Creationists needed to evaluate a post (Creationists helping atheists)

[BobRyan]

I am looking for Sabbath keeping Creationists - specifically ones that believe that at the start of day 1 of creation week - the Earth was covered by water, was in darkness, and had no life at all on it.

If that is you - then

1. please go here and view these two posts. #1 #2

2. If you agree with the posts - please reply (don't just add an emoticon) to the first post -- so then add a comment regarding your agreement.

3. Then come back here if you want to discuss the topic or comments you find there. Since this is a safe place for Creationists to post and we can discuss any point we wish without being insulted.

(But be very careful not to reply to atheists there that will then demean or accuse when seeing your comment -- as they can often be demeaning toward creationists when evolution is not spoken of with high praise)

================================ some background info

"The Purpose" of the thread is to create the platform of common ground between theists and creationists on "A-" the starting condition. (Namely that the Earth did exist at one time with absolutely no life on it). And also on "B-" the fact that we now exist on Earth with a wide diversity of life forms.

(We could add "obviously" -- but atheist are a bit wary by this time).

When you reply to the first post saying that you notice the details in it and find that it is stating something that is obvious and easy to follow. (If that is what you think of these two posts) -- you help disabuse the atheist self-talk that says "no details can be seen if they are not convenient to belief in evolution, and no post to that effect would be agreed to by the reader".

We help our atheist friends to embrace reality when we provide evidence of it - even though reality may not flatter some of the self-talk that is piled around belief in the doctrine on origins found in their particular evolution narrative.

 

[BobRyan]

Warning - that thread I am linking to is NOT " a safe place for Creationists " which is the normal that we would expect.

However wayyyy above that as a "risk" for you is that it is absolutely NOT a safe place to say anything at all against Theistic Evolution -- (Which is why my post strongly suggests you come back here for other comments besides the one I suggest in this thread OP).

I avoid that specific topic in that area of the board and you should not allow them to trap you into that T.E. discussion in that section of C.F. You can discuss it any place else but not under the P & LS section of CF.

They have this statement " Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up" - and by definition for them "evolution is science fact" so the moment you argue with T.E. they will try to get you to object to evolution as "science fact", and that by definition is not in line with the rules guarding that board. IT is a trick they use and for now it is being supported as the way to go ... so please just stick with Creationist vs Atheist or something about evolution not occurring at a certain level.

 

[Po1eca7]

This is difficult stuff. I like to keep a sabbath, and I believe that God created the universe and all in it. I've thought quite a bit about this topic over the years and would be happy to help. I don't know that you will find what you are seeking though, in "specifically ones that believe that at the start of day 1 of creation week - the Earth was covered by water, was in darkness, and had no life at all on it".

At the start of day 1 of creation the Bible implies that there was no earth. Nothing. I believe the confusion comes from the use there of the spirit moving over the "waters". Light (scientists might choose to generalise to energy) was created on day one; the heavens / sky (space) on day two; the sea on day three, which you *can* think of in the way that a lot of people think of the "waters" mentioned earlier. Mistakenly in my view. You may want to look at the use of the word water(s) in the Bible - especially the Psalms. It is often symbolically speaking of a chaos that I like to think of similarly to our modern day understanging of the quantum world. One that comes to mind (more or less - I won't look it up and quote it chapter and verse unless you want me to) is a psalm which says: seek God where he may be found; in the rush of many waters you will not find him.

Now then, moving on to where you cite the eminent Hebraicist. My own modus operandi is to try and examine these things primary in terms of what the Bible says in itself (and what it doesn't, and what it says elsewhere). It is quite big - so I feel this is ample challenge for me to be going along with for now. Let us treat your scholar's contribution with the respect that it deserves then and take it on board, and at face value.

May I now direct you to Gen 2:16-17. This is where God is telling his rule to Adam about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and includes what ESV gives as (and I do quote verbatim this time because it's the Biblical crux of the matter): "... for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

I think if there is a bridge to be built between the sciences' obsverations on the world, and what the Bible tells us in Genesis, it may be here. For here we've got a scripture we must regard as true in the truest sense - because it is God that is saying this. But we also know from the Bible's own plain reading, that in the way that we would most naturally think of as a "day", Adam did not die. Only much later. It isn't difficult to conclude that what is meant is that he would definitely die, and the ultimate reason for it is the actions he did on that day. But it did not actually happen immediately.

