgate is a translation of the Hebrew,

אֵ֛יךְ נָפַ֥לְתָּ מִשָּׁמַ֖יִם הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־שָׁ֑חַר נִגְדַּ֣עְתָּ לָאָ֔רֶץ חֹולֵ֖שׁ עַל־גֹּויִֽם׃ Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex

The Septuagint reads in this verse,

πῶς ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἑωσφόρος ὁ πρωὶ ἀνατέλλων; συνετρίβη εἰς τὴν γῆν ὁ ἀποστέλλων πρὸς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη.

The context shows us very clearly that his passage is NOT about the devil, but about the downfall of the King of Babylon,

Isa. 14:3. When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve,
4. you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:
How the oppressor has ceased!
How his insolence has ceased!
5. The Lord has broken the staff of the wicked,
the scepter of rulers,
6. that struck down the peoples in wrath
with unceasing blows,
that ruled the nations in anger
with unrelenting persecution.
7. The whole earth is at rest and quiet;
they break forth into singing.
8. The cypresses exult over you,
the cedars of Lebanon, saying,
"Since you were laid low,
no one comes to cut us down."
9. Sheol beneath is stirred up
to meet you when you come;
it rouses the shades to greet you,
all who were leaders of the earth;
it raises from their thrones
all who were kings of the nations.
10. All of them will speak
and say to you:
"You too have become as weak as we!
You have become like us!"
11. Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,
and the sound of your harps;
maggots are the bed beneath you,
and worms are your covering.
12. How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
13. You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
on the heights of Zaphon;
14. I will ascend to the tops of the clouds,
I will make myself like the Most High."
15. But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the depths of the Pit.
16. Those who see you will stare at you,
and ponder over you:
"Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
who shook kingdoms,
17. who made the world like a desert
and overthrew its cities,
who would not let his prisoners go home?"
18. All the kings of the nations lie in glory,
each in his own tomb;
19. but you are cast out, away from your grave,
like loathsome carrion,
clothed with the dead, those pierced by the sword,
who go down to the stones of the Pit,
like a corpse trampled underfoot.
20. You will not be joined with them in burial,
because you have destroyed your land,
you have killed your people.
May the descendants of evildoers
nevermore be named!
21. Prepare slaughter for his sons
because of the guilt of their father.
Let them never rise to possess the earth
or cover the face of the world with cities.
22. I will rise up against them, says the Lord of hosts, and will cut off from Babylon name and remnant, offspring and posterity, says the Lord.
23. And I will make it a possession of the hedgehog, and pools of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction, says the Lord of hosts. (NRSV)

The Greek word ἑωσφόρος in verse 12 in the Septuagint is the ancient Greek name of the god of the planet Venus, the "morning star."

 

[GenemZ]

This post is imaginative fiction.

Anything can be made to look like its fiction. Imagine what some thought when Jesus spoke and revealed that He is God. Wow! Pure fantasy.

There will be always a way to deny the truth. We have proof.

12. How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
​

"Lucifer" means light bearer. Coincidence that some penned him with that name?

There always be someone to resist and defy.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Their “war” is not against the word of God; their “war” is against the recent interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that says that it is an accurate account of historical events—an interpretation that was ably refuted by Christians in the 3rd century and is blown out of the water by the Hebrew text itself!

I appreciate your phrase, "interpretation of Genesis 1-11".

Thank you for admitting, here, that what anti-YEC people (in their war against Young Earth Creationism) are warring against is, indeed, the interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Since Genesis 1 means that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods, to say that it means that is to interpret Genesis 1; that's the interpretation of Genesis 1: that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods. Genesis 1, therefore, cannot/does not mean that God did not create the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour; it cannot/does not mean that God created the heaven and the earth over a period of billions of years. Since Genesis 1 does not mean that God created the heaven and the earth over a period of billions of years, to say that it does mean that is to fail to be interpreting Genesis 1. You are aware that to interpret a text is to state its meaning, right? You are aware that the interpretation of a text is a statement of its meaning, right? You are aware that what is contradictory to the meaning of a text cannot, itself, be the meaning of said text, right?

