God did not create from nothing

Platte · May 29, 2026

Ophiolite said:
Despite an excessively large ego I must defer expressing any view either way. I cannot read Hebrew; I have never read a single book, or academic article by any expert on the significance of that, or any other passage in Genesis. My primary exposure to the passage is what you would expect of any youngster raised as a Christian; or any teen entranced by the Christmas reading of the opening verses of Genesis 1 by the Apollo 8 astronauts as they rounded the moon; or occasional more critical readings as of a committed agnostic. These are hardly adequate resources with which to even think of having an opinion.

I found @Job 33:6 suggestion that the Beginning of Creation was not Day 1 of Creation was an interesting one. The specific words had always sounded a little odd, and his proposed interpretation provided an explanation for that feeling of oddity. It opens a fascinating range of possibilities. You should be aware that my beliefs (if I had any) are not threatened in any way by which interpretation of the topic is correct. To me Genesis 1 is the symbolic interpretation of a nomadic tribe's notion on their origin, beautifully phrased in the King James version.

Fair enough - I appreciate your response.

For me, someone who looks at the Bible as the Word of God, and God's message provided to us to guide us to Salvation, any changes to the context is extremly dangerous. When God says "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" I take that for what it says. And of course that context of Creation is repeated and is clear and consistant in other verses. Why would you change that context - of course someone's view of science is most notable for that. Views that are primarily based on possible bad science - such as carbon dating. History clearly supports Creation 6000 years ago...

Anyways my point would be changing the context that God gave us could have major implications to someone ultimate Salvation decisions - there is only one person (I use that term loosly) I know of that would want to alter the Salvation outcome.

Thanks again for your honesty and response.

Hans Blaster · May 29, 2026

Platte said:
Why would you change that context - of course someone's view of science is most notable for that. Views that are primarily based on possible bad science - such as carbon dating.

Carbon dating is not bad science.
Carbon dating is not used to measure the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, or the ages of nearly all fossils.

Platte said:
History clearly supports Creation 6000 years ago...

History does not go back far enough to even be relevant.

Platte · May 29, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
Carbon dating is not bad science.
Carbon dating is not used to measure the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, or the ages of nearly all fossils.

History does not go back far enough to even be relevant.

It will take a few more years but carbon dating will one day be labeled as bad science and no longer used - its ridiculous

These AI responses demonstrated it.
1. In items that are only 20 years old, virtually no decay has occurred, making the test useless
2. This method (carbon dating) becomes highly unreliable for items around 50-80 years old (due to atomic tests and high fossil fuel burning
3. Carbon dating (Carbon-14) is generally ineffective for items that are only 100 years old because the margin of error is too large, and human activity has drastically altered the amount of Carbon-14 in our atmosphere during that time.
4. Carbon dating is highly inaccurate for 150-year-old items. The short half-life of Carbon-14 and modern industrial human activities create too much "noise" and margin-of-error for a precise reading.
5. You generally cannot use standard carbon dating (Carbon-14) for 200-year-old items because the decay rate is too slow to provide a precise window, and human activity has drastically altered atmospheric carbon levels.
6. You can't effectively use traditional carbon dating for items 300 years old because the margin of error overlaps with modern human activity, and a single 5,730-year half-life is far too broad to pinpoint an exact year in a recent 300-year window.
7. You actually can use carbon dating for items that are roughly 400 years old, but its accuracy drops drastically and results in large date ranges. This unreliability is caused by human activity interfering with the Earth's natural carbon levels.

So its not reliable for 20, 50, 80, 150, 200, 300, or 400 years old (originally science said it could be used for items these ages)...but its realiable for things older - cmon that ridiculous. Basically you can start using carbon dating when we don't have information that would find it useless....That's not science. I won't even mention a worldwide flood - or the environment of the earth pre-Flood that we don't know about.

History is exactly what you'd expect if Creation was 6000 years ago. History goes back 5500 years....and the first civilization according to History was Mesopotamia - hmmmm the Garden of Eden was in Mesopotamia.

truthuprootsevil · May 29, 2026

timewerx said:
If anyone reads Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew, it is more accurately told that God "fashioned" the heavens and the earth.

This means something already existed before. The "ingredients" are already there because you can't "fashion" something from nothing. The very definition of "fashion" in the context of creation forbids it.

The Bible doesn't give details on what existed prior to the heaves and the earth but it can be anything. A cloud of dust and gas, the quantum fields or space-time fabric itself. So who created these things? Who created the ingredients this world was fashioned from? The Bbile doesn't have an answer.

