6,000 Years?

[2PhiloVoid]

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

I've decided to casually answer your very first question, just because you were kind enough to ask.

My versions of Adam and Eve? I can't say that I have a version of them since, as I've said previously, I'm an evolutionist and deep timer. And this means that I don't attempt to merge evolutionary science on the one hand with ancient prophetic biblical writing on the other. In my mind, each of these two paradigms stands alone and serves a separate, nuanced and distinct purpose. I'm not going to mix them together or try to make one fill in the gaps of the other any more than I'd attempt to mix the thought of Aristotle and Ptolemy with that of Copernicus and Galileo.

How many lashings with a wet noodle will I be receiving today for saying this?

 

[Job 33:6]

I've decided to casually answer your very first question, just because you were kind enough to ask.

My versions of Adam and Eve? I can't say that I have a version of them since, as I've said previously, I'm an evolutionist and deep timer. And this means that I don't attempt to merge evolutionary science on the one hand with ancient prophetic biblical writing on the other. In my mind, each of these two paradigms stands alone and serves a separate, nuanced and distinct purpose. I'm not going to mix them together or try to make one fill in the gaps of the other any more than I'd attempt to mix the thought of Aristotle and Ptolemy with that of Copernicus and Galileo.

How many lashings with a wet noodle will I be receiving today for saying this?

Haha, a wet noodle.

 

[Platte]

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.

Pretty silly. The Bible teaches that all of creation took 6 days to complete. There is nothing in the Bible that teaches what you just said. You are mearly taking words that you can construe that way. But that concept is not taught anywhere in the Bible to back you up. It’s actually silly. Why would you even think like that. The earth and all of creation was created -6000 years ago. Even clearly supported by recorded History

 

[Platte]

I've decided to casually answer your very first question, just because you were kind enough to ask.

My versions of Adam and Eve? I can't say that I have a version of them since, as I've said previously, I'm an evolutionist and deep timer. And this means that I don't attempt to merge evolutionary science on the one hand with ancient prophetic biblical writing on the other. In my mind, each of these two paradigms stands alone and serves a separate, nuanced and distinct purpose. I'm not going to mix them together or try to make one fill in the gaps of the other any more than I'd attempt to mix the thought of Aristotle and Ptolemy with that of Copernicus and Galileo.

How many lashings with a wet noodle will I be receiving today for saying this?

Haha, Evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

Pretty silly. The Bible teaches that all of creation took 6 days to complete. There is nothing in the Bible that teaches what you just said. You are mearly taking words that you can construe that way. But that concept is not taught anywhere in the Bible to back you up. It’s actually silly. Why would you even think like that. The earth and all of creation was created -6000 years ago. Even clearly supported by recorded History

Yes, 6 days to complete. Days 1-3 involve God giving form to the heavens and the earth. Days 4-6 involve filling those spaces. Tohu (days 1-3) and bohu (days 4-6). 6 days of creation.

But as stated several times before, the text never says how long the Earth was formless before the 6 days that God created the heavens and The Earth

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.

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Haha, Evolution.

I'm glad someone finds it amusing.

 

[Zceptre]

I've decided to casually answer your very first question, just because you were kind enough to ask.

My versions of Adam and Eve? I can't say that I have a version of them since, as I've said previously, I'm an evolutionist and deep timer. And this means that I don't attempt to merge evolutionary science on the one hand with ancient prophetic biblical writing on the other. In my mind, each of these two paradigms stands alone and serves a separate, nuanced and distinct purpose. I'm not going to mix them together or try to make one fill in the gaps of the other any more than I'd attempt to mix the thought of Aristotle and Ptolemy with that of Copernicus and Galileo.

How many lashings with a wet noodle will I be receiving today for saying this?

I appreciate the gesture. I know I seem a bit rigid and course at times, but I have some velvet on the hammer.

The only thing that perplexes me is that these two things must in fact coincide at a point in time. The only reasonable conclusion to assuming there were millions of anything (as it isn't included in the Biblical account) is to accompany the text with an opinion formed from the words of people other than God.

Now... with that being said, I don't expect everyone to know the Bible is the Word of God out of the gate, a new believer for example will have their time frame of establishing that it is reliable and God wrote it. I personally hold the only way to do this is to verify it through study and prayer, that is, a relationship where one recognizes God's undeniable involvement in their life and His leading them when they search the Scriptures and spend time in prayer with Him. Keeping a prayer journal has shocked many people as to how active God really is in our lives to our requests and cries for help.

The accuracy of the text is in question to a person who has not put a significant quantity of time in validating the things God has said in it that actually can be validated. I find much opposition to it, and yet they always seem to fall to the wayside in the end and God's book stands vindicated.

I can certainly understand people's opinions being swayed and influenced by science and people's opinions in the field, as mine was (involuntarily) at a very tender young age, and it was an extremely strong grip whether I liked it or not. It had me convinced that there might actually be some validity to the claim, and even if I consciously disagreed, I could feel the subconscious magnetism attempting to pull me in its direction.

Over the years, I've checked into quite literally anything and everything that was told to me, by both men, and God (the Bible). I'm ruthless and relentless and I dig very deep and collect a mountain of stuff until I find the good and bad for both sides and then I analyzed it and concluded. Mind you, I was collecting far more information than I could organize and file away over time, so "sharing" my "work" has not been an option. I was too busy diving into the next ocean of concepts and claims to be concerned with "documentation of findings." (I also wasn't very organized with large data sets and did not have the computing power nor storage space to hold it all at the time.)

If people want to believe in evolution that is fine by me, I don't want to patronize anyone for believing anything. There is a judgment and I'm praying for everyone before we get there, including myself! But they have to admit it didn't come from the text of the Bible, or I have a big issue with intellectual honesty/dishonesty.