The interpretation of Genesis 1 is that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods. Here are some non-interpretations of Genesis 1:

• that God did not create the heaven and the earth
• that God created the heaven and the earth, but over a period longer than six, 24-hour periods
• that God created the heaven and the earth, but over a period shorter than six, 24-hour periods
​

Their “war” is not against the word of God; their “war” is against the recent interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that says that it is an accurate account of historical events...

Is Genesis 1 the word of God? Yes or No?

Is Genesis 1 an accurate account of God's creating the heaven and the earth in the beginning? Yes or No?

Is God's creating the heaven and the earth in the beginning, an historical event? Yes or No?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I appreciate your phrase, "interpretation of Genesis 1-11".


Thank you for admitting, here, that what anti-YEC people (in their war against Young Earth Creationism) are warring against is, indeed, the interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

A heartfelt plea for honesty and truthfulness!

I did NOT say, imply or even suggest “what anti-YEC people (in their war against Young Earth Creationism) are warring against is, indeed, the interpretation of Genesis 1-11.” The truth is that during the millennia since Genesis 1-11 came to us in the form that we now have it very many interpretations of it have been put forth by men representing a wide spectrum of religious, cultural, and philosophical beliefs. Moreover, even today among believers of Young Earth Creationism we have two very different interpretations of Genesis 1-11 each of which are held by millions of Christians. Furthermore, there are significant variations of both of these two interpretations. All of these interpretations seriously contradict each other!

Among those Christians who hold to an academically sound interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as a unit, we have a general consensus because this interpretation is based upon a massive amount of solid, incontrovertible evidence. However, Claus Westermann, in his three-volume commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, devotes over one hundred pages to problems involved in the interpretation of the “the creation verses” (Gen. 1:1 – 2:4). Indeed, there are four major different interpretations regarding the relationship of the first three verses (Gen. 1:1 – 1:3) to each other. Kenneth Matthews, in his two-volume commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, summarizes the history of the interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Job 33:6]

Kenneth Matthews, in his two-volume commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, summarizes the history of the interpretation of Genesis.

I'll have to pick this one up. I've found Claus Westermann's commentary on Genesis incredibly informative.

There's a surprisingly stark difference between scholarly or academic biblical interpretations of scripture, versus more of a general cultural understanding. It's interesting to see.

 

[JulieB67]

The context shows us very clearly that his passage is NOT about the devil, but about downfall of the King of Babylon,

No king of Babylon ever sat on the throne in Jerusalem proclaiming to be God. They had their own gods they worshipped, etc.

King of Babylon, Assyrian, King of Tyrus, always have double meanings and also refer to Satan.

 

[GenemZ]

A heartfelt plea for honesty and truthfulness!

I did NOT say, imply or even suggest “what anti-YEC people (in their war against Young Earth Creationism) are warring against is, indeed, the interpretation of Genesis 1-11.” The truth is that during the millennia since Genesis 1-11 came to us in the form that we now have it very many interpretations of it have been put forth by men representing a wide spectrum of religious, cultural, and philosophical beliefs. Moreover, even today among believers of Young Earth Creationism we have two very different interpretations of Genesis 1-11 each of which are held by millions of Christians. Furthermore, there are significant variations of both of these two interpretations. All of these interpretations seriously contradict each other!

Among those Christians who hold to an academically sound interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as a unit, we have a general consensus because this interpretation is based upon a massive amount of solid, incontrovertible evidence. However, Claus Westermann, in his three-volume commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, devotes over one hundred pages to problems involved in the interpretation of the “the creation verses” (Gen. 1:1 – 2:4). Indeed, there are four major different interpretations regarding the relationship of the first three verses (Gen. 1:1 – 1:3) to each other. Kenneth Matthews, in his two-volume commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, summarizes the history of the interpretation of Genesis.

Yet, in the mean while. Gen 1:2 reveals an earth that had been placed into utter chaos and destruction.

So much so, Jeremiah prophesied a direct reference to Gen 1:2 as a means to warn the rebellious Jews about the judgment they were to face. A great destruction of themselves by God's judgement...