It gets "worse" in Genesis 1:2 in Hebrew. Because the text is referring to the Earth as a "wasteland". It can only mean the Earth wasn't a wasteland prior to Genesis 1:2 and may have had a thriving, living ecosystem OR there are other places in the universe that is NOT a wasteland (which can also implicate healthy, living alien ecosystems beyond the Solar System).

So if God did not create the ingredients from which God fashioned the heavens and the earth. This leaves a lot to speculation. What if God also spontaneously arose from the same "ingredients" He used to fashion the heaves and the earth? This could support some theories that life/intelligence is simply an emergent property of the universe or even the space-time or quantum fields.

This also implicates that some point in our technological advancement eons from now if our advanced civilization did not collapse and then advanced even further, we'd be able to create worlds from the same ingredients freely available across the Universe at which point, we'd be doing exactly the same act of "creation" that God did in Genesis 1:1. We'd be like God Himself.

The space-time fabric though unseen is just as relevant or even more relevant than the visible Universe. Something that important should have been written in the Bible, but we get no answer.

Jesus may have implicated it but if true that would also imply that His "Father" is not the same God who created the heavens and the Earth in Genesis 1:1. Because the God of Genesis 1:1 only created the visible Universe which only came after the unseen "ingredients" of the Universe. While Father of Jesus is also called the "Lord of the Unseen" as implicated by some of the teachings of Jesus.

These are all speculation. However, one thing is not, God did not create the heavens and the Earth from nothing. Something already existed before and we're not told who created what existed before.

FAshion verb: to give form to / to make / to construct / TO CREATE
FASHION Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Definition of FASHION

One seems to be looking at the word fashion when it applies to man. Man has to have something to start with God doesn't.

Even the will established scientists Stephen Hawkins said before the Big Bang Singularity / **Let there be light* -light was created a few seconds after the big bang singularity burst open.
nothing existed in this universe. Scientists are still trying to prove that wrong, but.

AV1611VET · May 29, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
Does our fellowship as Christians depend on my sharing your viewpoint about the KJV 1611?

Nope.

Hans Blaster · May 29, 2026

Platte said:
It will take a few more years but carbon dating will one day be labeled as bad science and no longer used - its ridiculous

LOL. YECers have been saying this for decades. Still hasn't happened. Nuclear physics is still nuclear physics.

Platte said:
These AI responses demonstrated it.

I did not know there was a YEC AI. I guess if there is an AI Jesus, and an AI Catholic Catechism, why not an AI Ken Ham.

Platte said:
1. In items that are only 20 years old, virtually no decay has occurred, making the test useless

Would you measure the width of your hair with a tape measure? Don't use tools incorrectly.

Platte said:
2. This method (carbon dating) becomes highly unreliable for items around 50-80 years old (due to atomic tests and high fossil fuel burning

See above.

Platte said:
3. Carbon dating (Carbon-14) is generally ineffective for items that are only 100 years old because the margin of error is too large, and human activity has drastically altered the amount of Carbon-14 in our atmosphere during that time.
4. Carbon dating is highly inaccurate for 150-year-old items. The short half-life of Carbon-14 and modern industrial human activities create too much "noise" and margin-of-error for a precise reading.
5. You generally cannot use standard carbon dating (Carbon-14) for 200-year-old items because the decay rate is too slow to provide a precise window, and human activity has drastically altered atmospheric carbon levels.
6. You can't effectively use traditional carbon dating for items 300 years old because the margin of error overlaps with modern human activity, and a single 5,730-year half-life is far too broad to pinpoint an exact year in a recent 300-year window.
7. You actually can use carbon dating for items that are roughly 400 years old, but its accuracy drops drastically and results in large date ranges. This unreliability is caused by human activity interfering with the Earth's natural carbon levels.

These all are saying the exact same thing.

Platte said:
So its not reliable for 20, 50, 80, 150, 200, 300, or 400 years old (originally science said it could be used for items these ages)

Citation needed for "science said it could be used".

Platte said:
...but its realiable for things older - cmon that ridiculous.

That's how precision works. The tape measure is bad at measuring hair widths, but perfectly good to measure the length of lumber or the size of a carpet. It also fails at measuring the distance to work (unless you work *really* close to home). The odometer on your car can measure the distance to work, but does a really lousy job measuring the length of a 2x4. Measuring tools have ranges of applicability. Carbon-14 dating is no different than any other tool.

Platte said:
Basically you can start using carbon dating when we don't have information that would find it useless....That's not science.

