Young earth vs Old earth?

CoreyD said:

I believe that is one of your problems, although by no means the only one.

Click to expand...

And I believe that in fact, it is one of your problems, among others.

CoreyD said:

May I ask what changed your mind? Was it anything to do with this thread, or something else previously said?

Click to expand...

Some research...

Job 33:6 said:

Hosea 11:1 isn’t originally a prophecy about Jesus; in its own context, Hosea is looking back to the Exodus and describing how God called Israel—His “son”—out of Egypt, using their past to highlight their later unfaithfulness. Matthew quotes this verse not because Hosea predicted the Messiah, but because he uses typology, a common Jewish interpretive method where events in Israel’s history are seen as patterns that Jesus reenacts and completes. So Hosea is about Israel in its original meaning, and Matthew applies it to Jesus in a secondary, theological way—not as a literal two-fold prophecy.

Click to expand...

Can you share with us please, what source material you are using, because that is actually saying a number of things that are not in agreement with the scriptures.
It's saying...

• Scriptures such as Psalm 22:18; Psalm 78:1, 2; Psalm 91:11, 12; Isaiah 6:8-10; Isaiah 9:1, 2 are not prophetic of the Messiah, which makes Jesus and his followers out to be liars, since they all said, these prophetic utterances were fulfilled in the Messiah. John 19:23-24; Matthew 13:34-35; Matthew 4:6; Luke 4:10, 11; Matthew 13:14-15; Matthew 4:12-16; Matthew 2:15, 16... as well as his people. Romans 9:25; 1 Corinthians 15:55 (Hosea13:14); Mark 7:6; Luke 3:3-6; John 1:23 (Isaiah 40:1-5);
• Where the Greek scriptures quote the Hebrew scriptures, these were interpretations of the Jews, applying texts to someone they felt was the Messiah, and therefore the Greek scriptures are a farce, since Jesus did not really fulfill these prophecies... In fact they were not even prophesies. So...
• Jesus is a liar, and he lied when he said I told you that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 24:27, 44 “You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me." John 5:39, 46
• Luke 22:37 For the time has come for this prophecy about me to be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the rebels.’ Yes, everything written about me by the prophets will come true.” is not true. This is referring to Jerusalem - Zion.

All lies! That's what your source is saying.
...and you are agreeing, when you say this.

Lost4words said:

Some research...

Click to expand...

I'm interested, and I am sure the OP is also.
Would you mind sharing that with us.
Even if you don't want to get involved in the debate, just share it.

CoreyD said:

I'm interested, and I am sure the OP is also.
Would you mind sharing that with us.
Even if you don't want to get involved in the debate, just share it.

Click to expand...

Just search on google....plenty on there.....woof!

Lost4words said:

Just search on google....plenty on there.....woof!

Click to expand...

Lot's of interpretations are found there. I'd rather not. Thanks.

sir.dante.esq said:

Quote: "the new testament was written centuries later by different authors"
How can that be understood since each author was ultimately inspired by God the Holy Spirit? I recognize the fact that the writing styles were different according to the penman but the ultimate author is God the Holy Spirit is it not.

Click to expand...

Forgive me sir but and I agree with what you are saying... I think that was what I was struggling to say all along.

CoreyD said:

Can you share with us please, what source material you are using, because that is actually saying a number of things that are not in agreement with the scriptures.
It's saying...

• Scriptures such as Psalm 22:18; Psalm 78:1, 2; Psalm 91:11, 12; Isaiah 6:8-10; Isaiah 9:1, 2 are not prophetic of the Messiah, which makes Jesus and his followers out to be liars, since they all said, these prophetic utterances were fulfilled in the Messiah. John 19:23-24; Matthew 13:34-35; Matthew 4:6; Luke 4:10, 11; Matthew 13:14-15; Matthew 4:12-16; Matthew 2:15, 16... as well as his people. Romans 9:25; 1 Corinthians 15:55 (Hosea13:14); Mark 7:6; Luke 3:3-6; John 1:23 (Isaiah 40:1-5);
• Where the Greek scriptures quote the Hebrew scriptures, these were interpretations of the Jews, applying texts to someone they felt was the Messiah, and therefore the Greek scriptures are a farce, since Jesus did not really fulfill these prophecies... In fact they were not even prophesies. So...
• Jesus is a liar, and he lied when he said I told you that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 24:27, 44 “You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me." John 5:39, 46
• Luke 22:37 For the time has come for this prophecy about me to be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the rebels.’ Yes, everything written about me by the prophets will come true.” is not true. This is referring to Jerusalem - Zion.