Note how Jeremiah had to tell the Jews that their judgement will not be as severe as the one found in Gen 1:2! That some will survive!

Jer 4:23-27

I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void;
and to the heavens, and they had no light. (Gen 1:2!)
I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking,
and all the hills moved to and fro.
I looked, and behold, there was no man,
and all the birds of the air had fled.
I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert,
and all its cities were laid in ruins
before the Lord, before his fierce anger.
For thus says the Lord, “The whole land shall be a desolation; yet I will not make a complete desolation..​

Why did Jeremiah need to add... yet I will not make a complete desolation?
Because, Gen 1:2 was not a mild statement in the Hebrew!

Jeremiah had to make sure that the Hebrew speaking Jews would not think Israel would be totally annihilated by God's judgment after his quoting from Gen 1:2! ...

We we need to think within the context of how words were used back then. If this skill is not learned effectively we will find that we will be walking too far off a branch trying to pick fruit.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

A heartfelt plea for honesty and truthfulness!

I did NOT say, imply or even suggest “what anti-YEC people (in their war against Young Earth Creationism) are warring against is, indeed, the interpretation of Genesis 1-11.” The truth is that during the millennia since Genesis 1-11 came to us in the form that we now have it very many interpretations of it have been put forth by men representing a wide spectrum of religious, cultural, and philosophical beliefs. Moreover, even today among believers of Young Earth Creationism we have two very different interpretations of Genesis 1-11 each of which are held by millions of Christians. Furthermore, there are significant variations of both of these two interpretations. All of these interpretations seriously contradict each other!

Among those Christians who hold to an academically sound interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as a unit, we have a general consensus because this interpretation is based upon a massive amount of solid, incontrovertible evidence. However, Claus Westermann, in his three-volume commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, devotes over one hundred pages to problems involved in the interpretation of the “the creation verses” (Gen. 1:1 – 2:4). Indeed, there are four major different interpretations regarding the relationship of the first three verses (Gen. 1:1 – 1:3) to each other. Kenneth Matthews, in his two-volume commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, summarizes the history of the interpretation of Genesis.

A heartfelt plea for honesty!
(Note that since the truth is on my side and is against you, I do not title this post "A heartfelt plea for honesty AND truthfulness!")

I did NOT say, imply or even suggest “what anti-YEC people (in their war against Young Earth Creationism) are warring against is, indeed, the interpretation of Genesis 1-11."

False. You clearly used the word, "interpretation," to refer to the interpretation of Genesis 1:

Their “war” is not against the word of God; their “war” is against the recent interpretation of Genesis 1-11

You wrote:

The truth is that during the millennia since Genesis 1-11 came to us in the form that we now have it very many interpretations of it have been put forth

Here, you demonstrate that you do not understand the word, "interpretation," nor how to properly use it. You do not understand that the interpretation of a text is the interpreting of said text, nor that the interpreting of a text is the stating of said text's meaning.

You demonstrate this same ignorance of yours by, once again, using the word, "interpretation," in the same irrational, self-defeating manner that you have been using it thus far:

All of these interpretations seriously contradict each other!

Here are two, mutually-contradictory propositions:

1) God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods.
2) God did not create the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods.​

Now, one, and only one of these two propositions is the meaning of Genesis 1. Since to interpret Genesis 1 is to state the meaning of Genesis 1, to interpret Genesis 1 is to state proposition 1, which is that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods. Since proposition 2 is not the meaning of Genesis 1, to state proposition 2 is not to state the meaning of Genesis 1; rather, to state proposition 2 is to state something that is not only not the meaning of Genesis 1, but also is contradictory to the meaning of Genesis 1. Stating proposition 2 is not only not interpretation of Genesis 1, but is (as you admit) contradicting the interpretation of Genesis 1. In stating that God did not create the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods, one is necessarily failing to interpret Genesis 1. It's really pretty simple.

Think of it this way. Consider this text: "The horse jumped over the fence."

If the meaning of "The horse jumped over the fence" is that the horse jumped over the fence, then the meaning of "The horse jumped over the fence" is not that the horse did not jump over the fence. And, if the meaning of "The horse jumped over the fence" is that the horse did not jump over the fence, then the meaning of "The horse jumped over the fence" is not that the horse jumped over the fence.

Thus, so long as the meaning of "The horse jumped over the fence" is that the horse jumped over the fence, then to state that the horse jumped over the fence is to interpret the text, "The horse jumped over the fence," while to state that the horse did not jump over the fence is to fail to interpret it. Conversely, so long as the meaning of "The horse jumped over the fence" is that the horse did not jump over the fence, then to state that the horse did not jump over the fence is to interpret the text, "The horse jumped over the fence," while to state that the horse jumped over the fence is to fail to interpret it. EITHER stating that the horse jumped over the fence is the interpretation of "The horse jumped over the fence" OR stating that the horse did not jump over the fence is the interpretation of "The horse jumped over the fence." Since ONLY ONE OF those two statings is the/an interpretation of "The horse jumped over the fence," it is false that EVERY ONE OF of those two statings is the/an interpretation of "The horse jumped over the fence."

In your ignorance of what interpretation is, and by your careless, irrational use of the word, "interpretation," you have already admitted (despite your futile protesting to the contrary) that to state that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods is to interpret Genesis 1--that to state that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods is to state the meaning of Genesis 1.

Since you deny that the meaning of Genesis 1 is that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods, then why are you using the word, "interpretation," to refer to the statement that God created the earth in six, 24-hours?

Since the meaning of Genesis 1 is that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods, I, being a rationally-thinking person, do not use words like "interpretation" and "interpretations" to refer to statements that are contrary or contradictory to it.

In your previous post addressed to me, you had written:

Their “war” is not against the word of God; their “war” is against the recent interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that says that it is an accurate account of historical events...

And so, I then asked you:

Is Genesis 1 the word of God? Yes or No?

You: <NO ANSWER>​

Is Genesis 1 an accurate account of God's creating the heaven and the earth in the beginning? Yes or No?

You: <NO ANSWER>​

Is God's creating the heaven and the earth in the beginning, an historical event? Yes or No?

You: <NO ANSWER>​

 

[GenemZ]

"The world is flat...

My name is Pat...​

That is all.. That settles that!"

"You are Wrong! ...

You can't be right!!

Don't care about reason...

I just like to Fight!




Found on Dr. Seuss's tombstone

​

...........

​

 

[coffee4u]

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

 

[GenemZ]

A heartfelt plea for honesty!
(Note that since the truth is on my side and is against you, I do not title this post "A heartfelt plea for honesty AND truthfulness!")



False. You clearly used the word, "interpretation," to refer to the interpretation of Genesis 1:



You wrote:


Here, you demonstrate that you do not understand the word, "interpretation," nor how to properly use it. You do not understand that the interpretation of a text is the interpreting of said text, nor that the interpreting of a text is the stating of said text's meaning.

You demonstrate this same ignorance of yours by, once again, using the word, "interpretation," in the same irrational, self-defeating manner that you have been using it thus far:



Here are two, mutually-contradictory propositions:

1) God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods.
2) God did not create the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods.​

Now, one, and only one of these two propositions is the meaning of Genesis 1. Since to interpret Genesis 1 is to state the meaning of Genesis 1, to interpret Genesis 1 is to state proposition 1, which is that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods. Since proposition 2 is not the meaning of Genesis 1, to state proposition 2 is not to state the meaning of Genesis 1; rather, to state proposition 2 is to state something that is not only not the meaning of Genesis 1, but also is contradictory to the meaning of Genesis 1. Stating proposition 2 is not only not interpretation of Genesis 1, but is (as you admit) contradicting the interpretation of Genesis 1. In stating that God did not create the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods, one is necessarily failing to interpret Genesis 1. It's really pretty simple.

Think of it this way. Consider this text: "The horse jumped over the fence."

If the meaning of "The horse jumped over the fence" is that the horse jumped over the fence, then the meaning of "The horse jumped over the fence" is not that the horse did not jump over the fence. And, if the meaning of "The horse jumped over the fence" is that the horse did not jump over the fence, then the meaning of "The horse jumped over the fence" is not that the horse jumped over the fence.

Thus, so long as the meaning of "The horse jumped over the fence" is that the horse jumped over the fence, then to state that the horse jumped over the fence is to interpret the text, "The horse jumped over the fence," while to state that the horse did not jump over the fence is to fail to interpret it. Conversely, so long as the meaning of "The horse jumped over the fence" is that the horse did not jump over the fence, then to state that the horse did not jump over the fence is to interpret the text, "The horse jumped over the fence," while to state that the horse jumped over the fence is to fail to interpret it. EITHER stating that the horse jumped over the fence is the interpretation of "The horse jumped over the fence" OR stating that the horse did not jump over the fence is the interpretation of "The horse jumped over the fence." Since ONLY ONE OF those two statings is the/an interpretation of "The horse jumped over the fence," it is false that EVERY ONE OF of those two statings is the/an interpretation of "The horse jumped over the fence."

In your ignorance of what interpretation is, and by your careless, irrational use of the word, "interpretation," you have already admitted (despite your futile protesting to the contrary) that to state that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods is to interpret Genesis 1--that to state that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods is to state the meaning of Genesis 1.

Since you deny that the meaning of Genesis 1 is that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods, then why are you using the word, "interpretation," to refer to the statement that God created the earth in six, 24-hours?

Since the meaning of Genesis 1 is that God created the heaven and the earth in six, 24-hour periods, I, being a rationally-thinking person, do not use words like "interpretation" and "interpretations" to refer to statements that are contrary or contradictory to it.

In your previous post addressed to me, you had written:


And so, I then asked you:

Is Genesis 1 the word of God? Yes or No?

You: <NO ANSWER>​

Is Genesis 1 an accurate account of God's creating the heaven and the earth in the beginning? Yes or No?

You: <NO ANSWER>​

Is God's creating the heaven and the earth in the beginning, an historical event? Yes or No?

You: <NO ANSWER>​

Old World Creationism was not devised as a response to Darwinism. YEC's will keep making that claim. For Bible scholars were noticing the GAP found in Genesis 1:2 long before Darwin was ever born.

Here is one of the best works on the subject.

Read over the section: A Long-held View.

Online book for free....
https://custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Old World Creationism was not devised as a response to Darwinism. YEC's will keep making that claim. For Bible scholars were noticing the GAP found in Genesis 1:2 long before Darwin was ever born.

Here is one of the best works on the subject.

Read over the section: A Long-held View.

Online book for free....
https://custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

The "gap theory" claim about Genesis 1, though, is really not even relevant to a discussion of any question regarding the length of the six days of creation, since the "gap theory" people claim that the six days referred to in Genesis 1 are not really days of creation, and instead call them days of "re-creation" or something like that. The "gap theory" people claim that the first of those six days did not even occur until after some unspecified, immense length of time had passed after God had already, in the beginning, created the heaven and the earth. The "gap theory" people, so far as I know, do not even try to address the question of the length of time it took God to, in the beginning, create the heaven and the earth. That the "gap theory" people claim that an immense, unspecified length of time occurred between the event(s) recorded in Genesis 1:1 and those recorded in Genesis 1:2 and beyond, is completely irrelevant to the claims of those who say that the six creation days of Genesis 1 are not literally 24-hour periods of time.

In other words, all that the "gap theory" people qua "gap theory" people are saying is that the heaven and the earth had already been around for an immense length of time by the commencement of the events of Genesis 1:2 and beyond; as far as I can tell, the "gap theory" people do not tell us how long a period of time they imagine it took God, in the beginning, to create (and finish creation of) the heaven and the earth.

Say, for the sake of argument, the "gap theory" people are speaking of an immensely long "gap" of time that is equal to the immense length of time proposed by "day-age theory" people, the difference between the two claims is that the "gap theory" people are saying that God's creation of the heaven and earth had already been completed at the beginning of that "gap" period, whereas, according to the "day-age theory" people, God was still engaging in creating the heaven and the earth all throughout that period. The "gap theory" is as unbiblical as the "day-age theory," and is not only not a response to the latter, but is not even relevant to a discussion of the latter.