I also don't see how they could be separated, aside from the protocol of making allegory of the Genesis account. I do understand that people have a hard time envisioning God creating the world in 6 literal days, but using our personal limitations to interpret scripture at this point in my journey seems an extremely poor modus operandi with regard to taking in information God wanted to convey to us. God is fully capable of communicating basic concepts, and while He used metaphors and allegory to describe things that are beyond our capacity to grasp, days, weeks, and year measurements of time don't seem "out of reach" to our understanding and I don't see him stating days without meaning "days."

When the account says "from dust," it is obviously referencing clay, and we observe our bodies reverting back into the fundamental elements that are in the Earth. I suppose I'm looking for people to say, "yes, I take part of my understanding of Genesis from the information I have learned in scientific fields and from scientific people."

It seems to me, just my very humble opinion, that when things are "hard to believe" we tend to supplement the story with whatever other observations we have found, or other people have found. I'm not saying I haven't done this, rather, I'm saying I have done this and so I know about it from first hand experience. When God says it was 6 days, we say "well, you must mean years." When God says the Sun stood still in the sky, we say "well, God, now see, that isn't possible, you must mean the Earth stood still." When God says angels meddled with mankind and made some weird stuff that was gigantic with extra fingers AND toes, we say "ok God, now we are getting into fairy tales." When God says the donkey spoke out loud with its mouth, we say "ok God, you are pushing your limits here, everyone knows donkeys don't talk." We don't give God the benefit of the doubt and dig with that frame of mind, but rather we subject what God said to our own understanding first.

There is a massive, massive list of things people will consider "outlandish" to believe in the Bible. I see Genesis in this very category of "outlandish" things to believe, and it seems to me it is because people told us something contrary. I've been here 39 years, and I know they are lying to me about 1975 and 1979 and 1945 and 1913... I've caught them more times than I can count... not to mention anything before it. I've yet to find a single instance where God's account in the Bible told me a lie. I had trouble with some of the "outlandish" things myself when I was younger, but over time I've never found a passage that He didn't reveal to me was extremely accurate and true. The book of Daniel for example, a large percentage of people in historical studies claim that it can't be written when it was claimed to have been written, and that someone wrote it after, because it predicted events so accurately before they happened pertaining to empires. I say nonsense... God is proving He doesn't exaggerate and can see the future and told someone about things prior to their passing through an angel. Is it impossible or "outlandish?" Sure it is, if we don't know God's Word to be super meticulous and have full faith it is His words conveyed through men. Then... it needs supplemental information or explanations.

Faith does need a starting point. In a relationship you don't trust someone if they break that trust, but I've never caught God's Word in a lie, or a lie in God's Word rather. The longer I dig and study and check on people and the Bible, the Bible has been far more solid. It has taken upwards of 20 years to get to this point to the degree I'm at now, and I am relentless about it, but I will stake my life on this book called the Bible down to the tiny details.

Now, with respect to you separating the two as you are stating that you do, if I may somewhat impose, does this mean that God plays no direct creation role in one sense prior to Genesis, and another more direct role within the Genesis account concerning Adam and Eve, for example... when God "took a rib" (rib / half / no quarrel about the method per se) and made "skins" for them etc, are we saying that God evolved the world and then stepped into the Garden to "play in the sand first hand" so to speak in your conclusions?

Finally... I have no wet noodles. But you may get lacerated by string cheese today if you get out of line though, sir.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I appreciate the gesture. I know I seem a bit rigid and course at times, but I have some velvet on the hammer.

The only thing that perplexes me is that these two things must in fact coincide at a point in time. The only reasonable conclusion to assuming there were millions of anything (as it isn't included in the Biblical account) is to accompany the text with an opinion formed from the words of people other than God.

Fortunately, these two things are different paradigms belonging to two completely different eras in human history and involving different praxis and historiography, so I tend not to see the supposed logical conflict that so many Christians and Skeptics apparently see. But I do understand the contention.

I just hope some folks will give me a little interpretive leeway so we each respectively go about working through our understanding of the the Christian Faith as best we can.

Now... with that being said, I don't expect everyone to know the Bible is the Word of God out of the gate, a new believer for example will have their time frame of establishing that it is reliable and God wrote it. I personally hold the only way to do this is to verify it through study and prayer, that is, a relationship where one recognizes God's undeniable involvement in their life and His leading them when they search the Scriptures and spend time in prayer with Him. Keeping a prayer journal has shocked many people as to how active God really is in our lives to our requests and cries for help.

I agree. Long term study, preferably interdisciplinary study, and prayer are needed where engaging the Bible is to be done.

The accuracy of the text is in question to a person who has not put a significant quantity of time in validating the things God has said in it that actually can be validated. I find much opposition to it, and yet they always seem to fall to the wayside in the end and God's book stands vindicated.

I understand your position, but sometimes you'll need to allow that other people, such as myself, will still have questions about the biblical text just like we do with science, even after having put in a significant (and even broad ranging) time of study,

I can certainly understand people's opinions being swayed and influenced by science and people's opinions in the field, as mine was (involuntarily) at a very tender young age, and it was an extremely strong grip whether I liked it or not. It had me convinced that there might actually be some validity to the claim, and even if I consciously disagreed, I could feel the subconscious magnetism attempting to pull me in its direction.

Over the years, I've checked into quite literally anything and everything that was told to me, by both men, and God (the Bible). I'm ruthless and relentless and I dig very deep and collect a mountain of stuff until I find the good and bad for both sides and then I analyzed it and concluded. Mind you, I was collecting far more information than I could organize and file away over time, so "sharing" my "work" has not been an option. I was too busy diving into the next ocean of concepts and claims to be concerned with "documentation of findings." (I also wasn't very organized with large data sets and did not have the computing power nor storage space to hold it all at the time.)

That's very interesting. It sounds like you've studied as much, as long and as widely as I have. I can appreciate the effort that other Christians like yourself put in for that level of study.