It's not comprehensible sentence either.

Platte said:
I won't even mention a worldwide flood - or the environment of the earth pre-Flood that we don't know about.

We won't the flood that didn't happen. OK?

Platte said:
History is exactly what you'd expect if Creation was 6000 years ago. History goes back 5500 years....and the first civilization according to History was Mesopotamia - hmmmm the Garden of Eden was in Mesopotamia.

Writing goes back 5500 years, but those civilizations were there long before they wrote stuff.

Job 33:6 · May 29, 2026

AV1611VET said:
I think He called it the "first day."

And for the record, can you tell me where He created the earth, when He first created it?

Where exactly was it?

God created the earth on day 3.

Genesis 1:9-10 NRSV
[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.

Ophiolite · May 29, 2026

Platte said:
It will take a few more years but carbon dating will one day be labeled as bad science and no longer used - its ridiculous

These AI responses demonstrated it.
1. In items that are only 20 years old, virtually no decay has occurred, making the test useless
2. This method (carbon dating) becomes highly unreliable for items around 50-80 years old (due to atomic tests and high fossil fuel burning
3. Carbon dating (Carbon-14) is generally ineffective for items that are only 100 years old because the margin of error is too large, and human activity has drastically altered the amount of Carbon-14 in our atmosphere during that time.
4. Carbon dating is highly inaccurate for 150-year-old items. The short half-life of Carbon-14 and modern industrial human activities create too much "noise" and margin-of-error for a precise reading.
5. You generally cannot use standard carbon dating (Carbon-14) for 200-year-old items because the decay rate is too slow to provide a precise window, and human activity has drastically altered atmospheric carbon levels.
6. You can't effectively use traditional carbon dating for items 300 years old because the margin of error overlaps with modern human activity, and a single 5,730-year half-life is far too broad to pinpoint an exact year in a recent 300-year window.
7. You actually can use carbon dating for items that are roughly 400 years old, but its accuracy drops drastically and results in large date ranges. This unreliability is caused by human activity interfering with the Earth's natural carbon levels.

So its not reliable for 20, 50, 80, 150, 200, 300, or 400 years old (originally science said it could be used for items these ages)...but its realiable for things older - cmon that ridiculous. Basically you can start using carbon dating when we don't have information that would find it useless....That's not science. I won't even mention a worldwide flood - or the environment of the earth pre-Flood that we don't know about.

History is exactly what you'd expect if Creation was 6000 years ago. History goes back 5500 years....and the first civilization according to History was Mesopotamia - hmmmm the Garden of Eden was in Mesopotamia.

Since you have chosen to use an AI, I respond with an AI. It systematically dismantled your seven "arguments".

First my prompt. To what extent are these criticisms of carbon dating valid? <Your Text>

And here is the summary of the response:

If these seven statements are intended to argue that radiocarbon dating becomes unreliable for objects younger than about 400 years old, that conclusion is not supported by modern radiocarbon science.

A more accurate statement would be:

Radiocarbon dating can be applied to samples that are a few decades to tens of thousands of years old. For samples from the last few centuries, measurement is not the primary problem; calibration, contamination, and the shape of the calibration curve usually determine the achievable precision. Post-1950 samples can often be dated particularly well using bomb-pulse radiocarbon methods.

In short, statements 2 through 7 are largely incorrect, while statement 1 contains a grain of truth but is framed in a misleading way.

Job 33:6 · May 29, 2026

Ophiolite said:
Despite an excessively large ego I must defer expressing any view either way. I cannot read Hebrew; I have never read a single book, or academic article by any expert on the significance of that, or any other passage in Genesis. My primary exposure to the passage is what you would expect of any youngster raised as a Christian; or any teen entranced by the Christmas reading of the opening verses of Genesis 1 by the Apollo 8 astronauts as they rounded the moon; or occasional more critical readings as of a committed agnostic. These are hardly adequate resources with which to even think of having an opinion.

I found @[URL='https://ref.ly/Job%2033.6;nkjv?t=biblia']Job 33:6[/URL] suggestion that the Beginning of Creation was not Day 1 of Creation was an interesting one. The specific words had always sounded a little odd, and his proposed interpretation provided an explanation for that feeling of oddity. It opens a fascinating range of possibilities. You should be aware that my beliefs (if I had any) are not threatened in any way by which interpretation of the topic is correct. To me Genesis 1 is the symbolic interpretation of a nomadic tribe's notion on their origin, beautifully phrased in the King James version.

