Creation Challenge: Refute it

[Professor]

What is your intent? From reading the aforementioned thesis paper touching on creation, the paper states from faulty logic that supposes earth existed prior to day 1. Seeing as how the very verses used dismiss the idea, the logic is therefore faulty.

Not quite. The very verses support the proposition that the universe existed before God said, "Let there be light," as I have proven.

Also, since the creation does pertain to Christ in the subsequent days in which earth is to be inhabited, the creation story is an account of that.

Not relevant to the creation account.

Please note that the first day begins with the evening, and not at the moment God speaks let there be light. This is even acknowledged in Hebrew tradition and is in accord with the rest of Scriptures.

Also not relevant to the creation account.

Day 1 begins with (drumroll) the beginning. And what does it say about the beginning? He created the heavens and the earth.

Of course, but the Bible does not say when.

Albeit, time is not measurable in the sense you and I think.

You need to understand that while God exists outside of time, the Bible was written within time and is written for man to understand it within time.

In the form written, it (time) is fluid and can conform to how the heavens and the earth were shaped accordingly. But the most interesting idea I have ever imagined is that time is always relative to us, because God is outside of time. He even created the sliding scale of night and day upon which all time is measured. As far as explaining the beginning of time and all that, there is only how the Lord describes it, and in ways that we can understand.

Exactly. We understand it within time. It was written to apply in the time that God created.

To comprehend infinity and do calculations accordingly, one would have to understand infinity in a linear fashion and time without beginning and end which of course we ourselves cannot do. The only way to even figure it would be guesswork and statistical graph plots, negative x, y, and z axis which of course is like measuring the existence of dark matter and antimatter against antiprotons while standing on one leg juggling knives while giving a cat a bath. The fact most people overlook are the things that are truly unseen. The sentences that do not exist, and in between verses.

I trust that you are not claiming that you can see the unseen, and read sentences that do not exist between verses. That is a dark and dangerous road and will forever dominate your destiny.

The paper assumes that Christians belief in literal interpretation comes from magic when it is not the case.

My arguments are based on literal interpretation. Literal interpretation argues against six consecutive 24 hour periods of creation and a 6,000 +/- year old universe as many erroneously believe.

The very fact that there is a beginning, and the Lord established a beginning, but does not include it in Scriptures. He does not say Let there be a beginning.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Oh, wait. Yes I could, because I did. (In the sections you did not read.)

This is only implied in the first sentence, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. All we know is that he established a beginning and created the heavens and earth in it.

Exactly. I'm happy to see that you agree with me.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Not quite. The very verses support the proposition that the universe existed before God said, "Let there be light," as I have proven.



Not relevant to the creation account.




Also not relevant to the creation account.



Of course, but the Bible does not say when.



You need to understand that while God exists outside of time, the Bible was written within time and is written for man to understand it within time.



Exactly. We understand it within time. It was written to apply in the time that God created.




I trust that you are not claiming that you can see the unseen, and read sentences that do not exist between verses. That is a dark and dangerous road and will forever dominate your destiny.



My arguments are based on literal interpretation. Literal interpretation argues against six consecutive 24 hour periods of creation and a 6,000 +/- year old universe as many erroneously believe.



Couldn't have said it better myself. Oh, wait. Yes I could, because I did. (In the sections you did not read.)



Exactly. I'm happy to see that you agree with me.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Literal interpretation specifically shows 1000 years is as a day, and a day is a thousand years. Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
That's just math. 1000x1=1000, 1000x2=2000, 1000x3=3000, 1000x4=4000, 1000x5=5000, 1000x6=6000, 1000x7=7000. That is one literal interpretation.
Another literal interpretation would be that each day of creation was one day. 7 days=1 week.
The Word of God was with God prior to time as we know it.
All of creation was made through him, for him, by him, and speak of him. All of creation.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Exodus 20:11 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.
Heaven and Earth can be taken to mean the whole of the universe and all that is in it. Therefore, the universe was created within the 6 days. It did not exist prior to the 6 days as you say it is literally interpreted to show.

