6,000 Years?

[Job 33:6]

Right. Like I said, null via base logic position.

I can grasp that you are reaching into implications beyond the surface level conclusions that most resolute to, but that doesn't equate to basic rationality and you can't blanket that across your knowledge base as if it were tangible information you possess and can present to others.

You can try, but you will exist in a bubble all your own and very few if any will benefit from such projections. To claim you existed before you were born is a bit of an overreach in terms of "understanding" and you are tip-toeing all over that area that River Jordan was just mentioning where people are perceived as dishonest for making exaggerated claims and stating unverifiable "facts" they don't have evidence for.

I get it, in "your" world you can see how we exist before we are born, sure, that's great. But the rest of the world doesn't exist in your world inside your head and they would like to communicate with people that live in the world we all do, not in a secluded bubble observable only by you.

You can say that we exist in God's mind before we are born, and I'm sure people can "see" that. But this claim you are on right now is borderline "do not engage" territory for lack of verifiable substance in reality. Very respectfully.

I went back and updated my comment to clarify. I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

When you're in the womb, you are aging. Even if you are "formless". Your true age includes when you are formless. And there is no reason to suggest otherwise. Unless you're pro abortion.

 

[Job 33:6]

So that's the YEC response? When you're in the womb, that's not technically you and you aren't aging. Oh but when you're born, that's when you actually begin aging because that's your birthday?

So when the Earth is formless, for whatever reason it's not actually aging, but then when God begins giving it form, that's when it's aging starts?

By that logic, everyone would be pro abortion because babies don't actually exist until they're born.

YECs have solved the abortion debate. Don't worry, the baby is formless and hasn't been born yet. It hasn't actually been aging yet because it hasn't been born. Therefore, abortion is fine.

 

[Zceptre]

False misrepresentations of science is the name of the game. It is creationists best card. Sell content today, make some cash. And when kids feel violated and mislead, just ask for forgiveness later.

This is childish, slander, and unnecessary. Like I just said in a previous post, literally moments ago, there are liars in every camp. Honest and dishonest atheists and believers and even agnostics.

Here's some dishonesty.

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ernst Haeckel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And to boot, the latter of the two frauds is a longstanding one, not a "oopsie" and fixed. Here's Jonathan Wells take on when he noticed something was "off" while studying at Berkeley.

Survival of the Fakest

[Originally appeared in the The American Spectator – December 2000/January 2001. PDF Version.] If you had asked me during my years studying science at Berkeley whether or not I believed what I read in my science textbooks, I would have responded much as any of my fellow students: puzzled that such a

iconsofevolution.com

If you want dishonest for "believers" to "be fair" I'll just point to Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar.... anyone disputing that isn't sane.

Let's not do that whole calling one group this and another group that thing. I have people I respect in both camps and this is not ok to do towards any group because not everyone in those groups are liars, full stop.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is childish, slander, and unnecessary. Like I just said in a previous post, literally moments ago, there are liars in every camp. Honest and dishonest atheists and believers and even agnostics.

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ernst Haeckel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And to boot, the latter of the two frauds is a longstanding one, not a "oopsie" and fixed. Here's Jonathan Wells take on when he noticed something was "off" while studying at Berkeley.

Survival of the Fakest

[Originally appeared in the The American Spectator – December 2000/January 2001. PDF Version.] If you had asked me during my years studying science at Berkeley whether or not I believed what I read in my science textbooks, I would have responded much as any of my fellow students: puzzled that such a

iconsofevolution.com

If you want dishonest for "believers" to "be fair" I'll just point to Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar....

Let's not do that whole calling one group this and another group that thing. I have people I respect in both camps and this is not ok to do towards any group because not everyone in those groups are liars, full stop.

Sure. And for creationists it's like 99% of their science content.

Meanwhile, for scientists, you're referencing piltdown man from the early 1900s.

 

[Zceptre]

Sure. And for creationists it's like 99% of their science content.

Meanwhile, for scientists, you're referencing piltdown man from the early 1900s.

I think you just breached the point of reasonable. This is sheer nonsense and a waste of time. This is called trolling.