So here - whilst fully respecting everything our Hebraicist says, we have an example of the Bible itself showng us that within the text cited, it does use this term... how can I put this most carefully? ... in a very true sense, which also must logically be a bit different to how the most obvious reading would seem to imply.

Ew, that's clumsy! But it'll do for now. Now - full disclosure - I'm not actually a Hebrew scholar myself (it is on the bucket list to learn a bit!). But the Hebrew word for day in the creation days I look up in Strongs and it is word number 3427. This does not correspond directly with 2:17 because there the word is what my Kohlenberger interlinear renders "in day of". If we've got a scholar around who can verify these words are of the same root I believe my argument is definitely valid. But if not I would be content to argue that the 2:17 passage is conveying an immediacy suitable for my purpose here in any case.

SOOooo... that all said... do you think that I might be any use to you for your project?

I've got a degree in Physics as well if that helps. But I don't claim to know much about evolution at any rigorous scientifc way.

One word of caution: I've spoken to many people who claim to be atheists (*) about this matter, and have found precious few who are genuinely interested in finding any common ground. For one thing, science is a practical matter, concerned with what we can usefully learn of the world as we observe it. It depends for its conclusions upon repeatable experimentations to examine laws which are the same everywhere in time and space, and to do so must ignore a priori anything supernatural, which is obviously what we are dealing with here. This does not imply it says those cannot happen, but that it only concerns itself with things inside that scope of the natural, and there is plenty there usefully to be getting on with. You can rigorously study other such matters, but they tend to be called different things like Philosophy or Metaphysics or such.

I've not come across any actual scientists who've got any problem accepting this. Nor is it a particularly hidden or difficult concept. So all those atheists who come across so reasonably, but want you to show them proof in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of evidence of the existence of God... I do not want to cast aspersions on anybody's motives, but for your own sake you may be best regarding them as time-wasters. If we solve this puzzle together there will be many others. But, hey, that's fun, right? If you don't think so, if you're not in fact really passionate about this, honestly you might be best leaving it, mate. Because it's likely to test you.

(*) One of my banters with my few good friends that are atheists is that I like to say: "I don't believe in atheists.... that'll learn 'em!" Often they will come back with something quite convincing and my follow up is simply "Aye now, you might. But one day you won't be!"

Anyway, yeah, I've enjoyed writing to you. Get back to me if you want...

 

[BobRyan]

This is difficult stuff. I like to keep a sabbath, and I believe that God created the universe and all in it. I've thought quite a bit about this topic over the years and would be happy to help. I don't know that you will find what you are seeking though, in "specifically ones that believe that at the start of day 1 of creation week - the Earth was covered by water, was in darkness, and had no life at all on it".

At the start of day 1 of creation the Bible implies that there was no earth. Nothing.

That is one way to infer it... but there is another option.

The intro - covering all of creation (time frame unknown)

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.​

So then no life on Earth, ,no atmosphere as we have with birds flying in it etc. Just a "surface of the deep" and waters covering it.

EACH day starts with "THEN God said" and ends with "evening and morning nth day" (A time-boxed chronological sequence)

3 Then God said, “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.

6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters...And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered ...13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse ...19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem ... 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, ... And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.


​

 

[BobRyan]

May I now direct you to Gen 2:16-17. This is where God is telling his rule to Adam about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and includes what ESV gives as (and I do quote verbatim this time because it's the Biblical crux of the matter): "... for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

I think if there is a bridge to be built between the sciences' obsverations on the world, and what the Bible tells us in Genesis, it may be here. For here we've got a scripture we must regard as true in the truest sense - because it is God that is saying this. But we also know from the Bible's own plain reading, that in the way that we would most naturally think of as a "day", Adam did not die. Only much later.

The Hebrew language is a "high context" language where a word's meaning is determined more by immediate context rather than the Websters version of "hat" or "bird" always being the same thing. In chapter 1 "evening and morning where the nth day" is very specific context not at all ambiguous. There is no case in all of scripture where formulations like 'evening and morning where nth day' has any alternate meaning.

What is more the legal code of Ex 20:8-11 makes it clear that the days of Sinai are equated in length/duration to Genesis 1 "six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made ..."

 

[BobRyan]

SOOooo... that all said... do you think that I might be any use to you for your project?

At this point I don't think so but I appreciate the offer.

I've got a degree in Physics as well if that helps. But I don't claim to know much about evolution at any rigorous scientifc way.