You can't use the term "literally interpreted" to say something that it doesn't literally say.
Literal means :
1. taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
2. (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.
Literally within the context of the beginning, according to the words of the man who penned it, Moses, the heaven and the earth and all that were in it were made in 6 days. Extrapolating upon that premise in Psalms 90:4....Which Moses also wrote, he states that the days meant a thousand years.
In the scope of the creation account, the fact that the two great lights are set in their course to govern and rule the course of the day and night according to how they were made. Day and night as a concept was made on the first day. This is the beginning of time as we know it. This was the beginning of the creation and the things that pertain to it. The very foundation of night and day prior to the great two lights. Genesis 1:5 . The universe as you know it, perceive it, or can imagine, did not exist prior to this point. It is confined according to the parameters which God set. Your imagination does not change those.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Your paper hinges upon one argument. Day 0. There is no Day 0. All of creation heaven, earth and all that are in it; seen and unseen, are in Day 1. Genesis 1:1 specifically says In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
The definition of beginning is the point in which something begins. Thus, the creation could not have began prior to the beginning. Day 1.
You neglect the fact that the written Word of God has as much authority as his spoken Word.
Ecclesiastes 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Thus the very sentence in Genesis 1:1 doesn't mean that he SPOKE "Let there be waters" or "let there be earth". He could have, sure, but it is not recorded in that way. Genesis 1:1 says only that he made it at this time. Maybe he used his hands, who knows? We do know however....
Take this for a template...
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Given this statement, it is quite possible, the written whole of the creation process cannot be contained in books.
After all, as science suggests...how big is the universe? Where would you even start to begin to write a book that contained the blueprints for the creation of an infinite universe? You'd be writing for all eternity every word that God ever spoke.
The template for creation is actually quite clear and needs no Day 0.
Day 1...Genesis 1:1 He created the heavens and the earth. Coincidentally, the

Hebrew word used here for earth
erets (Strong's 776) is translated to mean (along with number of uses) as:
common (1), countries (15), countries and their lands (1), country (44), countryside (1), distance* (3), dust (1), earth (655), earth the ground (1), earth's (1), fail* (1), floor (1), ground (119), land (1581), lands (57), lands have their land (2), open (1), other* (2), piece (1), plateau* (1), region (1), territories (1), wild (1), world (3).
So earth in the sense as the globe, is a limited definition of Genesis 1:1's earth. The earth in Genesis 1:1 can mean the dust that the worlds are made of, can mean lands, can means regions. Pretty much the building blocks of anything that is physical that pertains to earth.

Hebrew words used for heavens
shamayim (Strong's 8064) is translated to mean (along with number of uses) as:
astrologers* (1), compass (1), earth (1), heaven (191), heaven and the highest (2), heaven and the highest heavens (1), heaven of heavens (1), heavenly (3), heavens (151), heavens and the highest (1), highest heaven (1), highest heaven (1), highest heavens (4), horizons (1), other* (1), sky (50).
Pretty much the building blocks of anything that is physical that pertains to "outer space", other worlds, planets, stars, and also any spiritual hierarchy that needs be made.

Genesis 1:2 uses the Hebrew words
tohu (Strong's 8414) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness, waste
bohu (Strong's 922) emptiness, void
Then he said let there be light, thus filling them with life. etc...
1:1 heavens, earth, just the basics.
1:2 described as no life. the spirit of God molding the work, darkness used here as lack of life (light)
1:3 given light, life.
1:4 he creates the gulf between life and no life
1:5 day and night template complete, end of day 1
Rinse and repeat accordingly. Creates the basic work, then gives life to it. takes the dust, breathes life into it.
(Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.)

Day 0 is not necessary. It is inherent through the creation account, the materials for creation were made on day 1, as stated in Genesis 1:1. Day 0 is an abstract manmade thought that is irrational in a linear factual literal project. Day 1 is the first day used here. You are assuming a day 0 when no basis is given. The framework for days is given in Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Again, your logic is faulty. You should have spent the time reading the bible, rather than writing the paper.

 

[GBTG]

You need to understand that while God exists outside of time, the Bible was written within time and is written for man to understand it within time.

We are within time as you stated, please describe time, in reference to a singularity (black hole) as humans understand? This is a scientific dispute as you requested.

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[Professor]

Deleted. Posted in error.

 

[Professor]

You do greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God.