Take care sir. I wish you well in your journey.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think you just breached the point of reasonable. This is sheer nonsense and a waste of time. This is called trolling.

Take care sir. I wish you well in your journey.

Again, let's just look at the Bible:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The Bible doesn't say how long the Earth was formless before God began to create it.

The only people who are unreasonable about what the Bible plainly says, are YECs.

Farewell.

 

[The Barbarian]

If, on the other hand, every time a person who calls themselves a "scientist" says something everyone must jump on board and believe it is the de facto case...

I've read a lot of scientific literature, and I've never seen anything remotely like that. How about you? I'm guessing you don't read the scientific literature.

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, let's just look at the Bible:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

This, I think, is not a reliable translation.

Genesis 1:1 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.

Here is the declaration of the triune God. The Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son. How the Son?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

 

[Job 33:6]

This, I think, is not a reliable translation.

Genesis 1:1 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.

Here is the declaration of the triune God. The Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son. How the Son?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

The translation is reliable. It is the construct form or dependent clause translation. Found in several translations, the CEB, NRSV, NRSVue, NABRE, JPS, among others. And yes, John 1:1 is the commonly referenced response. However, contextually, John is not Genesis. And John is additionally not the context for Genesis.

 

[Job 33:6]

This, I think, is not a reliable translation.

Genesis 1:1 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.

Here is the declaration of the triune God. The Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son. How the Son?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

To clarify, revelations need not reiterate the texts that they originally cite. Paul adjusts texts in his words all the time. Such as when he references psalm 96 in Ephesians 4. Or, another popular example is when Mathew 27 references "out of Egypt" when speaking of Jesus, though the old testament Hosea 4 was speaking of events long past.

Which is to say that John may reveal a truth without necessarily retelling Genesis. The context is different.

And grammatically, the dependent clause and construct view translation is accurate. The Hebrew is accurate. And contextually it better aligns with ANE literature of its day, such as numerous Egyptian creation narratives that include a formless earth before their gods began to create them.

 

[River Jordan]

I have a big problem with anyone who serves the Jesus Christ, God the Son, the way, the truth, the life... yet cannot be honest about their work.

You and me both!

There are cases of which people simply believe things without much evidence and they have great faith in the direction of the Bible, and sometimes this looks to be misleading when it is only child-like faith. Other times, I have seen what seems to me to be absolutely overreaching in regards to trying to defend the Bible and/or their own beliefs.

For an example, the King James Bible being a "fifth grade reading level." This is an outright lie used (not that many of them don't believe it themselves) to promote the KJV Bible, but it doesn't help their case for it.

Telling lies or exaggerating things to attempt to satiate someone's particular personal preferences for "evidence" of anything is unacceptable.

It's absolutely unacceptable for anyone to do under the banner of Christ.

I was not raised in a Christian school and indoctrinated by "young Earth creationists" with all sorts of special claims and quotes and beat over the head for the first 20 years of my life to believe what I was told. I was thrown to the deep end of evolution and all that it professes to be accurate and reality, and I found it wanting in my own estimations and dug up every single instance of a discrepancy I could find. I done the same thing to the Bible and everything I couldn't understand in it, and I made no partiality about it, I questioned God on things that just seemed "off" to me.

With that said, for anyone to be dishonest is to misrepresent Christ and I hope and pray for their sake it wasn't deliberate because the judgment is real and I personally wouldn't want to have to answer for that. Worse case scenario, I pray they actually are saved and not "playing Christian" when they don't actually know Christ, because that is nightmare street at the dead end conclusion.

But these particular instances don't determine what is truth and what isn't. Reality stands in justification of itself and time tells all things. In the not so distant future, this argument will be answered when we all enter eternity.

I don't have anything to add because overall I agree with ya.

If, on the other hand, every time a person who calls themselves a "scientist" says something everyone must jump on board and believe it is the de facto case... well, I'm here to put a flood light on the scene, I've found many liars on both sides over the years and the title means zilch. I personally know of many famous pastors and the secrets they keep, and I know people that know them and their secrets... they are very dishonest. But that doesn't mean the Bible or Christians are, it simply means there are people full of pretenses in every camp and fakes around every corner.