I have a computer science degree with biophysics mixed in - but I am trying not to let the atheists drag this into the weeds where the average reader would not get the point. I want the points to be obvious and easy for anyone to grasp.

One word of caution: I've spoken to many people who claim to be atheists (*) about this matter, and have found precious few who are genuinely interested in finding any common ground. For one thing, science is a practical matter, concerned with what we can usefully learn of the world as we observe it. It depends for its conclusions upon repeatable experimentations to examine laws which are the same everywhere in time and space,

Agreed. And this is the very rule the atheists are most anxious to break. I sort of "put them in that box" by bringing up a well documented experiment with e.coli having over 75,000 generations of observed "evolution" where nothing at all happens that would promote the prokaryote bacteria species up the ladder of taxonomy to eukaryote status.

This is devastating because the prokaryotes have a DNA design far more adaptive to the environment - yet modern humans supposedly evolved into being in the last 200,000 years (far less than 75,000 generations) yet the 75K generation equivalent for humans would be about 3 million years. It would be like saying modern humans did not evolve not even over a 3 million year period of direct observation.

their only "escape" is to argue that not only is the bacteria to eukaryote transition not observable it is also not repeatable. ( I do make that case on the thread in question)

 

[BobRyan]

So all those atheists who come across so reasonably, but want you to show them proof in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of evidence of the existence of God... I do not want to cast aspersions on anybody's motives, but for your own sake you may be best regarding them as time-wasters. If we solve this puzzle together there will be many others. But, hey, that's fun, right? If you don't think so, if you're not in fact really passionate about this, honestly you might be best leaving it, mate. Because it's likely to test you.

I agree with you 100% but - I would add this -

1. Even for atheists - the John 16 fact of the Holy Spirit "convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16 - is a fact in their life they they can't afford to admit it.
2. One man, plants, another waters, another brings harvest (1 Cor 3). So I don't mind doing a little of the planting work.. opening a crack for 'reasonable doubt' in someone's mind. Knowing they are not likely to turn into a christian when they read my post.
3. One thing that helps is to disabuse them of the notion that "if they close their eyes nobody else can see either". And they often resort to that sort of logic. Which can be easily handled just with the posts that are of the form "ok I do see that point and I agree"

Collin Patterson - a well known atheist evolutionist (Died as such ... so never wavered) still admitted that evolution conveys a kind of "anti-knowledge" - and that sound reasoning is "at risk" for adherents to the doctrines on origins found in evolutionism.

 

[Po1eca7]

At this point I don't think so but I appreciate the offer.

You're very welcome - I may well follow your efforts with interest if they're on here.

I've got an impression you might come across to them as a bit adversarial, and I wonder whether your insistence on adherence to the strict chronology may be hindering your efforts unnecessarily. I'm not interested in challenging your belief in that, if it is something that you feel is fundamental to your faith. All that I was trying to point out - Biblically - is that it may be unnecessary for you to do so in your talks with them.

In particular, I'd suggest you look at the following:

From your post #4 (forgive the fact I don't know how to do these properly yet - apart from the first in a reply!): "That is one way to infer it... but there is another option" ...

I would argue that what you then go on to say just does not work, and that you seem intent still to read the waters here in the literal way we now think of liquid H2O. In fact, a formless world cannot hold water, or indeed anything else. Elsewhere, you seem to be envisioning a rocky planet with no atmosphere, but that could not hold water either - it would just boil off into space.

Whereas what I was trying to explain is that the subsequent days narrative in Genesis may be read entirely literally to mean that the heavens / sky / SPACE (in modern parlance) did not exist until day two. Any earth on which literal H2O water may be present, until day three. And somehow, your way, you are going to need to explain to the atheists what it is exactly you believe the Bible means by the terms "day", "morning", and "evening", when there is no sun until day four. Now, IF you can get around all of that, then the passage does entirely admit of an understanding that these periods of time are equivalent to the literal days of 24 hours / revolution of the earth that we think of every day. But why give yourself all those obstacles to try and navigate round when you do not really need to? Because my reading of it also does admit of days of this length too - but it does not force it onto them in conflict with what scientific observations seem to be indicating to us of the age of the universe.