These apparent rational assumptions based on the laws of nature lack spiritual discernment. All scripture is spiritually discerned. Genesis does not give specific details, but this study is trying to fill the details by scientific analysis. These events could not be analyzed in such a way, since the physical universe, including the sun, moon and earth were created not from physical things or within laws already existing, but from and by an invisible spiritual Supreme being with miraculous powers. I must admit, I only read through the 1st day, but there was too many flaws to bother with the rest.

“For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Col. 1:16, 17

“in Him all things consist” or are held together. That means, in Christ, all the elements, forces, from sub –atomic to the out universe is held together IN HIM. Therefore, God is not confined to physical laws, or time which is a physical dimension, nor did He need material to form the earth.

Are you really being so foolish as to suggest that gravity does not exist?

Water requires oxygen, hydrogen and gravity, electromagnetic energy to keep it together, in form. But The Bible claims the earth was without form and void. Void means nothing, it means it didn’t exist.

First, void does not mean non-existent.

Second, you now are required to explain how, if it was non-existent, there was water for the spirit of God to move upon? (Consider this a "gotcha" moment.

)

There was no form, nor anything else – that was the point. It was a thought in God’s mind and He spoke it into existence WITHOUT ELEMENTS OR FORCES.

Wow! What hubris! I have never in my many years encountered someone who claimed to know what thoughts were in God’s mind.

He created these things simultaneously as needed within each consecutive day.

Prove by Scripture where each day of creation was seven consecutive, 24-hour days. But be careful! You must then explain how there is no gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th weeks.

says a bunch. It did not exist in the physical realm. Particles and waves are very complex but physical. Prior to the sun created on Day 4, the light came from the Lord.

Where do you get this from? The Book of Enoch? The First Book of Adam and Eve?

He just made it visible in the physical realm at that moment.And btw, after He created the sun, moon and stars, the light was given us instantly, it didn’t take billions of years to get to us.

You sound like one of those unfortunates who accuse God of deliberately throwing a stumbling block before man and intentionally deceiving man by creating fake fossils to create the impression that the universe and earth are old. Just out of curiosity, how far away do you think the stars are?

If light did not exist prior to when He said, Let there be light, how could any of the stars (that you presume also existed) exist since they give off light. That’s a big one this study overlooked.

Oh, really? Since you did not read past day 1, how are you able to make such a claim? “Fake news!” LOL.

The paper addresses water, the surface, the deep, the atoms, heat and gravity as if they were necessary for God to do something with it, as if He needed them prior to Him forming the earth. He created them together.

Where, anywhere in the paper, does it say anything about “necessary” or “needed?” Oh, that's right. You didn't read it so you don't know that.

These claims that heaven and earth weren’t created in Genesis but prior to and God just formed it from things already existing is merely leaning on your own understanding, void of spiritual discernment!

Your spiritual discernment is lacking two things: spiritual, and discernment.

It’s not even good scientific thought. But science to this day lacks the knowledge of powers outside the physical realm which they cannot be tested or examined by physical means.

And what would be "good scientific thought?"

The paper concludes that we do violence to Scripture to suggest that the laws of nature were changed as a result of the Fall or the Flood. This again lacks understanding of SIN itself and the consequences it had on all life and nature. Paradise represents a perfect environment (with the exception of Satan lurking about to tempt us and the potential of sin). Our current laws of nature include the consequences of sin that causes death, distortion, mutations, illnesses, diseases, etc. Paradise did not have death, corruption of any kind until sin came.

You appear to be unable to explain, without death of animals, how animals would not have multiplied to such an extent that they would literally fill the entire surface of the earth. It would prove most interesting to see your explanation.

As far as the conditions prior to the Flood, “… For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.”Gen.2:5

OK. What about it? BTW, that proves that man was to till the ground prior to the fall. Do you dispute that?

 

[Professor]

I cannot make it past page two as there were significant flaws in your logic and therefore conclusions as expressed. Hence my not continuing with the read. I stated what these were and why I could not use scripture as a point of reference as you have already precluded any other interpretation.

You cannot contest the conclusions based on alternative premises. The question is whether conclusions are valid based on the given premises. My challenge was to refute my conclusions based on the premises. As I stated, I will debate my conclusions, not the premises. That would be a completely different thread.

It would be beneficial for you to recognize or acknowledge that human understanding literal or otherwise is part of this equation. Unless you presume that anyone of us is the supreme authority on the subject?! So please enlighten me on how you would rectify this, as it is purposefully omitted from your commentary as a mechanism of contention.

Nothing to rectify. I have stated my premises. It is completely transparent. Nothing hidden. "Full and fair disclosure" as the saying goes.

Regards, GBTG

 

[Professor]

We are within time as you stated, please describe time, in reference to a singularity (black hole) as humans understand? This is a scientific dispute as you requested.

Piece of cake. Black holes and time (as well as matter, dark matter (if it exists), energy, and dark energy (f it exists) were created prior to Gen. 1:,3 in the unknown past, along with their implications such as the distortion of time as one approaches a black hole.

And while we are on the subject: A question to the critics: if God created the stars on Day 4, when did He create black holes? Black holes are not stars.

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[Professor]

There are a number of flimsy arguments in the paper, it argues that Scripture cannot contradict science which expresses a preference not a logical principle.

My paper doesn’t say that. Stop twisting my words. I demand that you quote where I said that.

It say it can't be proven the earth was originally formless and void

I have no idea what this means. My paper doesn’t say that. Stop twisting my words. I demand that you quote where I said that.

which is pointless unless you take a minute and understand what it's really saying. Science tells us the earth was covered in water, a hydrogen rich atmosphere,

Science says no such thing, certainly not a hydrogen rich atmosphere. Science says water came much later. Atmosphere was methane, etc.

obviously not suitable for life. The original creation was simply void of life and ill formed for life, the first three days of creation changed that.

What do you mean by “void of life and ill formed for life.” What time period are you referring to?

The only thing more obscure then these empty arguments was the assortment of quotes from Scripture, what they are intended to prove or support is a mystery.

They are self-explanatory.

Scripture can contradict the naturally history of Darwinism and always has and always will. That is not an indictment of science or faith but a contest between two presuppositional worldviews. One affirming and the other denying miracles.

I’m glad you agree with me.

There is a link and a couple of sentences challenging us to refute this ill conceived argument. Shouldnt there have been a description and some indication of what it is the OP wants addressed?

The entire thing, or any part of it.

 

[Professor]

I think I made myself quite clear in my prior post. I used several scriptures, used mathematics at a point, and even logic.

Sorry. I missed the scriptures you said you previously used in your post on Sunday. Please repeat.

You used no mathematics (not that math would be relevant anyway). Mentioning graphs, and x.y.z axes is not math. I also fail to detect any logic. I see no conclusions or premises. Please be more specific. Besides, if logic is of the world, why are you using worldly logic?

1 John 4:5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.
You sir are standing as the accuser of God himself. I will not entertain such a platform for discussion. You flat out say the bible is wrong and written wrong. Be humble man.

Amazing. You disagree with my arguments (without even having read them), and because you disagree with them you claim that I am saying the Bible is wrong. Absurdity in the extreme. That actually means that you have the audacity to claim that only your interpretation is the right one. You ought to show more humility.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Thank you, MyGivenNameIsKeith, for taking the time to make comments. However, you have not refuted my arguments. You have not offered any scriptural, scientific, or logical evidence to support your opinions.

I will edit my posts to include the book, chapter, and verse for every time I have used scriptures accordingly.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

My paper doesn’t say that. Stop twisting my words. I demand that you quote where I said that.

It's in the introduction to your paper. Twisting of words not needed.
" If there is an actual conflict between Scripture and science, then obviously Scripture wins. But if something cannot be determined from Scripture, then Scripture cannot negate what is known scientifically."

What do you mean by “void of life and ill formed for life.” What time period are you referring to?

It is quite clear the specific time period he refers to.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

[Ronald]

You do greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God.

You are the one who is misinterpreting scripture, adding, assuming, postulating, as if your pseudo-scientific logic could fill in the blanks that Genesis left -- OH BOY.

Are you really being so foolish as to suggest that gravity does not exist?

Are you foolish to say that God did not create gravity when He created the earth with all it's elements and physical, electromagnetic and nuclear forces as well! How high minded and arrogant that you would even name your avatar Professor as if you could teach anyone anything about the Bible. You must be born again to receive the Holy Spirit, then you receive discernment.

First, void does not mean non-existent.

Second, you now are required to explain how, if it was non-existent, there was water for the spirit of God to move upon? (Consider this a "gotcha" moment.

)

Void means empty, no form, therefore no water prior to that, no earth prior to that because SCRIPTURE STATES THAT IN THE FIRST SENTENCE. Yes, when someone says this is void of something, it means it doesn't contain it, have it, exist. It's an introduction to what follows. An example: You are void of spiritual discernment -- That means, you don't have it.
AGAIN, YOU CANNOT DICIPHER HOW GOD MIRACULOUSLY, OUTSIDE OF TIME, CREATED THIS PHYSICAL UNIVERSE BY USING PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND LOGIC. HIS SUPERNATURAL POWER CAME FROM A SPIRITUAL REALM WHICH YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. This is what is missing in science today, missing parts of the formula. They infer extra-dimensional properties, like quantum physics but still cannot find them because they our not knowable in our physical realm. You strive to know God's creative power and understand how He did things. You are probably a theistic evolutionist which is a flawed and corrupt understanding of God's Creation.
Science is great to see how things work and this is why He gave us Laws of Physics and such to understand, but His power was not confined to physical properties, nor did they required elements to be in place so that He could just shape them, form them, organize them.
Science cannot understand the supernatural powers of God and never will. Genesis is not a science book and so please don't be foolish to try to fill in the blanks.
We all know what you are trying to do -- harmonize junk science with Creation.

Wow! What hubris! I have never in my many years encountered someone who claimed to know what thoughts were in God’s mind.

Another assumption, gee you are full of them. I just told you that we cannot know the mind of God other than what is in the Bible. We cannot know how He created life. We can know that Creation and everything in it is the result of His infinite knowledge and power, NOT CONFINED TO THE PHYSICAL REALM IN WHICH TIME IS PART OF. He spoke it into existence.

Prove by Scripture where each day of creation was seven consecutive, 24-hour days. But be careful! You must then explain how there is no gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th weeks.

I am not an adherent to the Gap theory. The seventy weeks were prophesied, concerned His First Coming -- no gap, it's history.
The order of the week is seven days. All through scripture, weeks, months and years, weeks of years, etc. This is the order of time He gave us. The day had light and the night had darkness just like our days and nights have. 24 hours = 1 day. On the 3rd
Day He created the botanicals. They need the sun which was created on Day 4. They could not survive months or years or decades without the sun. They were not epochs of time as in millions of years. It's really simple, just read it literally as it is and understand that it was supernaturally created, not naturally. And He told us that it was six days and He rested on the 7th, just as He wanted man to do, work for six and rest on the 7th - very simple -- even a so called professor should be able to get it.

Where do you get this from? The Book of Enoch? The First Book of Adam and Eve?

Never read the Book of Enoch, it's not cannon.
"Let there be light", means He created it, waves and particles in our physical realm. Since the sun and moon weren't present, we can infer that God who is LIGHT and brighter than any star provided the light __ H E L L O!

You sound like one of those unfortunates who accuse God of deliberately throwing a stumbling block before man and intentionally deceiving man by creating fake fossils to create the impression that the universe and earth are old. Just out of curiosity, how far away do you think the stars are?

God does not deceive, but man gets deceived by leaning on his own understanding. He does put stumbling blocks his way at times and confounds man's arrogance and intelligence.
The universe appears to be billions of years old, and because of the speed of light, we assume that stars are old, but not if God gave us their light instantly. He created light and the stars out of nothing, so why is difficult for you to think He could not give us the light from them now?

Oh, really? Since you did not read past day 1, how are you able to make such a claim? “Fake news!” LOL.

No, I'm not into the Left-Wing fake news stories. You sound like a Left-Winger. Did you vote for Obama and Hillary too!

You appear to be unable to explain, without death of animals, how animals would not have multiplied to such an extent that they would literally fill the entire surface of the earth. It would prove most interesting to see your explanation.

Who said animals did not die? From Day 1 of Creation to the Flood was 1656 years.
We don't know when sin happened, they could have lived weeks, months, years before they sinned. Most likely their curiosity couldn't be restrained and it happened quite early. But that is when death came into reality. Nevertheless. animals did multiply enough to cover the earth within 1656 years -- millions of animals could spread and occupy the entire planet within that time. There are some 250,000 fossils. But are you going to now distort the story of Noah as well?

OK. What about it? BTW, that proves that man was to till the ground prior to the fall. Do you dispute that?

That is just a statement of fact, that man did not plant the garden, God did in Gen. 2:8
I never really thought of it but Paradise did not require planting, gardening, tilling the soil, it was perfect. Remember, after they sinned, God kicked them out of the Garden and the curse to Adam was that he would have to toil with the ground which was cursed with thorns and thistles, weeds, etc. He definitely had to till the soil at that time!

 

[Professor]

Your paper hinges upon one argument. Day 0. There is no Day 0. [close]

Of course there is no day 0. I never said there was a day 0. If you are not going to read the entire paper, at least the part you do read you should actually read. Day 0 is merely a literary device. What I actually said was, “Day 0 is designated here as the time immediately preceding the first day” such as one second (in human time, since the first day was human time) before God said “Let there be light.”

`All of creation heaven, earth and all that are in it; seen and unseen, are in Day 1. [close]

That is simply not true. The Bible itself says there was something before God said “Let there be light.” Can you “guess” what it was? No need to guess. You can read it. You cannot deny that the Bible says there was water before God said “Let there be light.” If you deny that, you deny that what the Bible says is true. Since you cannot deny it existed before God said “Let there be light” you have to explain when it appeared.

Genesis 1:1 specifically says In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
The definition of beginning is the point in which something begins. Thus, the creation could not have began prior to the beginning. Day 1. [close]

Your last sentence does not flow from the previous sentences. “The definition of beginning is the point in which something begins,” and “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” does not lead to the conclusion that “, the creation could not have began [sic] prior to the beginning. Day 1.”

We simply do not know when the beginning was. We only know there was a beginning, and in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That is my point. The very words of Genesis puts that before Day 1 (which I simply refer to as Day 0 and minus infinity, not that those are actual things). You cannot escape the fact that water existed prior to “let there be light,” a fact that you conveniently refuse to address. I look forward to your explaining how water existed before light.

You neglect the fact that the written Word of God has as much authority as his spoken Word. [close]

That does not make sense. That is not relevant. I am analyzing the written Word, which is the only record we have of the spoken Word. (Or does God speak to you audibly?. Maybe you can tell us what the Seven Thunders said. )

Thus the very sentence in Genesis 1:1 doesn't mean that he spoke "Let there be waters" or "let there be earth". He could have, sure, but it is not recorded. Maybe he used his hands, who knows? We do know however....[close]

His hands? Really? Now you are making God into an idol.

Take this for a template...
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Given this statement, it is quite possible, the written whole of the creation process cannot be contained in books.
After all, as science suggests...how big is the universe? Where would you even start to begin to write a book that contained the blueprints for the creation of an infinite universe? You'd be writing for all eternity.
The template for creation is actually quite clear and needs no Day 0. Day 1...He created the heavens and the earth, empty, without life, void. Then he said let there be light, thus filling them with life. etc...
1:1 heavens, earth, just the basics.
1:2 described as no life. the spirit of God molding the work, darkness used here as lack of life (light)
1:3 given light, life.
1:4 he creates the gulf between life and no life
1:5 day and night template complete, end of day 1
Rinse and repeat accordingly. Creates the basic work, then gives life to it. takes the dust, breathes life into it. etc...[close]
1. Template? Basics? These are not biblical concepts. It sounds suspiciously like you are using someone else’s teachings. That sounds like something you are imposing on Scripture. You can’t do that. You are engaging in eisegesis. Don’t do that. You have to use exegesis. Let the Scripture speak for itself. Don’t make it try to fit Scripture into what you believe. Form your beliefs on what it actually says.

2. “Quite possible?” Let’s deal with what it says and not speculate about what is possible.

3. “Darkness used here as lack of life?” I do not take the passage as symbolic. If it says darkness it actually means darkness as opposed to light, not meaning no life. Without life is taken care of in the “without form and void.”

Day 0 is not necessary. It is inherent through the creation account, the materials for creation were made on day 1, as stated in Genesis 1:1. Day 0 is an abstract thought that is irrational in a linear factual literal project. Day 1 is the first day used here. You are assuming a day 0 when no basis is given. Again, faulty logic.

Not at all. I am offering an explanation of how water existed before “let there be light” and its implications, something you have thus far refused to do.

Thanks for the spirited discussion.

 

[Professor]

It's in the introduction to your paper. Twisting of words not needed.
" If there is an actual conflict between Scripture and science, then obviously Scripture wins. But if something cannot be determined from Scripture, then Scripture cannot negate what is known scientifically."[close]

I see your problem. You don't know how to interpret written words. I said, if there is a conflict, Scripture wins. If Scripture is silent about something, then Scripture cannot negate something we know from science because Scripture is silent. Science says evolution. Scripture says no evolution. Scripture wins. Science says:

F = (Gm1m2)/r2

Scripture says nothing about force or gravity. Thus, Scripture does not negate it because it is silent.

It is quite clear the specific time period he refers to.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I'm glad you acknowledge that water existed before "let there be light."

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Sorry. I missed the scriptures you said you previously used in your post on Sunday. Please repeat.

You used no mathematics (not that math would be relevant anyway). Mentioning graphs, and x.y.z axes is not math. I also fail to detect any logic. I see no conclusions or premises. Please be more specific. Besides, if logic is of the world, why are you using worldly logic?



Amazing. You disagree with my arguments (without even having read them), and because you disagree with them you claim that I am saying the Bible is wrong. Absurdity in the extreme. That actually means that you have the audacity to claim that only your interpretation is the right one. You ought to show more humility.

Statistics by definition: a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data.
Hence, x, y, z axes are math.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Genesis 1:1 clearly says heavens and the earth. This would include water, and all the properties and substance of every element. Day 1.

 

[Professor]

You are the one who is misinterpreting scripture, adding, assuming, postulating, as if your pseudo-scientific logic could fill in the blanks that Genesis left -- OH BOY.

Are you foolish to say that God did not create gravity when He created the earth with all it's elements and physical, electromagnetic and nuclear forces as well! [close]

I already said He did, just prior to Day 1.

How high minded and arrogant that you would even name your avatar Professor as if you could teach anyone anything about the Bible. You must be born again to receive the Holy Spirit, then you receive discernment.[close]

I chose professor because I am actually (drumroll) a professor.

Void means empty, no form, therefore no water prior to that, no earth prior to that because SCRIPTURE STATES THAT IN THE FIRST SENTENCE. Yes, when someone says this is void of something, it means it doesn't contain it, have it, exist. It's an introduction to what follows. An example: You are void of spiritual discernment -- That means, you don't have it.[close]

That is not what it means in Hebrew.

[snipped]

"Let there be light", means He created it, waves and particles in our physical realm. Since the sun and moon weren't present, we can infer that God who is LIGHT and brighter than any star provided the light __ H E L L O![close]

Infer? INFER??!! Why do you get to infer things but deny that right to others?

[snipped]

Who said animals did not die? From Day 1 of Creation to the Flood was 1656 years.
We don't know when sin happened, they could have lived weeks, months, years before they sinned. Most likely their curiosity couldn't be restrained and it happened quite early. But that is when death came into reality. Nevertheless. animals did multiply enough to cover the earth within 1656 years -- millions of animals could spread and occupy the entire planet within that time. There are some 250,000 fossils. But are you going to now distort the story of Noah as well?[close]

Just wait til I post the rest of my commentary.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

So anyways, what is your objective to this whole thread?
It seems that you are arguing just to argue. If history should serve as a guide, I don't imagine this is the first time that arguing just to argue has been your motivation.
Or am I wrong in my research that you have been involved in several court cases which also proved unfruitful? I'm done arguing with you. You're work is unfounded and you rely on science to validate whatever it is you think you are validating. Scripture refutes the work you've made and all the subsequent arguments of it. No need to go through appeal processes as it were.

 

[Professor]

Statistics by definition: a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data.
Hence, x, y, z axes are math.

You only mentioned it. You didn't use it.