6,000 Years?

Job 33:6 · Jun 30, 2025

Platte said:
How about an anti-Christian site and Science loving website

Topography - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What I described plainly and simply and logically explains the context.

Well that's just picking and choosing. How do you know that its use isnt suggesting an earth that is vain or a wasteland?

Platte · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
Well that's just picking and choosing. How do you know that its use isnt suggesting an earth that is vain or a wasteland?

Context

Job 33:6 · Jun 30, 2025

Platte said:
Context

An anti-christian science Wikipedia page is how you determine context?

BelieveItOarKnot · Jun 30, 2025

Jerry N. said:
6000 years from Adam to the present seems to be verified. What happened before that is the present topic of discussion.

Protology scriptures are not locked and loaded to literal 24 hour earth days, the general observation

Platte · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
An anti-christian science Wikipedia page is how you determine context?

Context was the answer to your question: its use isnt suggesting an earth that is vain or a wasteland?

The wikipedia page was just the first Google result for definition of Topography

Job 33:6 · Jun 30, 2025

Platte said:
Context was the answer to your question: its use isnt suggesting an earth that is vain or a wasteland?

The wikipedia page was just the first Google result for definition of Topography

I think that its use may be. I'm wondering why you're negating these possibilities. I mean, obviously wiki isn't an adequate source for old testament context. It's written, as you've said, based on things like secular sciences. The Bible doesn't say that the earth was without topography. Rather it says that it was tohu.

I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong either. But I think there very well could be more to the topic.

Platte · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
I think that its use may be. I'm wondering why you're negating these possibilities. I mean, obviously wiki isn't an adequate source for old testament context. It's written, as you've said, based on things like secular sciences. The Bible doesn't say that the earth was without topography. Rather it says that it was tohu.

I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong either. But I think there very well could be more to the topic.

The context was - the earth was completely covered with water.....the only thing I'm aware of that would cause that is topography....what type of topography....one where there is no topography....so everything would be flat...the surface of the earth would have no form to it.

The only thing I know that would then allow the water to separate and dry land to appear would be to add topography....

Context.

AI Overview
The phrase "the desert has no form" speaks to the common perception of deserts as vast, empty spaces lacking distinct features or boundaries. This idea can be interpreted in several ways:
1. Literal Absence of Life and Order:
Deserts are characterized by extreme conditions with little to no moisture and minimal vegetation.
This lack of life and the effects of weathering can result in landscapes that appear barren and formless, like vast sand dunes or flat, stony plains.

Job 33:6 · Jun 30, 2025

Platte said:
The context was - the earth was completely covered with water.....

Ok.

Platte said:
the only thing I'm aware of that would cause that is topography

Or maybe just a lot of water. What's wrong with this other option?

Platte · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
Ok.

Or maybe just a lot of water. What's wrong with this other option?

No context to it

Job 33:6 · Jul 1, 2025

Platte said:
No context to it

Sure there is. Ancient Near East context.

Platte · Jul 1, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
Sure there is. Ancient Near East context.

There is no Bibilical/Scriptural context

Job 33:6 · Jul 1, 2025

Platte said:
There is no Bibilical/Scriptural context

I just gave you strongs concordance (a listing of all uses of tohu in the Bible and it's definition). And, the text of Genesis describes the gathering of water. It doesn't say anything about rising mountains.

Genesis 1:2, 7, 9-10 NRSV
[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.
[7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Lots of talk about lots of water. No mention of mountains rising.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 1, 2025

Platte said:
There is no Bibilical/Scriptural context

The Biblical literature, like all literature, has always been bathed in contexts because it was born in contexts and not in a vacuum. Have you never had the chance to read a Christian book on Biblical exegesis or hermeneutics?

2PhiloVoid · Jul 1, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
I just gave you strongs concordance (a listing of all uses of tohu in the Bible and it's definition). And, the text of Genesis describes the gathering of water. It doesn't say anything about rising mountains.

Genesis 1:2, 7, 9-10 NRSV
[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.
[7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Lots of talk about lots of water. No mention of mountains rising.

I think the problem here is that some folks simply haven't been introduced to the historical, Ancient Near Eastern background information which, if they learn about it, puts some 'feet' on the problem of interpretive obscurity. There be lots of talk about water; and sometimes mountains do rise out of it. Lots of them.

Job 33:6 · Jul 1, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
I think the problem here is that some folks simply haven't been introduced to the historical, Ancient Near Eastern background information which, if they learn about it, puts some 'feet' on the problem of interpretive obscurity. There be lots of talk about water; and sometimes mountains do rise out of it. Lots of them.

Honestly, I think that a lot of people don't actually care about...they don't really care about the Bible. Their theological constructions take priority over hermeneutics and text criticism.