All lies! That's what your source is saying.
...and you are agreeing, when you say this.

Click to expand...

New Testament citations don’t state that the Old Testament passages were originally written as prophecies about Jesus. The prophets spoke first to their own audience and context; the NT authors later applied those texts typologically or theologically to Christ. Hosea 11:1, for example, refers to Israel’s past Exodus, and Matthew reuses it in a different, Christ-centered way. The original meaning and the later theological meaning can coexist, but the later one doesn’t replace or redefine the original context.

Job 33:6 said:

New Testament citations don’t state that the Old Testament passages were originally written as prophecies about Jesus. The prophets spoke first to their own audience and context; the NT authors later applied those texts typologically or theologically to Christ. Hosea 11:1, for example, refers to Israel’s past Exodus, and Matthew reuses it in a different, Christ-centered way. The original meaning and the later theological meaning can coexist, but the later one doesn’t replace or redefine the original context.

Click to expand...

No source reference?
Okay. It's just you claiming you are right, and the Gospels, and apostolic writings are wrong.
It does sound like you, and I should have worked that out. Thanks, but it's takes quite a lot of self exaltation to take a position like that.

CoreyD said:

No source reference?
Okay. It's just you claiming you are right, and the Gospels, and apostolic writings are wrong.
It does sound like you, and I should have worked that out. Thanks, but it's takes quite a lot of self exaltation to take a position like that.

Click to expand...

You're wrong once again Corey.

It isn’t my responsibility to prove that the New Testament authors were not exegeting the Old Testament; the burden is on you for making the claim that they were doing historical-grammatical exegesis of the original contexts.

Matthew never says, “Hosea 11:1 was originally about Jesus,” nor does he indicate that Hosea intended it as a prophecy of the Messiah. Because Matthew gives no such claim, I’m not required to assume one.

What Matthew does say is that Jesus fulfilled the passage, and I accept that. But fulfillment does not automatically mean the original text was a forward-looking prediction. Matthew is using the passage typologically, not claiming Hosea wrote it as a prophecy about Christ. That distinction matters, and it’s a distinction Matthew himself never erases.

Job 33:6 said:

It's not my responsibility to show you that the NT authors were exegeting the OT. The onus is on you to show that they were.

Click to expand...

I did. However, you said nothing in response to it.
I showed that you are asserting that

• Scriptures such as Psalm 22:18; Psalm 78:1, 2; Psalm 91:11, 12; Isaiah 6:8-10; Isaiah 9:1, 2 are not prophetic of the Messiah, which makes Jesus and his followers out to be liars, since they all said, these prophetic utterances were fulfilled in the Messiah. John 19:23-24; Matthew 13:34-35; Matthew 4:6; Luke 4:10, 11; Matthew 13:14-15; Matthew 4:12-16; Matthew 2:15, 16... as well as his people. Romans 9:25; 1 Corinthians 15:55 (Hosea13:14); Mark 7:6; Luke 3:3-6; John 1:23 (Isaiah 40:1-5);
• Where the Greek scriptures quote the Hebrew scriptures, these were interpretations of the Jews, applying texts to someone they felt was the Messiah, and therefore the Greek scriptures are a farce, since Jesus did not really fulfill these prophecies... In fact they were not even prophesies. So...
• Jesus is a liar, and he lied when he said I told you that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 24:27, 44 “You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me." John 5:39, 46
• Luke 22:37 For the time has come for this prophecy about me to be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the rebels.’ Yes, everything written about me by the prophets will come true.” is not true. This is referring to Jerusalem - Zion.

I showed you that all these texts including Jesus words speak of the words of the Prophets being fulfilled at present, or future, in the Messiah or his people.

Job 33:6 said:

Did Mathew ever say "hey, just so you all know, Hosea 11:1 was originally about Jesus".

In fact, he didn't.

Click to expand...