If people want to believe in evolution that is fine by me, I don't want to patronize anyone for believing anything. There is a judgment and I'm praying for everyone before we get there, including myself! But they have to admit it didn't come from the text of the Bible, or I have a big issue with intellectual honesty/dishonesty.

And it's for this reason that I tend to focus on New Testament Christology and Eschatology much, much more than I do on Old Testament issues of Origins.

I also don't see how they could be separated, aside from the protocol of making allegory of the Genesis account. I do understand that people have a hard time envisioning God creating the world in 6 literal days, but using our personal limitations to interpret scripture at this point in my journey seems an extremely poor modus operandi with regard to taking in information God wanted to convey to us. God is fully capable of communicating basic concepts, and while He used metaphors and allegory to describe things that are beyond our capacity to grasp, days, weeks, and year measurements of time don't seem "out of reach" to our understanding and I don't see him stating days without meaning "days."

When the account says "from dust," it is obviously referencing clay, and we observe our bodies reverting back into the fundamental elements that are in the Earth. I suppose I'm looking for people to say, "yes, I take part of my understanding of Genesis from the information I have learned in scientific fields and from scientific people."

It seems to me, just my very humble opinion, that when things are "hard to believe" we tend to supplement the story with whatever other observations we have found, or other people have found. I'm not saying I haven't done this, rather, I'm saying I have done this and so I know about it from first hand experience. When God says it was 6 days, we say "well, you must mean years." When God says the Sun stood still in the sky, we say "well, God, now see, that isn't possible, you must mean the Earth stood still." When God says angels meddled with mankind and made some weird stuff that was gigantic with extra fingers AND toes, we say "ok God, now we are getting into fairy tales." When God says the donkey spoke out loud with its mouth, we say "ok God, you are pushing your limits here, everyone knows donkeys don't talk." We don't give God the benefit of the doubt and dig with that frame of mind, but rather we subject what God said to our own understanding first.

There is a massive, massive list of things people will consider "outlandish" to believe in the Bible. I see Genesis in this very category of "outlandish" things to believe, and it seems to me it is because people told us something contrary. I've been here 39 years, and I know they are lying to me about 1975 and 1979 and 1945 and 1913... I've caught them more times than I can count... not to mention anything before it. I've yet to find a single instance where God's account in the Bible told me a lie. I had trouble with some of the "outlandish" things myself when I was younger, but over time I've never found a passage that He didn't reveal to me was extremely accurate and true. The book of Daniel for example, a large percentage of people in historical studies claim that it can't be written when it was claimed to have been written, and that someone wrote it after, because it predicted events so accurately before they happened pertaining to empires. I say nonsense... God is proving He doesn't exaggerate and can see the future and told someone about things prior to their passing through an angel. Is it impossible or "outlandish?" Sure it is, if we don't know God's Word to be super meticulous and have full faith it is His words conveyed through men. Then... it needs supplemental information or explanations.

Faith does need a starting point. In a relationship you don't trust someone if they break that trust, but I've never caught God's Word in a lie, or a lie in God's Word rather. The longer I dig and study and check on people and the Bible, the Bible has been far more solid. It has taken upwards of 20 years to get to this point to the degree I'm at now, and I am relentless about it, but I will stake my life on this book called the Bible down to the tiny details.

Now, with respect to you separating the two as you are stating that you do, if I may somewhat impose, does this mean that God plays no direct creation role in one sense prior to Genesis, and another more direct role within the Genesis account concerning Adam and Eve, for example... when God "took a rib" (rib / half / no quarrel about the method per se) and made "skins" for them etc, are we saying that God evolved the world and then stepped into the Garden to "play in the sand first hand" so to speak in your conclusions?

Finally... I have no wet noodles. But you may get lacerated by string cheese today if you get out of line though, sir.

I appreciate the gesture. I know I seem a bit rigid and course at times, but I have some velvet on the hammer.

The only thing that perplexes me is that these two things must in fact coincide at a point in time. The only reasonable conclusion to assuming there were millions of anything (as it isn't included in the Biblical account) is to accompany the text with an opinion formed from the words of people other than God.

Now... with that being said, I don't expect everyone to know the Bible is the Word of God out of the gate, a new believer for example will have their time frame of establishing that it is reliable and God wrote it. I personally hold the only way to do this is to verify it through study and prayer, that is, a relationship where one recognizes God's undeniable involvement in their life and His leading them when they search the Scriptures and spend time in prayer with Him. Keeping a prayer journal has shocked many people as to how active God really is in our lives to our requests and cries for help.

The accuracy of the text is in question to a person who has not put a significant quantity of time in validating the things God has said in it that actually can be validated. I find much opposition to it, and yet they always seem to fall to the wayside in the end and God's book stands vindicated.

I can certainly understand people's opinions being swayed and influenced by science and people's opinions in the field, as mine was (involuntarily) at a very tender young age, and it was an extremely strong grip whether I liked it or not. It had me convinced that there might actually be some validity to the claim, and even if I consciously disagreed, I could feel the subconscious magnetism attempting to pull me in its direction.

Over the years, I've checked into quite literally anything and everything that was told to me, by both men, and God (the Bible). I'm ruthless and relentless and I dig very deep and collect a mountain of stuff until I find the good and bad for both sides and then I analyzed it and concluded. Mind you, I was collecting far more information than I could organize and file away over time, so "sharing" my "work" has not been an option. I was too busy diving into the next ocean of concepts and claims to be concerned with "documentation of findings." (I also wasn't very organized with large data sets and did not have the computing power nor storage space to hold it all at the time.)

If people want to believe in evolution that is fine by me, I don't want to patronize anyone for believing anything. There is a judgment and I'm praying for everyone before we get there, including myself! But they have to admit it didn't come from the text of the Bible, or I have a big issue with intellectual honesty/dishonesty.