Lesson to be learned, cover your own rear end and do your own homework.

Yes indeed, go read and learn for yourself! That's something I stress to our youth groups all the time.

 

[River Jordan]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest he is probably saying what most of us believers say, and that is men are imperfect.

I don't think he intended such malice in that paragraph.

I don't know how else "it's all a big sham" was supposed to come across when it's said in the context of "I don't trust any scientists". If it was about all mankind, does he not trust anyone?

This isn't relevant to the addressed statement. The man said that man's understanding is perpetually changing, and it is. He also said that the realm of knowledge that we aren't aware of is larger than the knowledge we are aware of. It is. Even Einstein has admitted this in his writings, never mind what his position on the matter of faith or God.

We'll just have to disagree on that I guess.

As for the "job," it must satisfy our own souls as to whether we believe the conclusions we arrive at. To "trust in others" is to delegate out to others what someone should be doing for themselves.

Our life is our responsibility. We should be diligent enough to ensure we are believing what is true and not believing anything anyone tells us without verifying it ourself within reasonable standards.


This wasn't addressed to me, no... but I felt compelled to offer my opinions, so I'm not speaking nor interjecting for Dan1988 per se. Just volunteering my thoughts.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[River Jordan]

False misrepresentations of science is the name of the game. It is creationists best card. Sell content today, make some cash. And when kids feel violated and mislead, just ask for forgiveness later.

The good thing is, at least for now it's died down a lot. About a dozen years ago when I was still in grad school kids used to bring me young-earth stuff almost every week. Now it's maybe once or twice every few months.

Unfortunately though, it's still as shady as it's always been.

 

[Job 33:6]

The good thing is, at least for now it's died down a lot. About a dozen years ago when I was still in grad school kids used to bring me young-earth stuff almost every week. Now it's maybe once or twice every few months.

Unfortunately though, it's still as shady as it's always been.

Yup. I remember those days. YEC ministries gotten whipped over the years, but some things never change. It's been 15+ years for me, 15 years of young people expressing betrayal. Some walk away from the church, some deconstruct and go to different denominations or churches.

Thankfully, the truth doesn't always need to be loud (something YEC ministries are good at), rather it simply needs time.

 

[River Jordan]

This is childish, slander, and unnecessary. Like I just said in a previous post, literally moments ago, there are liars in every camp. Honest and dishonest atheists and believers and even agnostics.

Here's some dishonesty.

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ernst Haeckel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did you notice anything about those, like how long ago they took place? If young-earth creationists have to keep dredging up stuff like that from over 100 years ago, isn't that kind of a ringing endorsement of evolutionary biology? Surely if fraud and dishonesty were an issue in the field they'd have lots more recent examples to cite, right?

And to boot, the latter of the two frauds is a longstanding one, not a "oopsie" and fixed. Here's Jonathan Wells take on when he noticed something was "off" while studying at Berkeley.

Survival of the Fakest

[Originally appeared in the The American Spectator – December 2000/January 2001. PDF Version.] If you had asked me during my years studying science at Berkeley whether or not I believed what I read in my science textbooks, I would have responded much as any of my fellow students: puzzled that such a

iconsofevolution.com

Unfortunately Wells is one of the worst creationists when it comes to misrepresenting science. He's been corrected on his material, such as Haeckel's drawings and peppered moths, many times but he just doesn't seem to care.

If you want dishonest for "believers" to "be fair" I'll just point to Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar.... anyone disputing that isn't sane.

Let's not do that whole calling one group this and another group that thing. I have people I respect in both camps and this is not ok to do towards any group because not everyone in those groups are liars, full stop.

The difference I've seen is how in science once a fraud is exposed it's abandoned and the perpetrator is forever discredited, but in young-earth creationism that seems to rarely be the case, such as with J. Wells.

 

[River Jordan]

Yup. I remember those days. YEC ministries gotten whipped over the years, but some things never change. It's been 15+ years for me, 15 years of young people expressing betrayal. Some walk away from the church, some deconstruct and go to different denominations or churches.