Why did you say 'original'?
Matthew said Hosea's words were fulfilled upon the Messiah, when Joseph was told to take Jesus out of Egypt.
The fact is, when God put those words on Hosea's tongue, God is the one who had in mind the application, and for us to decide and make the claim that God meant them only for Israel in Egypt, we would have to ignore what God inspired Matthew to write, and exalt ourselves above a level of a human.
I humbly accept that God inspired Matthew to apply Hosea's words to the Messiah, because God was uttering a Messianic prophecy.

The fact is, the text in the Gospels, and the apostles writings say that the words of the prophets are fulfilled there and then, either towards the Messiah, or his people?

What you are in fact saying is that God does not use two fold prophecies, nor does he insert Messianic prophesies in the Hebrew texts, written in the Prophets and Psalms....
Did Moses really write about Jesus. Or what was that a Jewish interpretation, put as Jesus' words? John 5:39, 46

Paul quoted Hosea 13:14, as having fulfilment in the future. “Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?” 1 Corinthians 15:55
Was that a Jewish interpretation?

I leave you to what you want to do here as well.
As they say in Jamaica, "I dun wid dat."

CoreyD said:

I did. However, you said nothing in response to it.
I showed that you are asserting that

• Scriptures such as Psalm 22:18; Psalm 78:1, 2; Psalm 91:11, 12; Isaiah 6:8-10; Isaiah 9:1, 2 are not prophetic of the Messiah, which makes Jesus and his followers out to be liars, since they all said, these prophetic utterances were fulfilled in the Messiah. John 19:23-24; Matthew 13:34-35; Matthew 4:6; Luke 4:10, 11; Matthew 13:14-15; Matthew 4:12-16; Matthew 2:15, 16... as well as his people. Romans 9:25; 1 Corinthians 15:55 (Hosea13:14); Mark 7:6; Luke 3:3-6; John 1:23 (Isaiah 40:1-5);
• Where the Greek scriptures quote the Hebrew scriptures, these were interpretations of the Jews, applying texts to someone they felt was the Messiah, and therefore the Greek scriptures are a farce, since Jesus did not really fulfill these prophecies... In fact they were not even prophesies. So...
• Jesus is a liar, and he lied when he said I told you that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 24:27, 44 “You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me." John 5:39, 46
• Luke 22:37 For the time has come for this prophecy about me to be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the rebels.’ Yes, everything written about me by the prophets will come true.” is not true. This is referring to Jerusalem - Zion.

I showed you that all these texts including Jesus words speak of the words of the Prophets being fulfilled at present, or future, in the Messiah or his people.


Why did you say 'original'?
Matthew said Hosea's words were fulfilled upon the Messiah, when Joseph was told to take Jesus out of Egypt.
The fact is, when God put those words on Hosea's tongue, God is the one who had in mind the application, and for us to decide and make the claim that God meant them only for Israel in Egypt, we would have to ignore what God inspired Matthew to write, and exalt ourselves above a level of a human.
I humbly accept that God inspired Matthew to apply Hosea's words to the Messiah, because God was uttering a Messianic prophecy.

The fact is, the text in the Gospels, and the apostles writings say that the words of the prophets are fulfilled there and then, either towards the Messiah, or his people?

What you are in fact saying is that God does not use two fold prophecies, nor does he insert Messianic prophesies in the Hebrew texts, written in the Prophets and Psalms....
Did Moses really write about Jesus. Or what was that a Jewish interpretation, put as Jesus' words? John 5:39, 46

Paul quoted Hosea 13:14, as having fulfilment in the future. “Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?” 1 Corinthians 15:55
Was that a Jewish interpretation?

I leave you to what you want to do here as well.
As they say in Jamaica, "I dun wid dat."

Click to expand...

You spammed a whole lot of nothing. Where in Mathew 2:15-16 does it say anything about the original meaning being about Jesus?

There's a difference between the original meaning of a passage, and the fulfillment of that passage. Come on C, I'm sure you can figure this one out.