I think that it is actually the most rational approach.

Imagine if someone said: "in the beginning when I made a pizza, the pizza was formless and empty of toppings. And then I said "let there be a pizza roller and some pepperoni" and there was evening and morning, the first day. Then after 6 days, or on the seventh day, I looked down upon my pizza and it was very good. And so I rested on my couch from all the work I had done.

Or consider translations like the CEB or NRSVue, When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void....and then God said "let there be light".

When I began to make a pizza, the pizza was formless and empty, the ingredients were on the table. And then I said, someone hand me the roller. And so in days 1-3 the formless is given form (I'm rolling the pizza and shaping it). And in days 4-6 the emptiness is filled with animals (I'm filling it up with toppings).

Genesis 2:1 NRSV
[1] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished (tohu days 1-3), and all their multitude (wa bohu days 4-6). (Thus, by the 7th day I had finished making my pizza. I had made the pizza in 1 literal week, however, making a pizza doesn't require ex nihilo creation of that pizza in verse 1).

In this view, the beginning is defined moreso by my actions of creation. The dough is already there for some indeterminate amount of time, and the creation occurs in 6 days. And so you can read "and God said" initiating each day. The actual creative actions.

As opposed to a complete ex nihilo creation in verse 1, and then an additional following 6 days in which I'm not actually creating anything. As if something was wrong with my creation after verse 1 and I needed to go back and correct it over 6 days.

And this is how ancient near east creation texts were. They always began with formless and empty pre existing things.

AV1611VET · May 29, 2026

Job 33:6 said:
As opposed to a complete ex nihilo creation in verse 1, and then an additional following 6 days in which I'm not actually creating anything.

Day 1 = angels, heaven, earth, light = ex nihilo
Day 2 = atmosphere = ex materia
Day 3 = land, angiosperms = ex materia
Day 4 = sun, moon, stars = ex nihilo
Day 5 = fowl, birds, sea life = ex materia
Day 6 = land animals, man = ex materia; soul, spirit = ex nihilo

So to say there was "complete ex nihilo creation in verse 1" is wrong.

And to say "an additional following 6 days in which nothing was created" is likewise wrong.

AV1611VET · May 29, 2026

Job 33:6 said:
And this is how ancient near east creation texts were. They always began with formless and empty pre existing things.

Ancient near east creation texts can take a hike.

Their authors weren't there, their texts weren't inspired by God, and they probably used their empirical senses as inspiration.

And for the record, it's quite possible that Adam & Eve wrote much, much, much more than just Genesis 1 & 2 -- maybe kept a diary over the centuries -- but God didn't see fit to preserve them, and they decayed away over the centuries.

Genesis 1 & 2, on the other hand, was divinely preserved.

And if I told you where I think those two chapters are today, it would really blow your mind.

2PhiloVoid · Saturday at 7:30 AM

AV1611VET said:
Ancient near east creation texts can take a hike.

Their authors weren't there, their texts weren't inspired by God, and they probably used their empirical senses as inspiration.

Of course ANE creation text can take a hike. I don't think other Christians here are disagreeing with you on that literary point. But those of us who engage the academics have a different reason as to why and how the ANE texts are wrong.

Sometimes, I'm not sure you're picking up on this fact. Instead, you seem to think we're implying that Moses simply 'borrowed' the same motifs and adapted them to give his own version. That's not what we're saying, and it would be so good if someone like myself could finally be understood rather than misunderstood and misrepresented.

AV1611VET said:
And for the record, it's quite possible that Adam & Eve wrote much, much, much more than just Genesis 1 & 2 -- maybe kept a diary over the centuries -- but God didn't see fit to preserve them, and they decayed away over the centuries.

Unfortunately, this is Ad Hoc thinking and I prefer not to rely on that sort of thinking.

Besides, if the Bible doesn't actually state it, then ............ it's better to not assume too much. This is where knowing how to generally avoid informal logical fallacies becomes important. If we're going to play around with Deduction, we need to value validity and soundness of arguments when expressing our viewpoints and not just throw things out there simply because we're trying to force the Bible to make sense from within a vacuum theory of Inspiration and Inerrancy.

AV1611VET said:
Genesis 1 & 2, on the other hand, was divinely preserved.

And if I told you where I think those two chapters are today, it would really blow your mind.

And where do you think these are today (and why)?

AV1611VET · Saturday at 8:26 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Unfortunately, this is Ad Hoc thinking and I prefer not to rely on that sort of thinking.