I also don't see how they could be separated, aside from the protocol of making allegory of the Genesis account. I do understand that people have a hard time envisioning God creating the world in 6 literal days, but using our personal limitations to interpret scripture at this point in my journey seems an extremely poor modus operandi with regard to taking in information God wanted to convey to us. God is fully capable of communicating basic concepts, and while He used metaphors and allegory to describe things that are beyond our capacity to grasp, days, weeks, and year measurements of time don't seem "out of reach" to our understanding and I don't see him stating days without meaning "days."

When the account says "from dust," it is obviously referencing clay, and we observe our bodies reverting back into the fundamental elements that are in the Earth. I suppose I'm looking for people to say, "yes, I take part of my understanding of Genesis from the information I have learned in scientific fields and from scientific people."

It seems to me, just my very humble opinion, that when things are "hard to believe" we tend to supplement the story with whatever other observations we have found, or other people have found. I'm not saying I haven't done this, rather, I'm saying I have done this and so I know about it from first hand experience. When God says it was 6 days, we say "well, you must mean years." When God says the Sun stood still in the sky, we say "well, God, now see, that isn't possible, you must mean the Earth stood still." When God says angels meddled with mankind and made some weird stuff that was gigantic with extra fingers AND toes, we say "ok God, now we are getting into fairy tales." When God says the donkey spoke out loud with its mouth, we say "ok God, you are pushing your limits here, everyone knows donkeys don't talk." We don't give God the benefit of the doubt and dig with that frame of mind, but rather we subject what God said to our own understanding first.

There is a massive, massive list of things people will consider "outlandish" to believe in the Bible. I see Genesis in this very category of "outlandish" things to believe, and it seems to me it is because people told us something contrary. I've been here 39 years, and I know they are lying to me about 1975 and 1979 and 1945 and 1913... I've caught them more times than I can count... not to mention anything before it. I've yet to find a single instance where God's account in the Bible told me a lie. I had trouble with some of the "outlandish" things myself when I was younger, but over time I've never found a passage that He didn't reveal to me was extremely accurate and true. The book of Daniel for example, a large percentage of people in historical studies claim that it can't be written when it was claimed to have been written, and that someone wrote it after, because it predicted events so accurately before they happened pertaining to empires. I say nonsense... God is proving He doesn't exaggerate and can see the future and told someone about things prior to their passing through an angel. Is it impossible or "outlandish?" Sure it is, if we don't know God's Word to be super meticulous and have full faith it is His words conveyed through men. Then... it needs supplemental information or explanations.

Faith does need a starting point. In a relationship you don't trust someone if they break that trust, but I've never caught God's Word in a lie, or a lie in God's Word rather. The longer I dig and study and check on people and the Bible, the Bible has been far more solid. It has taken upwards of 20 years to get to this point to the degree I'm at now, and I am relentless about it, but I will stake my life on this book called the Bible down to the tiny details.

Now, with respect to you separating the two as you are stating that you do, if I may somewhat impose, does this mean that God plays no direct creation role in one sense prior to Genesis, and another more direct role within the Genesis account concerning Adam and Eve, for example... when God "took a rib" (rib / half / no quarrel about the method per se) and made "skins" for them etc, are we saying that God evolved the world and then stepped into the Garden to "play in the sand first hand" so to speak in your conclusions?

Finally... I have no wet noodles. But you may get lacerated by string cheese today if you get out of line though, sir.

Faith does need a starting point. The interesting thing is that it might not be the same epistemological or evidential starting point for everyone, but if we encounter Christ through God's Providence, we come to Him anyway.

Have a blessed day!

 

[Platte]

I'm glad someone finds it amusing.

I saw a picture of human skulls the other day....8 of them spread out....each one tens thousands of years older then the next one...it was amazing to see how the full skull of today....gradually over time became smaller and flatter....eye sockets actually got bigger....wow. look to me like the normal progression of what happens to a full skull today over time....there was nothing evolutionary about it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I saw a picture of human skulls the other day....8 of them spread out....each one tens thousands of years older then the next one...it was amazing to see how the full skull of today....gradually over time became smaller and flatter....eye sockets actually got bigger....wow. look to me like the normal progression of what happens to a full skull today over time....there was nothing evolutionary about it.

It's amazing that one single picture can tell us all of that, isn't it?

 

[Zceptre]

Fortunately, these two things are different paradigms belonging to two completely different eras in human history and involving different praxis and historiography, so I tend not to see the supposed logical conflict that so many Christians and Skeptics apparently see. But I do understand the contention.

I just hope some folks will give me a little interpretive leeway so we each respectively go about working through our understanding of the the Christian Faith as best we can.

I have no condemnation for anyone, not even those who have made themselves enemies of God and what is good , let alone another believer. I do not understand the hardness of heart toward other people I see in much of the population that claims Christianity.

That doesn't mean to me that I don't take a strong stance against those things I believe to be untrue. Many people are offended by the attack on their ideas, and the ideology (as far as they are concerned) is their identity. It sort of indicates to me their identity is in something other than the cross, and Christ crucified making them a Son or Daughter and rather it is in their beliefs about history in general.

The paradigms belonging to two different eras in human history is your own opinion, granted I would counter with the fact that what I'm referring to is the nexus at which the two points inevitably meet. Time does not "skip" years and there are not two separate timelines with two separate worlds doing separate things, but instead at a particular point (in Genesis) there is a "POINT" where God states He acted in this world to create things, and gave us an account of it. This "point" where He stepped into the world Himself and actively began creating according to the account He gave us is the narrative that is in question. Whether it be true, or whether it be false, and if it is true then God told us there was a "formless" place here with nothing in it and being "void."