A passage being “fulfilled” in Jesus does not mean that it was originally about Jesus, and the New Testament authors never claim otherwise. When Matthew, John, Paul, or others cite the Old Testament, they are not erasing the original meaning or asserting that the prophets consciously predicted Christ; rather, they treat Israel’s history, experiences, and themes as patterns that reach their fullest expression in Jesus. Texts like Hosea 11:1, Psalm 22, Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 40:3 all had clear, concrete meanings for their original audiences, and the NT writers never say those meanings are replaced or superseded. Instead, they view Jesus as the culmination or climax of those patterns, not the original referent. In other words, a passage can be fulfilled in Jesus without originally being about Jesus, which preserves both the integrity of the Old Testament’s context and the theological claims of the New Testament.

Using the Bible to date the earth results in an age of 5,786, meaning 5,786 years ago God created the heavens and the earth.

It is reasonable to consider, if this method is accurate, what evidence, besides the Bible, has God provided? IOW, an all-knowing God knows the Word of God will eventually be challenged as untruthful by those who use physical evidence from God's creation to disprove the Word of God.

Carbon-14 occurs naturally. It is a result of creation. The half life of Carbon-14 is 5,730 years. Therefore, if the world is around 5,786 years old, I would expect every fossil to have some amount of Carbon-14. In addition, since Carbon-14 as a result of how the sun affects the earth, I would expect the oldest fossils to have the smallest amount of Carbon-14 (because they lived and died during a time when the amount of Carbon-14 in the environment was low).

The fossil record is exactly as expected.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook, but the Bible does make statements science can test. It's a matter of choice as to how one interprets the data of Carbon-14 found in fossils. What is not up for interpretation is the physical make up and behavior of Carbon. Physical life on earth is Carbon-based. Carbon is the 6th element on the periodic table. It is composed of 6 neutrons and 6 protons and 6 electrons. The atomic number is 12. Carbon-14 behaves like Carbon-12 but its make up of 6 protons and 8 neutrons is unstable. It will decay naturally; that is, of its own accord.

Eternal life comes from the Jews. At the time Jesus came to the created world, because Jacob adopted Joseph's two sons, the original 12 tribes could be named by choosing from a list of 14 names. The Book of Revelation reveals the list will revert back to 12 names. To borrow a term from science, a list of 14 names is unstable.

Since the Bible's explanation of physical life and eternal life agrees with the properties God created Carbon to have, I see that as objective evidence the Bible is correct. I would add the caveat that exactly 5,786 years could be slightly off. I prefer to say about 6,000 years.

Revelation Lad said:

Using the Bible to date the earth results in an age of 5,786, meaning 5,786 years ago God created the heavens and the earth.

Click to expand...

How you arrived at an age of 5,786 is of interest to me, as well as the OP, and perhaps a few other.
Would you mind sharing the mathematical equation (figures, or numbers, and calculations) with us?

I'm not seeing any figures applied to Genesis 1:1, 2, and from Genesis 1:3-2:4, the days are longer that a regular day.
However, from day 7 until now, we calculate a period of about 5,820 years.

That would mean the heavens and the earth are far much older than 5,820 years, since they existed before Genesis 1:3, and the period of time it took for God to complete his work, according to Genesis 2:4, is never given.

CoreyD said:

How you arrived at an age of 5,786 is of interest to me, as well as the OP, and perhaps a few other.
Would you mind sharing the mathematical equation (figures, or numbers, and calculations) with us?

I'm not seeing any figures applied to Genesis 1:1, 2, and from Genesis 1:3-2:4, the days are longer that a regular day.
However, from day 7 until now, we calculate a period of about 5,820 years.

That would mean the heavens and the earth are far much older than 5,820 years, since they existed before Genesis 1:3, and the period of time it took for God to complete his work, according to Genesis 2:4, is never given.

Click to expand...

I googled "What is the current year on the Jewish calendar. There ae several sites which have the number. The process Judaism uses is to start with creation beginning the first year. Then they use the genealogies until you have an historical figure which can be tied to an historical event such as the destruction of the Temple. Then they use the secular history from that year on.

I'm willing to accept their results because they take Genesis as fact and do not believe in gaps. As I said I would not be dogmatic about the precision of 5,786. Personally I believe their methods are correct, but for discussion purposes 6,000 is acceptable. When you use numbers like 5,786, people can ask how do you know it's not 5,787 etc.? So using 6,000 as a round number is better.

Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement. Hebrew narratives often begin with a summary of the entire event before giving any details (Genesis 28:10). The first "work" is Genesis 1:2 which can be placed on the first day IMO. This implies darkness was created on the first day (looking at Isaiah 45:7). I believe God omits the creation of darkness to give emphasis on light. Science says "darkness" is real, dark energy and dark matter. Fine. Since darkness is connected to evil, knowledge of darkness is something man was not to have. Isaiah 45:7 is factual, but the complexity of the issues it raises are not appropriate for Genesis.

If you wanted to arrange the events of Genesis 1 in chronological order, the first would be 1:26 where God, Father, Son, Spirit self-identify when explaining their plan on how man will be made. This is placed on the sixth day, but obviously it had to be in the mind of God before starting. There is an objective reality to this as well. Man will have certain authorities in creation. Since man will be created last, everything before must be made such that man will be able to exercise the authority planned.

Revelation Lad said:

I googled "What is the current year on the Jewish calendar. There ae several sites which have the number. The process Judaism uses is to start with creation beginning the first year. Then they use the genealogies until you have an historical figure which can be tied to an historical event such as the destruction of the Temple. Then they use the secular history from that year on.

I'm willing to accept their results because they take Genesis as fact and do not believe in gaps. As I said I would not be dogmatic about the precision of 5,786. Personally I believe their methods are correct, but for discussion purposes 6,000 is acceptable. When you use numbers like 5,786, people can ask how do you know it's not 5,787 etc.? So using 6,000 as a round number is better.

Click to expand...

No problem.
A little under 6,000 years is fine.

Revelation Lad said:

Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement. Hebrew narratives often begin with a summary of the entire event before giving any details (Genesis 28:10).

Click to expand...

People do say this.
However, Genesis 28:10 is not a summary.
It reads...
That's followed by Genesis 28:11...

That's a recorded event in its process.
A summary is like this:
Others similar, are... Genesis 5:1; Genesis 6:9; Genesis 10:1; Genesis 11:10; Matthew 1:1...

Besides that, since it is your opinion that "Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement", can you please tell me how you explain Genesis 1:2, which follows Genesis 1:1, and reads...
The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

If Genesis 1:1 is a summary, how is it the earth exists before the actual making of it, is considered?

Revelation Lad said:

The first "work" is Genesis 1:2 which can be placed on the first day IMO.

Click to expand...

Thanks for acknowledging it's your opinion, because if indeed the first work is Genesis 1:2, then that would mean the waters are not part of the things God made in the earth, hence not created by God.
Is that what you believe?
If not, then you cannot deny the earth was already created, by God, and therefore, Genesis 1:1 refers to that event, rather than it being a summary, as the opinion goes.

Revelation Lad said:

This implies darkness was created on the first day (looking at Isaiah 45:7). I believe God omits the creation of darkness to give emphasis on light. Science says "darkness" is real, dark energy and dark matter. Fine. Since darkness is connected to evil, knowledge of darkness is something man was not to have. Isaiah 45:7 is factual, but the complexity of the issues it raises are not appropriate for Genesis.

Click to expand...

Is Isaiah 45:7 referring to creation?
Let's take a look.
I form the light and create the darkness; I bring prosperity and create calamity. I, the LORD, do all these things

Did God create calamity, or what is ra': Evil, bad, wicked? Is that what you believe?
Can God create, or cause to exist, darkness? Certainly. That is what God did at Exodus 10:21.
Can God create calamity, or what is hurtful? Yes, he did this when he brought the ten plagues on the Egyptians, and destroyed them at the Red Sea.
That was a necessary evil, or calamity.

So, the scripture at Isaiah 45:7 can refer to any event where God brings forth light, darkness, prosperity, or calamity, and does not refer to creation at the beginning.
This is further verified by the fact that God is light, and therefore light is not a new creation, but as stated at Psalm 36:9

When God said "let there be light", we can ask where to, from what source, and how, but there is no reason to assume light did not exist.
Of course, now that we are alive, through the source of life, we know that there are many lights, and they all have a source.
Light is not an object.
Light is electromagnetic radiation that can be detected by the human eye, occupying a narrow range of wavelengths typically between 380 and 750 nanometres.

There is always a source of this electromagnetic radiation called light.