Are you serious?

Do you think Friedrich Nietzsche wrote more than what meets the eye?

Darwin? Jung? Freud? anyone?

2PhiloVoid said:
Besides, if the Bible doesn't actually state it, then ............

......... either it wasn't written at all, or it was written but decayed to dust.

2PhiloVoid said:
... it's better to not assume too much.

Does that apply to Hegel, Voltaire, and Nostradamus as well?

2PhiloVoid said:
This is where knowing how to generally avoid informal logical fallacies becomes important.

So assuming Longfellow wrote poems that weren't published is a logical fallacy as well?

2PhiloVoid said:
If we're going to play around with Deduction, we need to value validity and soundness of arguments when expressing our viewpoints and not just throw things out there simply because we're trying to force the Bible to make sense from within a vacuum theory of Inspiration and Inerrancy.

2PhiloVoid said:
And where do you think these are today (and why)?

POST 128

2PhiloVoid · Saturday at 8:40 AM

AV1611VET said:
Are you serious?

Do you think Friedrich Nietzsche wrote more than what meets the eye?

Darwin? Jung? Freud? anyone?

......... either it wasn't written at all, or it was written but decayed to dust.

Does that apply to Hegel, Voltaire, and Nostradamus as well?

So assuming Longfellow wrote poems that weren't published is a logical fallacy as well?

POST 128

AV, you don't seem to be actually listening to, nor understanding, what I'm saying. I'll just let our small conversation rest here from this point on.

Have a good day!

AV1611VET · Saturday at 9:22 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
AV, you don't seem to be actually listening to, nor understanding, what I'm saying.

Then please speak more clearly.

2PhiloVoid said:
I'll just let our small conversation rest here from this point on.

Or maybe speak more clearly?

2PhiloVoid said:
Have a good day!

You as well.

But I don't think it's amiss to assume Adam wrote more than just Genesis 1 & 2, and that things have a habit of decaying.

The man lived for 930 years.

I'm sure he wrote more than meets the eye.

Those who think it was Moses that autographed the book of Genesis are severely misinformed.

He EDITED the book of Genesis, but he most certainly did not originally write it.

He wasn't even born until well afterwards.

And for Moses to have changed what Adam wrote to what academia thinks Moses wrote today -- about the sky being a dome and all that other academic nonsense -- would have cost Moses his life.

2PhiloVoid · Saturday at 11:00 AM

AV1611VET said:
Then please speak more clearly.

Or maybe speak more clearly?

I think I was clear enough.

AV1611VET said:
You as well.

But I don't think it's amiss to assume Adam wrote more than just Genesis 1 & 2, and that things have a habit of decaying.

I don't assume that Adam wrote anything. Even if he was a historical person, why should we assume he wrote anything at all, let alone writing a lot of things? Sure, he could 'name' the animals, but that doesn't clearly insinuate that he would have also known how to write.

AV1611VET said:
The man live for 930 years.

Length of life isn't an indicator of how much a person knows or of how well they know it.

AV1611VET said:
I'm sure he wrote more than meets the eye.

And you're sure of this why?

AV1611VET said:
Those who think it was Moses that autographed the book of Genesis are severely misinformed.

How are they misinformed?

AV1611VET said:
He EDITED the book of Genesis, but he most certainly did not originally write it.

If Moses wrote an account that resulted in what we think of as the work of Genesis, I agree that he compiled it from various sources. I don't think I've ever said otherwise. But you seem to keep responding to me as if I have. It's getting a little tiring.

AV1611VET said:
He wasn't even born until well afterwards.

Obviously, Genesis contains stories that from the vantage point of the author are quite a bit after the fact. I already know this and have known it for decades.

AV1611VET said:
And for Moses to have changed what Adam wrote to what academia thinks Moses wrote today -- about the sky being a dome and all that other academic nonsense -- would have cost Moses his life.

It would have "cost Moses his life"? Is this your own interpretation? I've never heard this before. Why would you assume that it would cost Moses his life?

AV1611VET · Saturday at 11:48 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
I don't assume that Adam wrote anything.

Interesting.

He could name the animals, get married, have children, tend the Garden of Eden, but couldn't write.

Interesting indeed.

Could he walk, talk, and chew gum, in your opinion?

2PhiloVoid said:
Even if he was a historical person, why should we assume he wrote anything at all,

Oh, I dunno.

Maybe this?

Ge 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam.

2PhiloVoid said:
... let alone writing a lot of things?