Thankfully, the truth doesn't always need to be loud (something YEC ministries are good at), rather it simply needs time.

That's where I feel like I can play an important role by trying to show the kids that the YEC's behaviors aren't reflective of all of us, and they don't have to accept the "it's either science or scripture" terms many YECs try and impose.

Unfortunately I've also had a few kids throw up their hands, say (about YECs) "they're all a pack of liars", and leave, never to be seen in church again. It breaks my heart.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Just curious as to how ape-like your versions of Adam and Eve are, and when in the lineage did they appear?

Since this is one of my favorite subjects, I would be happy to play along. I am an old-earth creationist who accepts the science and history of evolution, so I'm probably a suitable target for your questions.

How ape-like are your versions of Adam and Eve? Well, I believe they lived around 6,000 years ago, so they were anatomically modern humans along with everyone else alive back then. And we belong to the family Hominidae (great apes), as do chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. So, we're about as ape-like as it gets.

When in the lineage did Adam and Eve appear? Again, they lived between 6,000 and 7,000 years ago. Geologically, that would be the Northgrippian Age in the Holocene Epoch. Archaeologically, this would have been around the start of the Chalcolithic Age. Homo sapiens were the only extant human species at that time, so that's the lineage in which Adam and Eve appeared.

I don't really want to get into a "well that's just wrong" dialogue, but I simply can't fathom how Genesis can be meshed together with evolution and it not be vaporized as far as the story-line and principles of sin, the obvious allusions by Christ and Paul that Adam and Eve were the first humans and according to the book they weren't "preceded" by monkeys, but were made directly by God.

That is one heck of a run-on sentence.

In my view, at least, Genesis and evolution aren't meshed together. Evolution refers to natural history which spans hundreds of millions of years, while Genesis refers to redemptive history dawning on Earth roughly 6,000 years ago. These are categorically distinct, not meshed and certainly not conflated. Keeping these categories distinct is how one avoids vaporizing the narrative threads of redemptive history that are interwoven throughout scripture.

Both Christ and Paul can allude to Adam because he really existed, really had federal headship of humanity, really fell, and so on. And, as I understand the argument made by Swamidass, he could have been created do novo by God and placed in the garden of Eden, with him and his wife being our first parents genealogically (but not genetically)—and genealogies is what scripture deals in.

But Adam and Eve were preceded by non-human ancestors, though, even in a scenario where they were created de novo by God—an act that didn't erase billions of years of natural history.

Then there is the whole "death" being there for thousands of years before Adam and Eve in the evolution narrative. Why tell them they would "die" if that was the default scenario?

Because it wasn't the default scenario. The death that Adam and Eve experienced as a result of sin was the first of its kind, and they surely died that very day.

When is the breathing of life into Adam in the evolutionary allegorical version? ... Then there is Satan himself, and he must love this idea of making allegory out of his rebellion and trickery because then he gets to hide behind the extremely well worn narrative presented by Satanists and Luciferians that he is really just a "force" or "idea" and there isn't really any "enemy" that God has, but rather the principle that exists in people.

This one I can't answer because I don't have an "evolutionary allegorical version" of Genesis. That is a question for someone who does. In my view, the natural history of evolution had already unfolded by the time we get to the redemptive history unfolding on Earth in Genesis. Moreover, I subscribe to Reformed theology, which doesn't minimize Satan at all.

Why would God make specific categories of things in their full forms in the account, but in evolution everything is a string-line of progressions?

Because, at least in my view, those are categorically distinct events. There is no conflict because what God is doing in Genesis is altogether different from his providential governance of natural history leading up to it. To me, it's a bit like asking why God "knits" us together in the womb but in science everything develops through "biological processes" (i.e., no knitting detected).

Why would it say "and the evening and morning were the second day"?

Because that was a common idiom back then for marking the conclusion of a daily work phase. It doesn't refer to a 24-hour period, but rather a closing formula for that activity. This provides a hint as to why the seventh day lacks the usual closure, because what took place on that day has continued without interruption ever since.