As though it's more important to have a firm theology, than it is to actually acknowledge what the Bible is talking about or to think critically about its content.

Like that other guy arguing for a literal Adam and Eve. It doesn't matter that snakes do not talk, that women aren't made of rib bones, that the sky doesn't have windows in it that open and close to release water (gen 7:11 and 8:2).

Anything that even remotely challenges literalist theology must automatically be denied. And every detail must be "true".

Then when you point out parables of Jesus, and stories that are not literal history but are still simultaneously true...

Well that's just subjectively not good enough for them.

And to that I say, well good luck not becoming an atheist. Because anyone who actually studies the Bible will inevitably reach that point. And they'll have to choose.

The Bible tells its own story. Literalist apologists argue for literalism to defend the Bible (and to defend their own beliefs system). Whereas on the other side of the table, we can just sit back and let the text speak for itself. There is nothing to defend, we just merely need to look at it and see it for what it is.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 1, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
Honestly, I think that a lot of people don't actually care about...they don't really care about the Bible. Their theological constructions take priority over hermeneutics and text criticism.

I agree. But from what I've seen among various Christians, as I'm sure you have as well, this is how they're taught to think in their local churches.

Of course, I also understand 'why' they might be taught the way they are taught. Some folks might not be able to understand, incorporate or even handle the larger historical truths. It's not always the outcome of a cultic teaching praxis by a pastor. Sometimes, pastors realize some individuals in their congregations just can get that far with theology.

Job 33:6 said:
As though it's more important to have a firm theology, than it is to actually acknowledge what the Bible is talking about or to think critically about its content.

Yes, I agree.

Job 33:6 said:
Like that other guy arguing for a literal Adam and Eve. It doesn't matter that snakes do not talk, that women aren't made of rib bones, that the sky doesn't have windows in it that open and close to release water (gen 7:11 and 8:2).

Anything that even remotely challenges literalist theology must automatically be denied. And every detail must be "true".

Then when you point out parables of Jesus, and stories that are not literal history but are still simultaneously true...

Well that's just subjectively not good enough for them.

And to that I say, well good luck not becoming an atheist. Because anyone who actually studies the Bible will inevitably reach that point. And they'll have to choose.

The Bible tells its own story. Literalist apologists argue for literalism to defend the Bible (and to defend their own beliefs system). Whereas on the other side of the table, we can just sit back and let the text speak for itself. There is nothing to defend, we just merely need to look at it and see it for what it is.

Well, as I've attempted to hint at without wacking people over the head, some folks have additional conceptual (and mental) challenges that play a part in how they interpret the Bible and assume it "could only be" structured. You and I also have to take this additional modern psycho-social situation into account as a part of our attempt to 'interpret' the Bible and share our findings.

I will say, though, I think you do a pretty good job. You bring so much depth and apparent knowledge to the table for people to tap their toes in, if only they'd give it a chance. For my part, I'm on the same page with you and I'm sure if we were to compare notes, we'd line up in our respective interpretive praxis fairly closely.

Platte · Jul 1, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
I just gave you strongs concordance (a listing of all uses of tohu in the Bible and it's definition). And, the text of Genesis describes the gathering of water. It doesn't say anything about rising mountains.

Genesis 1:2, 7, 9-10 NRSV
[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.
[7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Lots of talk about lots of water. No mention of mountains rising.

Always interesting what a little topography can do.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 1, 2025

Platte said:
Always interesting what a little topography can do.

That's not a bad start. But I have something like the following in mind as a beginning (but not an ending) interpretive point. There's a lot more than just this small piece from Tim Mackie and friends. And this is the sort of additional context(s) that @Job 33:6 and I are trying to share:

We Studied Dragons in the Bible (Here’s What We Found) - Bible Project

Platte · Jul 1, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
The Biblical literature, like all literature, has always been bathed in contexts because it was born in contexts and not in a vacuum. Have you never had the chance to read a Christian book on Biblical exegesis or hermeneutics?

There are many differences between non fictionional literature and fictionional literature. I don't blend the 2.

Here is a simplistic (child like) explanation of the difference

https://makeheadway.com/blog/fiction-vs-nonfiction/

Job 33:6 · Jul 1, 2025

Platte said:
Always interesting what a little topography can do.

Ok. So I reference biblical concordance, definitions and use of tohu throughout the Bible. I even share numerous passages in Genesis that specifically talk about the deep and waters above and below, and waters being gathered. Water above and below, all around, deep etc.

And you reference...what? A random YouTube video?

6,000 Years?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Rom 11:32-God bound everyone to disobedience so...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Critically Copernican

Critically Copernican

Well-Known Member

Critically Copernican

Well-Known Member

Critically Copernican

We Studied Dragons in the Bible (Here’s What We Found) - Bible Project​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

We Studied Dragons in the Bible (Here’s What We Found) - Bible Project