Revelation Lad said:

If you wanted to arrange the events of Genesis 1 in chronological order, the first would be 1:26 where God, Father, Son, Spirit self-identify when explaining their plan on how man will be made. This is placed on the sixth day, but obviously it had to be in the mind of God before starting. There is an objective reality to this as well. Man will have certain authorities in creation. Since man will be created last, everything before must be made such that man will be able to exercise the authority planned.

Click to expand...

This is your opinion as well, thanks, but no, we do not want to rearrange Genesis 1 to fit the ideas of human reasoning.
That would be a violation of the rule at 1 Corinthians 4:6, and a dismissal of the principle found at Revelation 22:18

Thanks for sharing your opinion, though.

impressedquote194 said:

Which one is biblical? explain why.

Click to expand...

Young earth is biblical because it’s the only interpretation that lines up with all scripture without resorting to apply a definition to the word Yovm that is not supported by any other usage in the entire Bible. Furthermore it aligns perfectly with Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and Exodus 20:11. Gap theory doesn’t line up with Genesis 2 which is the account of when God created and made everything in 6 days. The usage of the term “created and made” suggests two different meanings, not repeating the same meaning twice.

Fervent said:

If you choose to be a Biblical literalist and insist that the only way to understand Genesis is as literal history, that's fine. But that's based on faith, not on what evidence we have available. The issue comes when you try to defend your position as a scientific hypothesis when it isn't and push pseudoscience and misinformation, it's an article of faith that not all believers subscribe to not a scientific hypothesis.

Click to expand...

If you apply all that science teaches us to scripture then you can’t believe half of what is written in it.

CoreyD said:

There are several reasons for believing and accepting, without any doubt, that the earth is old. How old? No living person knows... well, no living human, that is.

Here are the Biblical reasons supporting an old earth.

1. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Full stop. Then turns attention to the earth. Genesis 1:2-5 2 ...the earth was a [a]formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the [b]surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the [c]surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “[d]Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day. The heavens were created before the earth, and we know what the heavens refer to in scripture. Genesis 2:1, 4; Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:17
2. God separated the light from the darkness, and called the light “day”, and the darkness He called “night". So, there was day and night, on day one. Hence, the sun existed, from day one.
3. There was evening and morning which completed day one, but when was evening and morning? I'll address this later.
4. Genesis 1:14-18 14 Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall [u]serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and they [v]shall serve as lights in the [w]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light [x]to govern the day, and the lesser light [y]to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the [z]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and [aa]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. God said, Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. ...to separate the day from the night. Day and night exists - the light was day, and the darkness, night, but no lights are visible in the expanse to visually separate the day from the night, and ]serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years, so God makes these lights appear visibly in the sky.
5. Genesis 1:25-31 25 God made the animals of the earth according to [ag]their kind, and the livestock according to [ah]their kind, and everything that crawls on the ground according to its kind; 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. On day six, God created land animals and man and woman. During day six, 19 out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field, but for [q]Adam there was not found a helper [r]suitable for him. Genesis 1:19, 20 Adam was created before the woman, and we know this was a considerably long time, because there were animals created before Adam, and after Adam, and God was bringing each animal kind to Adam, for him to name each one. Reasonably, Adam would study these animals to give them a suitable name, which would take a considerable amount of time... more than 24 hours.
6. Genesis 1:21-23 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 And the Lord God [s]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “At last this is bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; [t]She shall be called [u]‘woman,’ Because [v]she was taken out of [w]man.” God later makes a wife for the man, who exclaims, "At last...". Finally, Adam has what he was missing, and longed for. Reasonably, this does not happen within a 24 hour day.
7. Genesis 2 is actually recounting the history of creation, from the creation of the heaven, to the creation of Eve, and explains that fact this way... Genesis 2:4 [c]This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. In the day the Lord made the heavens and earth, refers not to a 24 hour day, but a period of time, similar to the use of the word day in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31. These refer to a period of time... not from man's point of view, but rather, from God's point of view. Referring to them as, an evening and morning.

See my visual here... which I really should get back to.

Click to expand...

So how do you explain Genesis 2:3 in conjunction with Exodus 20:11?

“Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

These are parallel passages.

BNR32FAN said:

So how do you explain Genesis 2:3 in conjunction with Exodus 20:11?

“Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

These are parallel passages.

Click to expand...

When you say they are "parallel passages", can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by that, thanks.