I just don't see anyone alluding to morning and evening to describe a one thousand year period.

Me neither.

Lastly, verse 14 of chapter 1 specifically lists both periods of time, days and years, and so what would years be if "days = years." ?

Days do not equal years (or millennia), so... I have no idea.

My curiosity is stirred by the idea that somehow God made man but not from dust, rather from monkeys, and somehow that fits in Genesis.

If you are addressing evolution, then that is a strawman, which suggests a bad faith argument. Literally nobody believes humans came from monkeys (whether by God or not). Monkeys followed a different evolutionary path from Hominidae, but we share a common ancestor over 25 million years ago—long before there were monkeys.

I think someone has to re-write the account differently to include the evolutionary narrative.

Doing that would be one heck of a category error—and entirely unnecessary.

How do you accommodate for such discrepancies? If I may.

By maintaining that categorical distinction I mentioned.

 

[Platte]

So that's the YEC response? When you're in the womb, that's not technically you and you aren't aging. Oh but when you're born, that's when you actually begin aging because that's your birthday?

So when the Earth is formless, for whatever reason it's not actually aging, but then when God begins giving it form, that's when it's aging starts?

By that logic, everyone would be pro abortion because babies don't actually exist until they're born.

YECs have solved the abortion debate. Don't worry, the baby is formless and hasn't been born yet. It hasn't actually been aging yet because it hasn't been born. Therefore, abortion is fine.

When did Adam begin aging? Seems like a good question.

 

[Job 33:6]

When did Adam begin aging? Seems like a good question.

The terms tohu wa bohu, and a review of what the terms mean and how they're used, would help us answer that. When we look at scripture, we find that these terms do not suggest a lack of material existence. But rather, they say something about the condition that the object is in.

Tohu is used 20 times in the Bible.

Genesis 1:2
Deuteronomy 32:10
1 Samuel 12:21 x2
Job 6:18
Job 12:24
Job 26:7
Psalm 107:40
Isaiah 24:10
Isaiah 29:21
Isaiah 34:11
Isaiah 40:17
Isaiah 40:23
Isaiah 41:29
Isaiah 44:9
Isaiah 44:18
Isaiah 45:19
Isaiah 49:4
Isaiah 59:4 and
Jeremiah 4:23

And what we see when we review these passages are that, the term moreso relates to purpose or meaning or function, than it does an actual materialistic formlessness.

So for example:
Isaiah 40:17 ESV
[17] All the nations are as nothing before him, they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.

The "nothing" here isn't saying that the nations are space-time voids of emptiness. Rather they are "nothing" in the sense of being worthless or meaningless.

Deuteronomy 32:10 ESV
[10] “He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

A desert land, in the howling waste of the wilderness.

Again, it's not empty space. It's just a place of worthless meaninglessness.

A third example:
Jeremiah 4:23-26 ESV
[23] I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. [24] I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. [25] I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled. [26] 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.

Again, it's not that the earth wasn't there. God is looking down on it. There were mountains. There were birds that had fled. There was a desert, the cities were in ruin.

Again, it's not that the earth was not there. It was there. It was just meaningless, worthless. Wasteland. Nothing meaningful or productive.

So when we go back to Genesis, with this understanding of tohu in mind:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

You see, the earth is there.

It's just worthless. And God takes that worthless earth, and creates it into something good. Tohu wa bohu, formless and empty. And God takes it and gives it form (on days 1-3) and then God fills it (days 4-6) and then by the end of the 6 days, it is very good. Meaningful, purposeful, and no longer empty because it's filled with animals (and people).

So with that perspective in mind, we can then ask, what is the age of the earth in the Bible? And the answer is, the text doesn't actually say.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

When God created it, or went to create it, began to create it, it was [already] tohu wa bohu.

In the beginning in which God created the heavens and the earth, is another way some have explained this. In the beginning of God creating...

The earth was. And different translations word this differently to try to make the Hebrew make sense in English. Because Hebrew doesn't have a clean 1:1 English match.

 

[Zceptre]

That is one heck of a run-on sentence.