If these discrepancies are somehow addressed in your own thoughts and in your own estimations about what must have happened in the past, and your conscience is clear on the matter, that is good. But my conscience tells me there is a contradiction and God's claims seem to be questioned, altered, and even disposed of according to theories and concepts that are taught by men, and this contradiction weighs heavy on me considering its impact on anyone and everyone in humanity. I know of many atheists (I'm glad this doesn't apply to you) who are atheists simply because they believe in evolution and they cannot (like me) make sense of evolution and the Bible simultaneously.

If someone sent me a letter and told me they were in a war (lets say uncle), and they jumped clear over a tank... I would be inclined to either 1) think he was exaggerating or hallucinating, or 2) suppose that it must be true and I just don't understand the circumstances that make it seem impossible. When there are details left out (and Genesis has many omitted details) then there is a potential for what seems to be contradiction with reality. When the uncle gets home and tells me that he jumped off a one story balcony the tank was next to... the story suddenly makes complete sense and is very believable.

I see this account in Genesis the same way, and while I must admit (to my disdain lol) that I did not always believe Genesis the way I do now, I would essentially be disrespecting my uncle if I wrote back and told him that is impossible. Worse, some people would not just write to the uncle but would write the uncle off and tell him that he is crazy and not speak to him again. People are doing that to God right now, by the millions.

So now I'm the guy that believes the uncle's story (God's story) and when other people read the letter they think I'm as nuts as he is. lol

But if it did happen the way God said, and the technical details were accurate to the definitions, and we disbelieved his account on basis of other people's conceptual view of history... I just wonder what He thinks about that. Trust is the absolute number one concern God has and when we tell people something and they don't believe us, we are offended. God is above us, yes, but it seems we got that temperament from Him about what we say and whether we are believed.

God is understanding and judges us based on the heart. I think our effort is required to do justice to truth. If I thought you weren't intended towards truth I wouldn't waste the time to write this, so I think you are, but I believe we disagree on supplemental information mostly.

I understand your position, but sometimes you'll need to allow that other people, such as myself, will still have questions about the biblical text just like we do with science, even after having put in a significant (and even broad ranging) time of study,

I do understand, I certainly do. Questions are the default position and I have them still to this day, though they be different questions in nature I still have them.

I will admit God is asking us to believe some things that are kind of intense to consider, but I truly do believe He is asking us to believe Him over anyone else and what they say. I think (i know but not currently adding Scriptural evidence) that is the primary battle going on in this grand plan that is being undertaken. Abraham wasn't different for any reason other than when God spoke, Abraham believed God. Was Abraham perfect in his belief? NO... He doubted even after telling God that he believed him, and tried to make the promise happen in his own strength (this is supplemental). Ultimately, he gave up on doubting whatsoever and said "ok God, you said it, it must be true, you do it."

So then, that carries into this predicament we find ourselves in where God is telling us crazy and outlandish stories. He could have omitted the insane hard to believe stuff quite easily, but He didn't. I questioned that, why not? I feel strongly, very strongly, it is to see just how much weight we would put into his words, and just how much weight we would put into anyone else's words.

Once we say we believe the Bible is God's Word, there is a level of belief for each of us. Some think it is "mostly" accurate, and others stake their life on it. I think God wants us to ultimately stake our life on what He said is true, if we say we believe it is His words and that HE wrote it. I think that matters to Him.

People have the right to disagree with me, but that is where I stand on questions. I understand questions, but I see Abraham progressing and God didn't seem to accomplish the purpose until Abraham FULLY believed what God told Him. I think we are all in Abraham's shoes in that regard, so to speak.

That's very interesting. It sounds like you've studied as much, as long and as widely as I have. I can appreciate the effort that other Christians like yourself put in for that level of study.

Lol, you've no idea dear sir. I have sacrificed my life for the knowledge I've gained. Quite literally. It has been painful, yet worth it. I could be living la vita loca right now, but took a different route. I believe this is a war we live in, and that it is much more literal than many take it. I also have great respect for people who have put diligent time into study, which is one of the reasons why I'm taking the time to write these things, among other reasons.

And it's for this reason that I tend to focus on New Testament Christology and Eschatology much, much more than I do on Old Testament issues of Origins.

Not to jab too deeply, but I guessed. lol (Apologies, but it had to be.) I don't see it as a bad thing, I'm just being playful really. Habit.

But seriously, it seems you have great faith in an alternate sense. I could not put the concepts together and so I found in my life I had to disperse any doubts about what is or isn't and so I focused heavily on the past (to the end that I'm not as well versed in the NT Scriptures as I would like). But, I thank God that you can see the truth, as God has shown me His love is the foundation which we can believe even without the historical outline in perfect order.

He has shown me that His love is what separates Him from everything and sets Him above and apart from other religions, people, and anything else we look into. That people can "believe" in Christ through His undying love that pierces into, and through, the deepest darkness of hate and evil.

I take much more issue with people who are hateful, or ugly and disrespectful (I play too much and am a hard hitter, but don't intend this) even, than I do with people who disagree about the past. (1 Timothy 1:5)

Faith does need a starting point. The interesting thing is that it might not be the same epistemological or evidential starting point for everyone, but if we encounter Christ through God's Providence, we come to Him anyway.

Agreed.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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.

I appreciate the kind words, thank you. And I look forward to the ways in which you might challenge my view, with a sincere hope that you present something my view hasn't already accounted for.

What kind of death was it prior to the kind we are aware of today (that being termination of physical bodily apparatus)?

If you think life and death are defined only biologically, then.... well, a lot more than Genesis separates our views. My biblical world-view is comprehensively theological, including a covenantal anthropology; for me, death isn't strictly biological. This allows me to make sense of certain statements in scripture, like when Jesus said those who believes in him will never die (John 11:26), or those who keep his teaching will never experience death (8:51)—despite the fact that every believer passes away. For me, life is defined theologically and Christologically, so death is not strictly the cessation of all bodily functions. It is why Paul can say "you were dead" (Eph 2:1) to people who were clearly alive physically. It is my belief that, for all of redemptive history, death is fundamentally a covenantal condition, not just a biological event; it is covenantal estrangement from God and the imposition of judicial curse (judgment). That is what the first Adam brought into the world, and what the last Adam has undone, having abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Tim 1:10).