Again, do I have to bring up other authors, just to ask you if you think they wrote more than what is copyrighted today?

And if you're as clear as you say you are, dazzle me with your clarity by answering this, instead of conveniently ignoring it.

2PhiloVoid said:
Sure, he could 'name' the animals, but that doesn't clearly insinuate that he would have also known how to write.

Mamma mia.

It's important to your worldview that these guys were dumber than a hay rake, isn't it?

2PhiloVoid said:
Length of life isn't an indicator of how much a person knows or of how well they know it.

And just where do you think Adam got his knowledge?

Hint:

Ge 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

2PhiloVoid said:
And you're sure of this why?

Again, do I have to bring up other authors and ask you if you think they wrote stuff not sold in stores?

2PhiloVoid said:
How are they misinformed?

2 Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Not "might be" -- "shall be."

2PhiloVoid said:
If Moses wrote an account that resulted in what we think of as the work of Genesis, I agree that he compiled it from various sources.

Yup.

Adam, Eve, Seth, Abraham, Shem ...

But no -- academia assumes, of all people, the writings of Nimrod.

2PhiloVoid said:
I don't think I've ever said otherwise.

I'll take your word for that.

I certainly don't remember you doing it.

2PhiloVoid said:
But you seem to keep responding to me as if I have. It's getting a little tiring.

My ASSUMPTION is that you think Moses autographed the book of Genesis, because Adam couldn't do it himself.

And in so doing, Moses used Babylonian cosmology, instead of Adam's.

This is ridiculous to the nth degree.

And in fact, I'm getting the impression -- since you won't come right out and say it -- but I'm getting the impression you don't even think Adam & Eve were real people.

Meaning Moses must have made up all these fake names from Adam to whomever just for literary purposes.

2PhiloVoid said:
Obviously, Genesis contains stories that from the vantage point of the author are quite a bit after the fact.

2PhiloVoid said:
I already know this and have known it for decades.

No comment.

2PhiloVoid said:
It would have "cost Moses his life"? Is this your own interpretation? I've never heard this before. Why would you assume that it would cost Moses his life?

Holy Ghost: Moses, Adam's writings are starting to decay beyond use. I want you to copy them for preservation.
Moses: Sure.
Moses: Takes out papyrus. "Once upon a time ..."
Holy Ghost: Moses, I said what Adam wrote. Not what Nimrod's progeny wrote. Babylon has fallen into idolatry big time.
Moses: I'm sorry. But Nimrod's writing are much more scientific than ...
Holy Ghost: Last time, Moses. Write Genesis 1 & 2, and use Adam's diary.
Moses: But ... but ...
Holy Ghost: 'But' nothing. Adam copied exact words that Elohim spoke. Babylon wouldn't know that. Nor care either.
Moses: But Babylonian cosmology is so much more scientific.
Holy Ghost: You've read Adam's writings, are you saying they're wrong?
Moses: Of course not.
Holy Ghost: Then get to it.

* For the record, there's no indication that Moses even had access to Nimrod's Nonsense.

Ophiolite · Saturday at 12:09 PM

AV1611VET said:
Mamma mia.

It's important to your worldview that these guys were dumber than a hay rake, isn't it?

This is astonishingly absurd, even for you.

The presence of literacy suggests a certain level of intelligence, the absence of literacy says almost nothing about intelligence.
Until recently, even in terms of a 6,000 year old Earth, very few people could write.
Writing was less common than reading and reading was like a form of magic for the bulk of the global population for the bulk of human history.
Writing fulfills a function. What function do you think made it necessary for Adam to be able to write.

@2PhiloVoid Give up. You can't play chess with a pigeon. Admirable effort, sincere effort, but Sisyphus is laughing at you.

AV1611VET · Saturday at 12:51 PM

Ophiolite said:
Writing fulfills a function. What function do you think made it necessary for Adam to be able to write.

I suppose this guy couldn't read or write either?

Ge 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron:

And to answer your question, the first mention of Jesus' virgin birth is mentioned in Genesis 3.

This means that the land of Nod had it -- in writing.

AV1611VET · Saturday at 1:12 PM

Ophiolite said:
Until recently, even in terms of a 6,000 year old Earth, very few people could write.

Just how dumb do you think people were back then?

Let's test this, shall we?

You know?

Employ the Scientific Method?

Put a shrewdness of scientists in Tasmania or Australia and see if they can build a tool that uses aerodynamic structure to hunt.

God did not create from nothing

Well-Known Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

Well-Known Member

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Reconstruction 3 will come

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads