6,000 Years?

[Dan1988]

I didn't say anything about my view entailing reconciliation between science and the Bible. That's what you merely read into what it is you think I said.

You have your view, though. I get that and that's fine. (Edit: Now that I've seen that you've decided to push it further, back off......)

So, where are we going to "read" these rules of engagement you're referring to in clear, distinct and comprehensive terms? Who are your selected gurus whom we should be beginning with in our scientific and biblical studies?

Well we can confidentially trash the scientific method, as it is clearly, positively and demonstrably fundamentally flawed.

Before a fact can be confirmed, we need witnesses, hard evidence and tests which can be repeated with the same result every time.

Secular science, with it's theories has none of these imperatives, so it relies solely on "circular reasoning", whereby you start with a false premise and demand that everyone embraces the premises before you enter into a debate or discussion with them.

Christians scientists, don't use circular reasoning. We only deal with proven facts, we know how the earth was made and we know when it was made. We know how old the universe is as well and we know where mankind came from and and everything else. We actually know the Man who made all of these things, we have a very close loving relationship with Him.

 

[Dan1988]

The earth was formless before it. What part of "when God began to create" don't you understand?

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.

If I said "when I began to walk to school, it was raining outside"

You wouldn't say "there was no rain before he began walking to school!"

Sorry, that's an incorrect understanding.

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.

In the beginning when God created. That is, the beginning is the beginning of God's actions of creation. Not the beginning of the material cosmos.

That's why the earth was formless. God hadnt yet created it.



Wrong, God created it in 6 days. God did not create it in verse 1 and then realize everything was messed up so he had to go back and create again a second time in 6 days.

I don't know that NRSV version of the Bible is, but it doesn't make any sense to me. To say "When God began to create the heavens and the earth". That makes no sense as it doesn't tell us when the "When" was. My bible does tell me when the when was and it says the when was "in the beginning".

I'm not sure why you don't understand what the word beginning means, but my four year old nephew does.

Your bible describes some unknown time that God supposedly created a prototype earth, like some mad scientist experimenting with different models, then in the beginning He decides to create another one over the top of that one. It's all really crazy stuff to me, I just don't get it. That's why I'll stick to the original and the best

Gen 1:1 can't be anymore simple, in the beginning there was nothing, then God created the heavens and the earth. then over the 5 proceeding days He added many more things to the heavens and the earth, including your ancestor Adam

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't know that NRSV version of the Bible is, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

Ok, well when you figure out how to read the Bible, and learn that there is a translation called the NRSV, I'll be here. But if your only response is to act like there isn't more than one Bible translation, that is your own shortcoming.

Telling me that you aren't familiar with different Bible translations simply implies that you haven't studied the Bible. It's not a valid counter point.

Part of learning Bible includes being aware of more than one translation.

 

[d taylor]

-

​

Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation and Genesis 1:2 describes a ruined earth, that was created perfectly in Genesis 1:1. Then Genesis 1:3 to Genesis 1:31 is the restoration of the earth created in Genesis 1:1 for God's creation of humanity (Adam and Eve)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well we can confidentially trash the scientific method, as it is clearly, positively and demonstrably fundamentally flawed.

Before a fact can be confirmed, we need witnesses, hard evidence and tests which can be repeated with the same result every time.

Secular science, with it's theories has none of these imperatives, so it relies solely on "circular reasoning", whereby you start with a false premise and demand that everyone embraces the premises before you enter into a debate or discussion with them.

Christians scientists, don't use circular reasoning. We only deal with proven facts, we know how the earth was made and we know when it was made. We know how old the universe is as well and we know where mankind came from and and everything else. We actually know the Man who made all of these things, we have a very close loving relationship with Him.

I think I'll stick with the Christian scientists that I know, and you can stick with yours. Deal?

 

[Dan1988]

Ok, well when you figure out how to read the Bible, and learn that there is a translation called the NRSV, I'll be here. But if your only response is to act like there isn't more than one Bible translation, that is your own shortcoming.

Telling me that you aren't familiar with different Bible translations simply implies that you haven't studied the Bible. It's not a valid counter point.

Part of learning Bible includes being aware of more than one translation.

I don't feel any need to study all of the different versions and translations of the Bible. There is only one original version which has been translated into modern English.
It cost William Tyndale his life to translate it for my benefit, so why would I look to the modern perverted versions. How would it benefit me, to study these modern versions.

Most translations of the Holy Bible are reliable, they have been faithfully translated into modern English., But there are many which were deliberately perverted, so it's a case of buyer be aware. I have a few different translations such as the ESV but my main Bible is the NKJV

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't feel any need to study all of the different versions and translations of the Bible.

Ok. Well that's your own issue then. Nobody will take you seriously if you're a KJV only-ist. We don't live in the 1700s.

 

[Dan1988]

Ok. Well that's your own issue then. Nobody will take you seriously if you're a KJV only-ist. We don't live in the 1700s.

Judge ye not, lest you be judged by the same measure you used on me

 

[Amo2]

WW2 planes buried deep in ice video 2. Suggesting much more rapid ice accumulation than deep timers estimates.

 

[Jerry N.]

The earth was formless before it. What part of "when God began to create" don't you understand?

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.

If I said "when I began to walk to school, it was raining outside"

You wouldn't say "there was no rain before he began walking to school!"

Sorry, that's an incorrect understanding.

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.

In the beginning when God created. That is, the beginning is the beginning of God's actions of creation. Not the beginning of the material cosmos.

That's why the earth was formless. God hadnt yet created it.



Wrong, God created it in 6 days. God did not create it in verse 1 and then realize everything was messed up so he had to go back and create again a second time in 6 days.

I haven’t given much thought to your placing time between Genesis 1:1 and 2, because it is usually used to justify the fossil record or something called “Lucifer’s Flood.” It is an interesting idea, but I don’t think it has a lot of merit. It is called the “gap theory” and has many variations. However, if the earth was created long ago and remained a ball of gasses, rock, water, and other things in complete chaos, it seems to work. The sun, moon, and stars might also be unfinished and out of place. The key point of the verses is that God makes order out of chaos, which should be enough to accept Intelligent Design. Young Earth theories are a different direction of discussion. Where are you and Dan on this?

 

[Amo2]

DNA problems for evolutionists, not Creationists.

 

[Amo2]

Addressing the myth that many early church fathers were deep timers, or rejected a six day creation, or 6000 year approximate age of the earth.

 

[Jerry N.]

DNA problems for evolutionists, not Creationists.

Great video. Thanks.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

DNA problems for evolutionists, not Creationists.

Thanks. I'll listen in, but don't be surprised if I stick with my own Christian gurus instead.

 

[River Jordan]

Thanks. I'll listen in, but don't be surprised if I stick with my own Christian gurus instead.

It's no different than the flat-earthers here who post YT videos with little to no comment. In both cases the mentality seems to be, it's on YouTube so it must be true.

 

[Job 33:6]

I haven’t given much thought to your placing time between Genesis 1:1 and 2, because it is usually used to justify the fossil record or something called “Lucifer’s Flood.” It is an interesting idea, but I don’t think it has a lot of merit. It is called the “gap theory” and has many variations. However, if the earth was created long ago and remained a ball of gasses, rock, water, and other things in complete chaos, it seems to work. The sun, moon, and stars might also be unfinished and out of place. The key point of the verses is that God makes order out of chaos, which should be enough to accept Intelligent Design. Young Earth theories are a different direction of discussion. Where are you and Dan on this?

It's not placing time between verse 1 and 2. It's considering time before verse 1.

When I began to make a pizza, the pizza was formless. But how long was it formless before I began to make it?

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.

 

[Jerry N.]

It's not placing time between verse 1 and 2. It's considering time before verse 1.

When I began to make a pizza, the pizza was formless. But how long was it formless before I began to make it?

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.

I see. The question would then be, “In the beginning of what?”

 

[Job 33:6]

I see. The question would then be, “In the beginning of what?”

Correct. The beginning being, the beginning of God's creative actions. Or the beginning of God's reign. The beginning of God's relationship with mankind etc.

But not necessarily the beginning of the existence of the earth.

As the saying goes, the Bible is not a science textbook. It's not talking about the big bang.

 

[Jerry N.]

Correct. The beginning being, the beginning of God's creative actions. Or the beginning of God's reign. The beginning of God's relationship with mankind etc.

But not necessarily the beginning of the existence of the earth.

As the saying goes, the Bible is not a science textbook. It's not talking about the big bang.

“The beginning of God's relationship with mankind” is something I can understand. “The beginning of God's reign” is more difficult, unless it is the beginning of God’s reign on earth, which is being created or formed. What is the point?

 

[Job 33:6]

“The beginning of God's relationship with mankind” is something I can understand. “The beginning of God's reign” is more difficult, unless it is the beginning of God’s reign on earth, which is being created or formed. What is the point?

I took that idea from Jeremiah 26:1, 27:1 etc.

Ultimately, it's when God created, so it's the beginning of God creating. But the question is, the Hebrew word "Bara", what does it really mean?

The opposite of tohu wa bohu might suggest that creation involves establishing purpose. That might be the more accurate understanding of the Hebrew bara, or create. To make or to do. Such as when God creates a clean heart for the psalmist. Not materially, but for a purpose. Psalm 51:10.