That is the death Adam and Eve experienced the moment they ate from the forbidden tree. They surely died, contrary to the deceptive lie of the serpent, and that death was the first of its kind. It was not the "default scenario," it was something that became a reality with the dawning of redemptive history on Earth, starting with Adam as the federal head of humanity that was now brought into covenant relation to God.

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

No, sir, that can't be what I am suggesting, because I said what God is doing in Genesis (creation) is "altogether different" from what he had been doing prior (providence). I said it's a categorical difference, not one of degree. What you described is God doing the same thing as before, only more directly.

But I should point out that it's not as if God stopped providentially governing natural processes and started doing something entirely unrelated, but rather that he began doing something of a categorically distinct kind on top of it—establishing covenantal order, function, meaning, and significance in a cosmos being commissioned to serve as God's dwelling place, with humans as covenant representatives.

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.

The analogy falters right out of the gate because, as you admit, we know that the programmer is not literally cooking. Did the Israelites of the ancient Near East know that God was not literally knitting? Perhaps not with literal hands but it sounds like that's what they genuinely believed happened (e.g., Job 10:11). Again, just as there is a categorical difference between a theological account of something and a scientific account, so there is a categorical difference between redemptive history (Genesis, 6,000 years) and natural history (evolution, billions of years). These are different categories entirely.

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?

1. What happened prior to the events of redemptive history recorded in Genesis onward? Only several billion years of natural history (i.e., a lot).

2. Yes, these things are a product of man's interpretation—as all things are. There is what God authors (scripture and nature), and there is our interpretation of it (theology and science).

So, you are interpreting this as a figure of speech. Then 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?

Identifying an expression as idiomatic doesn't mean it lacks a literal referent. It is not actually a sack and I didn't really hit it, but saying "I hit the sack" does refer to something literal: I went to bed. Idioms are simply the way people naturally speak, and recognizing one doesn't somehow mean everything else in the text is now figurative. It is simply about trying to understand the language as the original audience would have—which is what good exegesis requires.

The same logic doesn't carry over to the serpent or the trees. Why not? Because those are not idiomatic expressions in Hebrew (unless you know something I don't). It should go without saying that not every narrative element is an idiom. And the question of whether something should be taken literally, allegorically, or both (or something else) depends on genre and context—not on a slippery slope.

In the case of Genesis 1, the phrase "evening and morning" is an idiomatic formula marking the closure of a work period. They are normal days, but less than 24 hours (i.e., it was "evening and morning," not "evening to evening"). Why evening first, then morning? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that darkness was the precreation condition when God said, "Let there be light." Thus, evening and morning, the first day.

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?

Yes, which is precisely what I've done here. The author used an idiom that expresses a daily work period (which was distinct from and shorter than the daily civil period). The author could not have intended "day" to mean years or millennia, as I said (and we probably both agree), especially given the inclusion of ordinals (first, second, etc.).

This is what leads me to take this account more literal, even if it seems hard for a mere human's imagination.

Define "literal." When is a text being taken literally and when is it not?

Lol.. facepalm. Brother, do waht?

You asked whether God made man from dust or monkeys. I get the first part of the question, for Christians believe that we are made from dust by God. The second part of the question, however, is either ignorant or fallacious because, as I said, "Literally nobody believes humans came from monkeys (whether by God or not)." Not even atheists believe we came from monkeys. Nobody does.

Did God use dust or monkeys (DNA, etc.)?

Did he use dust or monkeys when he ... what?

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.

Nothing you have mentioned has addressed the distinction I am making.

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

Cheers!

 

[davetaff]

I appreciate the kind words, thank you. And I look forward to the ways in which you might challenge my view, with a sincere hope that you present something my view hasn't already accounted for.




If you think life and death are defined only biologically, then.... well, a lot more than Genesis separates our views. My biblical world-view is comprehensively theological, including a covenantal anthropology; for me, death isn't strictly biological. This allows me to make sense of certain statements in scripture, like when Jesus said those who believes in him will never die (John 11:26), or those who keep his teaching will never experience death (8:51)—despite the fact that every believer passes away. For me, life is defined theologically and Christologically, so death is not strictly the cessation of all bodily functions. It is why Paul can say "you were dead" (Eph 2:1) to people who were clearly alive physically. It is my belief that, for all of redemptive history, death is fundamentally a covenantal condition, not just a biological event; it is covenantal estrangement from God and the imposition of judicial curse (judgment). That is what the first Adam brought into the world, and what the last Adam has undone, having abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Tim 1:10).

That is the death Adam and Eve experienced the moment they ate from the forbidden tree. They surely died, contrary to the deceptive lie of the serpent, and that death was the first of its kind. It was not the "default scenario," it was something that became a reality with the dawning of redemptive history on Earth, starting with Adam as the federal head of humanity that was now brought into covenant relation to God.




No, sir, that can't be what I am suggesting, because I said what God is doing in Genesis (creation) is "altogether different" from what he had been doing prior (providence). I said it's a categorical difference, not one of degree. What you described is God doing the same thing as before, only more directly.

But I should point out that it's not as if God stopped providentially governing natural processes and started doing something entirely unrelated, but rather that he began doing something of a categorically distinct kind on top of it—establishing covenantal order, function, meaning, and significance in a cosmos being commissioned to serve as God's dwelling place, with humans as covenant representatives.




The analogy falters right out of the gate because, as you admit, we know that the programmer is not literally cooking. Did the Israelites of the ancient Near East know that God was not literally knitting? Perhaps not with literal hands but it sounds like that's what they genuinely believed happened (e.g., Job 10:11). Again, just as there is a categorical difference between a theological account of something and a scientific account, so there is a categorical difference between redemptive history (Genesis, 6,000 years) and natural history (evolution, billions of years). These are different categories entirely.




1. What happened prior to the events of redemptive history recorded in Genesis onward? Only several billion years of natural history (i.e., a lot).

2. Yes, these things are a product of man's interpretation—as all things are. There is what God authors (scripture and nature), and there is our interpretation of it (theology and science).




Identifying an expression as idiomatic doesn't mean it lacks a literal referent. It is not actually a sack and I didn't really hit it, but saying "I hit the sack" does refer to something literal: I went to bed. Idioms are simply the way people naturally speak, and recognizing one doesn't somehow mean everything else in the text is now figurative. It is simply about trying to understand the language as the original audience would have—which is what good exegesis requires.

The same logic doesn't carry over to the serpent or the trees. Why not? Because those are not idiomatic expressions in Hebrew (unless you know something I don't). It should go without saying that not every narrative element is an idiom. And the question of whether something should be taken literally, allegorically, or both (or something else) depends on genre and context—not on a slippery slope.

In the case of Genesis 1, the phrase "evening and morning" is an idiomatic formula marking the closure of a work period. They are normal days, but less than 24 hours (i.e., it was "evening and morning," not "evening to evening"). Why evening first, then morning? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that darkness was the precreation condition when God said, "Let there be light." Thus, evening and morning, the first day.




Yes, which is precisely what I've done here. The author used an idiom that expresses a daily work period (which was distinct from and shorter than the daily civil period). The author could not have intended "day" to mean years or millennia, as I said (and we probably both agree), especially given the inclusion of ordinals (first, second, etc.).




Define "literal." When is a text being taken literally and when is it not?




You asked whether God made man from dust or monkeys. I get the first part of the question, for Christians believe that we are made from dust by God. The second part of the question, however, is either ignorant or fallacious because, as I said, "Literally nobody believes humans came from monkeys (whether by God or not)." Not even atheists believe we came from monkeys. Nobody does.




Did he use dust or monkeys when he ... what?




Nothing you have mentioned has addressed the distinction I am making.




Cheers!

Hi
God said

Gen 13:16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

So God made Israel as the dust of the earth and from them came Jesus Christ the man in the image of God.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have no condemnation for anyone, not even those who have made themselves enemies of God and what is good , let alone another believer. I do not understand the hardness of heart toward other people I see in much of the population that claims Christianity.

That doesn't mean to me that I don't take a strong stance against those things I believe to be untrue. Many people are offended by the attack on their ideas, and the ideology (as far as they are concerned) is their identity. It sort of indicates to me their identity is in something other than the cross, and Christ crucified making them a Son or Daughter and rather it is in their beliefs about history in general.

The paradigms belonging to two different eras in human history is your own opinion, granted I would counter with the fact that what I'm referring to is the nexus at which the two points inevitably meet. Time does not "skip" years and there are not two separate timelines with two separate worlds doing separate things, but instead at a particular point (in Genesis) there is a "POINT" where God states He acted in this world to create things, and gave us an account of it. This "point" where He stepped into the world Himself and actively began creating according to the account He gave us is the narrative that is in question. Whether it be true, or whether it be false, and if it is true then God told us there was a "formless" place here with nothing in it and being "void."

If these discrepancies are somehow addressed in your own thoughts and in your own estimations about what must have happened in the past, and your conscience is clear on the matter, that is good. But my conscience tells me there is a contradiction and God's claims seem to be questioned, altered, and even disposed of according to theories and concepts that are taught by men, and this contradiction weighs heavy on me considering its impact on anyone and everyone in humanity. I know of many atheists (I'm glad this doesn't apply to you) who are atheists simply because they believe in evolution and they cannot (like me) make sense of evolution and the Bible simultaneously.

If someone sent me a letter and told me they were in a war (lets say uncle), and they jumped clear over a tank... I would be inclined to either 1) think he was exaggerating or hallucinating, or 2) suppose that it must be true and I just don't understand the circumstances that make it seem impossible. When there are details left out (and Genesis has many omitted details) then there is a potential for what seems to be contradiction with reality. When the uncle gets home and tells me that he jumped off a one story balcony the tank was next to... the story suddenly makes complete sense and is very believable.

I see this account in Genesis the same way, and while I must admit (to my disdain lol) that I did not always believe Genesis the way I do now, I would essentially be disrespecting my uncle if I wrote back and told him that is impossible. Worse, some people would not just write to the uncle but would write the uncle off and tell him that he is crazy and not speak to him again. People are doing that to God right now, by the millions.

So now I'm the guy that believes the uncle's story (God's story) and when other people read the letter they think I'm as nuts as he is. lol

But if it did happen the way God said, and the technical details were accurate to the definitions, and we disbelieved his account on basis of other people's conceptual view of history... I just wonder what He thinks about that. Trust is the absolute number one concern God has and when we tell people something and they don't believe us, we are offended. God is above us, yes, but it seems we got that temperament from Him about what we say and whether we are believed.

God is understanding and judges us based on the heart. I think our effort is required to do justice to truth. If I thought you weren't intended towards truth I wouldn't waste the time to write this, so I think you are, but I believe we disagree on supplemental information mostly.



I do understand, I certainly do. Questions are the default position and I have them still to this day, though they be different questions in nature I still have them.

I will admit God is asking us to believe some things that are kind of intense to consider, but I truly do believe He is asking us to believe Him over anyone else and what they say. I think (i know but not currently adding Scriptural evidence) that is the primary battle going on in this grand plan that is being undertaken. Abraham wasn't different for any reason other than when God spoke, Abraham believed God. Was Abraham perfect in his belief? NO... He doubted even after telling God that he believed him, and tried to make the promise happen in his own strength (this is supplemental). Ultimately, he gave up on doubting whatsoever and said "ok God, you said it, it must be true, you do it."

So then, that carries into this predicament we find ourselves in where God is telling us crazy and outlandish stories. He could have omitted the insane hard to believe stuff quite easily, but He didn't. I questioned that, why not? I feel strongly, very strongly, it is to see just how much weight we would put into his words, and just how much weight we would put into anyone else's words.

Once we say we believe the Bible is God's Word, there is a level of belief for each of us. Some think it is "mostly" accurate, and others stake their life on it. I think God wants us to ultimately stake our life on what He said is true, if we say we believe it is His words and that HE wrote it. I think that matters to Him.

People have the right to disagree with me, but that is where I stand on questions. I understand questions, but I see Abraham progressing and God didn't seem to accomplish the purpose until Abraham FULLY believed what God told Him. I think we are all in Abraham's shoes in that regard, so to speak.



Lol, you've no idea dear sir. I have sacrificed my life for the knowledge I've gained. Quite literally. It has been painful, yet worth it. I could be living la vita loca right now, but took a different route. I believe this is a war we live in, and that it is much more literal than many take it. I also have great respect for people who have put diligent time into study, which is one of the reasons why I'm taking the time to write these things, among other reasons.



Not to jab too deeply, but I guessed. lol (Apologies, but it had to be.) I don't see it as a bad thing, I'm just being playful really. Habit.

But seriously, it seems you have great faith in an alternate sense. I could not put the concepts together and so I found in my life I had to disperse any doubts about what is or isn't and so I focused heavily on the past (to the end that I'm not as well versed in the NT Scriptures as I would like). But, I thank God that you can see the truth, as God has shown me His love is the foundation which we can believe even without the historical outline in perfect order.

He has shown me that His love is what separates Him from everything and sets Him above and apart from other religions, people, and anything else we look into. That people can "believe" in Christ through His undying love that pierces into, and through, the deepest darkness of hate and evil.

I take much more issue with people who are hateful, or ugly and disrespectful (I play too much and am a hard hitter, but don't intend this) even, than I do with people who disagree about the past. (1 Timothy 1:5)



Agreed.

I'm glad we can agree to disagree in Christ on some of these more secondary issues, especially for those that require a robust application of Critical Thinking and evaluation beyond surface level readings or less than academic familiarity.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Hi
God said

Gen 13:16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

So God made Israel as the dust of the earth and from them came Jesus Christ the man in the image of God.

Love and Peace
Dave

Yes. And?

 

[Amo2]

The following links are to a couple of good videos in relation to the topic at hand.

The above video addresses problems with dating methods of deep timers or old earthers.

This above video is yet another regarding observations of the James Webb telescope. The James Webb seems to just keep finding anomalies in relation to present deep time scenarios. It seems formation of highly complex galaxies and even unimaginably huge black holes happened further back in time and much more rapidly than once thought. Which as I have pointed out before, is a trend among many different scientific disciplines. All of course suggestive of complexity and rapid development from the beginning by special creation, the one place none of these videos will go of course. As "modern" science is apparently so averse to God and special creation by Him. Many admit of this, most demonstrate it by never even considering or suggesting it as a possible reason for the evidence which does most certainly suggest it. As I have stated many times in many places, continued confirmed observations of greater complexity, formation, and organization further and further back in supposed time, is highly indicative of all such from the beginning. As in the kind of special creation depicted in the book of Genesis.

 

[Amo2]

I'm an evolutionist and 'deep timer,' and I while I don't mind if other, fellow Christians are YEC or not, I don't have a major problem holding evolutionary science in one hand and the Bible in the other. It's not a deal breaker for my faith.

We are all free to believe as we wish of course. Personally, I would not worship a God who not only spoke and wrote lies, but also punished people who did not acknowledge these lies and act accordingly. For God did speak the following words to and entire nation, and write them in stone for that nation as well, twice. Even punishing them when they did not obey His command to commemorate an event that really never happened.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

That is just me though. Everyone is different. I expect the God who says He does not lie but is in fact truth, not therefore to lie. So if He does, he most apparently would not be God. Certainly not to me, in any case.

 

[Amo2]

The Bible doesn't say how long the earth was formless and void before God began to create it. YEC is unbiblical.

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.

YEC is not about or concerning the amount of time the earth was a formless void. It is about and addresses this present earth which absolutely is not a formless void. A void is a space filled with nothing.

Void - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

A void is empty space, nothingness, zero, zilch. A place that's void of all life forms has no sign of animals, plants, or people.

www.vocabulary.com

void​

Share

/vɔɪd/

/vɔɪd/
IPA guide
Other forms: voided; voids; voiding; voidly

A void is empty space, nothingness, zero, zilch. A place that's void of all life forms has no sign of animals, plants, or people.

You may recognize void from the Old Testament passage describing creation: "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep." In other words, nothing was there: pure emptiness. When you void something or make it void, you make it legally invalid, and that kind of voidoften goes with null. You might tell Cinderella, "If you're not back by midnight, that arrangement with the pumpkin and the mice is null and void."

 

[FaithT]

Haha, Evolution.

Laugh if you must, but the overwhelming evidence says evolution is a fact.

 

[FaithT]

We are all free to believe as we wish of course. Personally, I would not worship a God who not only spoke and wrote lies, but also punished people who did not acknowledge these lies and act accordingly. For God did speak the following words to and entire nation, and write them in stone for that nation as well, twice. Even punishing them when they did not obey His command to commemorate an event that really never happened.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

That is just me though. Everyone is different. I expect the God who says He does not lie but is in fact truth, not therefore to lie. So if He does, he most apparently would not be God. Certainly not to me, in any case.

Personally, I would not worship a God who gave us a brain to discern all the evidence and then expected us to believe otherwise.