Lol... as are some of the quotes of many famous men I tend to quote. Large thoughts need large containers and sometimes a separate sentence simply won't suffice. In the realm of concepts, grammar takes a back seat.

But Adam and Eve were preceded by non-human ancestors, though, even in a scenario where they were created de novo by God—an act that didn't erase billions of years of natural history.

While I would adamantly disagree, I will give you the credit of the best response I've received to date from opposing views. I can certainly admit it would take a much more detailed and in depth discussion to omit such a stance and asserting it as invalid without the intricate details would be lazy on my part here. Bravo there, rebuttal withheld temporarily for time constraints.

Because it wasn't the default scenario. The death that Adam and Eve experienced as a result of sin was the first of its kind, and they surely died that very day.

Curious me, what kind of death was it prior to the kind we are aware of today? That being termination of physical bodily apparatus.

Because, at least in my view, those are categorically distinct events. There is no conflict because what God is doing in Genesis is altogether different from his providential governance of natural history leading up to it. To me, it's a bit like asking why God "knits" us together in the womb but in science everything develops through "biological processes" (i.e., no knitting detected).

Are you suggesting that God created one way prior to Genesis and took a more direct approach in the Genesis account?

Knitting would be a base level description of a process beyond the author's full understanding. Similar to when an individual who is coding (software development) says he is "cooking" something. While most people don't know how to code, we do understand he is building things with information such as blueprints do etc. We also know he isn't cooking food on the pc. So, I feel the need to ask what the events pre and post Genesis would be and wouldn't the "pre" events be dictated by men's interpretations of archeological findings?

Moreover, I subscribe to Reformed theology, which doesn't minimize Satan at all.

I'm glad to hear this. I have a bit more first hand experience there than I would like, and one can't really transfer that or offer evidence for it. When people think the world they live in is "generally good" they are more susceptible to evil and evil beings, especially when they can't see them. (Unawareness = vulnerability)

Because that was a common idiom back then for marking the conclusion of a daily work phase.

So you are interpreting this as a figure of speech. So what determines when a descriptive sentence is literal or figurative? Wouldn't that carry over into a figurative "serpent" rather than a literal one? The same for the trees in the garden, the forbidden fruit, etc? Wouldn't the rest of the book (Genesis) be filled with figurative speech when referencing time if that were the case? When the flood is recorded for example, it is very precise and records things in a very literal way. Are we saying then this is a special case scenario in the beginning of Genesis according to your view?

Days do not equal years (or millennia), so... I have no idea.

This is kind of what I mean. When the text, within the context itself, spells out definitions for time periods, wouldn't the author be expecting you to use the measurements according to the specifications he prescribed within the account? This is what leads me to take this account more literal even if it seems hard for a mere human's imagination. (Such as a man surviving after eaten by a fish for 3 days? I believe this as well though, parallels with this part of the story in that it isn't "typical" for people to readily accept as believable.) Certainly God showing up in the flesh, being crucified, and raising to life the third day supersedes the account in Genesis being a week long event by a long shot. This is, in my estimations, affected by things from without the text itself, and seemingly to me change the way people are perceiving the given information based on those extra-textual details they believe.

If you are addressing evolution, then that is a strawman, which suggests a bad faith argument. Literally nobody believes humans came from monkeys (whether by God or not). Monkeys followed a different evolutionary path from Hominidae, but we share a common ancestor over 25 million years ago—long before there were monkeys.

Lol.. facepalm. Brother, do waht? I will just resolve to request a simplified breakdown of what this is referring to. Did God use dust or monkeys (dna etc?), was he following similar blueprints, what in the text suggests this was there or are we pulling from archeology at this point? Etc.

Doing that would be one heck of a category error—and entirely unnecessary.

I could elaborate on what I mean here, but I will post-pone that until some of these lesser concepts are fleshed out and discussed before I incline to do so.

By maintaining that categorical distinction I mentioned.

I do believe the above inquiries are what you are referring to here, so I don't think I need to ask "what distinction," but if I'm wrong feel free to correct me on that.



Apart from the main discussion, nice signature. Well said.