I'm not sure that I completely understand the point you're making in your first paragraph of post #5 "The Hebrew language is a "high context" language..." etc. Yes, I do get that much of the nature of Hebrew, but are you therefore going on to argue that the day in Genesis 2:17 must be symbolic because it does not exist in the exact same sense as the creation days of chapter 1? If so why? And in any case how do you think that invalidates the point that I'm making with it? Which is that there are actions that happen in an actual day which set in train events which inevitably lead to something else much later, and that there is more that just Genesis 2:17 which may be seen in this way.

However, in the same post #5 I agree with you one hundred percent with the parallel that you draw with the Genesis creation days and the Sabbath of the ten commandments in Exodus, as cited. I would definitely argue that this parallel still works perfectly well whether or not the durations in time are exactly equivalent, though.

These obstacles I think need some thought if you are going to manage any successful communication with the scientifically literate atheist. And this is before I even mention that our understanding of general relativistic space-time, means that there is in fact NO existence of time AT ALL, without the space which does not come into existence until day two.

Your knowledge of the biology in your post #6 is so far in advance of my ken that I can't offer any comment on that at all.

Great corresponding with you. All the very best with your project. And feel free to direct any folk my way if my posts have given you any indication I may be useful to them...

 

[BobRyan]

You're very welcome - I may well follow your efforts with interest if they're on here.

They are at the two links I posted in the OP.. as #1, and #2 you can go there any time you wish.

I've got an impression you might come across to them as a bit adversarial, and I wonder whether your insistence on adherence to the strict chronology may be hindering your efforts unnecessarily.

I agree that the literal 7 day creation week POV is something they do not agree with. But it is interesting that even the atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in pretty much all of what they deem as "world class" universities - agree that the text is describing a literal 7 day week account. (Which is also restated as such in the legal code of Ex 20:8-11).

So while it is true I might get further with them if I could work out some sort of compromise with them on the time frame - still they would have me on that fact that the text itself does not allow for the compromise.

Notice what James Barr said about it.

==============

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

"Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

============================================
Everyone agrees that the character in the Bible "Moses" - was not portrayed as a Darwinist by any stretch.

James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984. Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught. It was only the perceived need to harmonize with the alleged age of the earth which led people to think anything different—it was nothing to do with the text itself.

Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr, on the meaning of Ge

 

[BobRyan]

I would argue that what you then go on to say just does not work, and that you seem intent still to read the waters here in the literal way we now think of liquid H2O. In fact, a formless world cannot hold water, or indeed anything else. Elsewhere, you seem to be envisioning a rocky planet with no atmosphere, but that could not hold water either - it would just boil off into space.

I don't get into the physics of a world that does not have the atmosphere of day 2 or the light of day 1. (Is that atmosphere 40 miles or 2 miles?, is the water liquid or vapor or gas? was Earth a rogue planet at one time? It has elements heavier than what our sun can produce so not of the accretion disc from our sun) I don't even discuss it... because all I need for the sake of agreement with Atheists is two things.

1. Earth existed
2. It had no life on it.

The precise conditions of a lifeless Earth (rogue planet?) without sun or moon and no distinct shape (gas/vapor covering?) - is not of interest in my point and they have not bothered with it at all since both sides already agree to points one and two above.

From there I present two option..

Either rocks alone get us to the present state...very talented rocks indeed.

Or an infinite creator does it ... from dust - to - horse as He said - in a single "evening and morning".

We already see dust-to-horse in a single evening and morning at the micro level with matter-transforming-machines God made called plants taking it from dust to leaf. Then horse digestion taking it from leaf to horse.

The Alternator in a car provides charge to the battery when the car is running.
But that same source of technology also provides the home car charging device that can deliver 2 amp / 12/ amp/ 75 amp for short or long term charge whle the car is NOT running. The industry demonstrates it "has the capability" to do it either way.

A small concept - but it shows that infinite "ability" is capable of "scaling up" what we already see happening every day and it is reasonable then to have the single "evening and morning" matter transform from - dust to horse. On day 6.

 

[BobRyan]

From your post #4 (forgive the fact I don't know how to do these properly yet - apart from the first in a reply!):

If you look at the bottom of each of my posts you will see on the lower right "Quote" and "Reply" ... if you click on "reply" it will open a new post for you - and will auto insert the quote my post in your post and place my statements inside of [QUOTE ] and [/QUOTE ] tags so it will stand out in your post from any comments you make there.

 

[BobRyan]

Whereas what I was trying to explain is that the subsequent days narrative in Genesis may be read entirely literally to mean that the heavens / sky / SPACE (in modern parlance) did not exist until day two.

I am inclined to agree with you there - but only as it pertains to our atmosphere around Earth and our solar system. I think the rest of the universe was pretty much as it is now, at that time. Which is another detail that atheists would not object to regarding "the rest of the universe" being as it is now -- 6000 years ago.

Any earth on which literal H2O water may be present, until day three.

We have not gotten to talking about "day three" on that thread - but since vs 2 already speaks of "Earth" existing - I have hard time arguing it did not exist until day 3 or that there was atmosphere around Earth before Earth existed.

In any case we have not had that discussion because I was just trying to get them to agree that (1) "there was a time" when Earth had no life at all on it... and (2) there is the present time -- when it does.

Certainly that is the "minimalist" point that they can be expected to agree with and it works for the version of Genesis 1 I am describing.

And somehow, your way, you are going to need to explain to the atheists what it is exactly you believe the Bible means by the terms "day", "morning", and "evening", when there is no sun until day four.

Absolutely correct. And my answer is always these three points.

1. A rotating planet
2. A light source on one side of Earth
3. A God who can provide at least one other source of light for Earth other than a fusion reaction 98 million miles away.

Since the term "God" by definition includes "infinite ability, wisdom and power" then it is logical that if such a being exists he should be able to have at least one other source of light as an option for Him.

Now, IF you can get around all of that, then the passage does entirely admit of an understanding that these periods of time are equivalent to the literal days of 24 hours / revolution of the earth that we think of every day.

Agreed. And the problems to be solved are not actually in the text .. they are outside of it. I have proposed possible solutions "for God" in solving those problems... but technically that is not required. As a Creationist they can hold my feet to the fire on "what the text says" not on my story telling about how infinite God works where I can pretty much tell any story I like at that point. So I am sticking with the text within the bounds of what is called "Exegesis". Even though I do have a few ideas of how God could make all that work within the statements He makes about it in the text.

 

[BobRyan]

But why give yourself all those obstacles to try and navigate round when you do not really need to? Because my reading of it also does admit of days of this length too - but it does not force it onto them in conflict with what scientific observations seem to be indicating to us of the age of the universe.

If you look at the 7 day start and end points I show in my post - I also don't say anything at all about the age of the universe. Each of those days only deals with Earth, life on earth and our own Sun ... our own moon. The rest of the universe is not even in it as something created in those 7 days.

I'm not sure that I completely understand the point you're making in your first paragraph of post #5 "The Hebrew language is a "high context" language..." etc. Yes, I do get that much of the nature of Hebrew, but are you therefore going on to argue that the day in Genesis 2:17 must be symbolic because it does not exist in the exact same sense as the creation days of chapter 1? If so why?

In Gen 1-2:3 you have a time-boxed chronological sequence each of them in the "one evening-and-morning" timebox.

But in Genesis 2:4-end it is just "in the day", it is like "in the age" or "during the time when "... not a single evening and morning. In that second story - there is no atmosphere, no fish, no sun no moon. It is assumed that the details in that part of Gen 2 are simply added in to the details already given. But the first Gen 1:3-2:3 section is a very definite time-boxed chronological sequence. And those days are equated in Ex 20 with the days at Sinai "six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made"

And in any case how do you think that invalidates the point that I'm making with it? Which is that there are actions that happen in an actual day which set in train events which inevitably lead to something else much later, and that there is more that just Genesis 2:17 which may be seen in this way.

There is nothing in Genesis 2 that limits it to just day 6 of the 7 day creation account. I don't know how much time is included in Gen 2 or 3. And the atheists are not actually looking at that in any case because my thread is not arguing that they need to accept a 7 day creation week, only that it is reasonable to accept that an infinite God (if He exists) can make a horse in a day as the bible said He did. My argument on the thread is that going from "dust,rocks,gas" and no life ( a starting point we all agree with in that thread) - to "Horse" requires either a very talented group of rocks or an infinite creator.

I also make the point on that thread that we see the dust-to-rabbit,... dust-to-horse sequence every day. For example a living machine such as a plant - takes dirt, water, sunlight transforms it into leaf (at least part of the leaf that grows that day) and the horse then eats it - transforming that part of the leaf into "horse" that day as well.

So at that point we have a matter transformation sequence that "science can observe" -- and can logically assume that if we add "infinite Creator" into the mix He can do that entire thing in a single day - from dirt to fully formed horse.

By contrast they are stuck with evolution and Dawkins saying that "evolution does not happen while we are observing". As well as some of their other "believed in but not repeatable" claims about prokaryotes turning into eukaryotes yet inexplicably failing to do so when we observe over 75000 generations of prokaryotes.

 

[Po1eca7]

If you look at the bottom of each of my posts you will see on the lower right "Quote" and "Reply" ... if you click on "reply" it will open a new post for you - and will auto insert the quote my post in your post and place my statements inside of...

Wonderful - thanks very much for this.

 

[Po1eca7]

So while it is true I might get further with them if I could work out some sort of compromise with them on the time frame - still they would have me on that fact that the text itself does not allow for the compromise.

I don't agree. I believe the text as it stands does allow for that. I'm concious that I do not want to waste any more of both our time, but a couple of points seem important I try and clarify.

because all I need for the sake of agreement with Atheists is two things.

1. Earth existed
2. It had no life on it.

No. This is what I'm trying to say - the earth that existed was "formless" (the Bible's word). I don't believe it admits of the interpretation you're trying to put on it. In particular:

Absolutely correct. And my answer is always these three points.

1. A rotating planet
2. A light source on one side of Earth

1) A formless entity cannot rotate. By definition rotation is one type of motion of a form.

2) Light does not exist until day one, earth until day three. And no thing which does exist, can be on one side (rather than the other side) of the formless earth mentioned earlier, because "formless" does not admit of it having sides.

So my overall point is that there isn't the agreement, even on these points, and that at least some of the objections to it are Biblical in nature.

I am inclined to agree with you there - but only as it pertains to our atmosphere around Earth and our solar system. I think the rest of the universe was pretty much as it is now, at that time.

I have to admit that I've not encountered the argument before, that the Genesis account is only intended to relate to the creation of our earth and that the universe already existed pretty much as is now. I don't think this is reasonable. For the earth to be formless you've got to be talking about galactic timeframes, and what would be the universe before the creation of light and space? To back up the space point, the Bible says "the heavens" on day two. and later makes it clear that this means the place wherein later were created both the birds, and also the sun and the moon. It doesn't limit itself to what we would now call the earth's atmosphere.

Now it's your project, and I'm not privy to what you're planning to do, so it might be that these are minor points within its framework. But they seem pretty fundamental points, to me.

P.S. I'm new here. I can't remember whether here or other threads, but I keep seeing references to Websters in conversations about words. Is this the gold standard reference dictionary in America? Like our Oxford English Dictionary?

 

[BobRyan]

No. This is what I'm trying to say - the earth that existed was "formless" (the Bible's word).

More than that.
1. "Earth exists" at that point - as you just stated.
2. It exist with water covering the surface of the deep. vs 2.
3. It has a surface of the waters. Vs 2
4. It also had "the surface of the deep" -- vs 2.
5. AND it had no life on it.
6. Formless and Void - Jer 4:23-26 with "hills moving to and fro"

NASB 1955
Jer 4:
23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void;
And to the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking,
And all the hills moved to and fro.

8414 Formless: תֹּהוּ tôhûw, to'-hoo; from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:—confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness

H8414 tohuw
Is 34:11
11 But pelican and hedgehog will possess it,
And owl and raven will dwell in it;
And He will stretch over it the line of desolation
And the plumb line of emptiness.

11 But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness. KJV
==============================

The only part of that - that I am discussing with the atheists (and the only point that has come up in that conversation so far) is that "there was no life on Earth" at that time - regardless of how one might wish to describe the water or the shape of the deep or the shape of the surface etc. The thread is just dealing with a "no life" condition.

(BTW that term for formless and void is also used of Earth at other places in the Bible as well).

I suspect from what you have said that you also believe that there is some point in the past where "Earth existed" but had no life on it. Which is the only point I am bringing up with them on that starting condition.

1) A formless entity cannot rotate. By definition rotation is one type of motion of a form.

A formless entity - that has a "surface of the deep" and has water covering it - is not the same definition for "formless" that you are using.

2) Light does not exist until day one,

Only with respect to Earth.. it is not a statement about no light existing in the Universe.

earth until day three.

Earth has water covering the surface of the deep before day 1.
Earth has light and both evening and morning on day 1.
Earth has an atmosphere on day 2

You are trying to get that to be called "Earth that does not exist" but in my model it works better to say that "something has to exist" to have a surface, to have water covering its surface, to manifest an evening and morning sequence, to be covered with an atmosphere. I find it much easier to discuss using that definition.

But as I said - if you read the thread - that is not the focus. The focus in on Earth existing at one point with no life on it... and then later the claim that God takes dirt and transforms it in a single evening-and-morning from dirt-to-horse. As opposed to rocks doing that by themselves.

So my overall point is that there isn't the agreement, even on these points, and that at least some of the objections to it are Biblical in nature.

Those are not objections that the atheists are making and I have not met Creationists arguing that Earth did not exist for day 1 or day 2 either. So the objection you are talking about might pertain more to a T.E. vs Creationist thread.

I have to admit that I've not encountered the argument before, that the Genesis account is only intended to relate to the creation of our earth and that the universe already existed pretty much as is now.

It simplifies the number of variables that you have to account for. I don't have to account for the entire galaxy or the entire universe those 7 days by using that strict rendering for the text. It comes in handy in a lot of discussions.

I don't think this is reasonable. For the earth to be formless you've got to be talking about galactic timeframes, and what would be the universe before the creation of light and space?

Which never comes up - because by definition the scenario described is not about the Galaxy having no light or space... just the already rotating Earth having no light and no atmosphere.

It is another discussion/debate that does not come up given the creationist model I propose with the atheists.

To back up the space point, the Bible says "the heavens" on day two. and later makes it clear that this means the place wherein later were created both the birds, and also the sun and the moon.

Heavens where birds fly - and using an observer on Earth at the "frame of reference" -- seeing "two great lights" (exactly two) - in the heavens. I think this works for Earth alone - but if one wanted to extend it out to "our solar system" - I have no objection.

Now it's your project, and I'm not privy to what you're planning to do, so it might be that these are minor points within its framework. But they seem pretty fundamental points, to me.

As I point out - these are not objections the atheists have been raising so far... primarily because I keep the details simple... a point of earth with no life on it (they prefer just a rock planet that has only geothermal heat - so I am not objecting to their definition at present).

P.S. I'm new here. I can't remember whether here or other threads, but I keep seeing references to Websters in conversations about words. Is this the gold standard reference dictionary in America? Like our Oxford English Dictionary?

Yes if you google " what is baseball Websters " you will see an example of it

 

[Po1eca7]

Wow. That is a post! Thank you ever so much for your time. You've given me loads to think about. I'll have a good read, and may come back with some questions later, if you wouldn't mind. In the meantime, God bless you.

 

[Po1eca7]

I've just noticed - do you know I'm so new here that I hadn't even realised all of our conversation was happening in a forum for "Traditional Adventists". (I got to it from a list or recent threads, you see). So thank you doubly for all of your time, since I probably shouldn't have been here in the first place! I've "followed" you too, hope you don't mind. You're the first. I assume this works a bit like twitter or facebook's "follow". I'm not familiar with forums - this is the first one I've tried to operate in!

 

[BobRyan]

I've just noticed - do you know I'm so new here that I hadn't even realised all of our conversation was happening in a forum for "Traditional Adventists". (I got to it from a list or recent threads, you see). So thank you doubly for all of your time, since I probably shouldn't have been here in the first place! I've "followed" you too, hope you don't mind. You're the first. I assume this works a bit like twitter or facebook's "follow". I'm not familiar with forums - this is the first one I've tried to operate in!

no problem I already guessed from your statements about being new on the forum - no harm done.

And the board rules do allow you to post here. Thread is open for questions - but is marked as a "safe place" for Adventists - so not for arguing against SDA doctrine... still it is ok to question it and ask why we believe this or that etc.

And I don't mind being followed on the boards.

Today we vote in Georgia "again" -- pray that our state will not have criminal elements/aspects associated with voting practices. Honest voting is always best - I always say.

 

[Freth]

Preface

Several verses come to mind, which I'll add as I write this post.

I frequent Reddit Christian forums. Questions about creation vs evolution come up every day, even multiple times a day. I respond to them regularly, but I try to write a new, unique post every time, so that I'm not repeating myself and I'm learning something new during the writing process. Much of what I'm going to write here is based on my experiences on Reddit, with posters asking questions and me answering them.

This post may be a departure from what you're looking for, but it's my own perspective, based on scripture.

Proof?

Proof of God is what most people are looking for. Some physical, concrete evidence that shows them that God indeed exists. Many want God to show Himself as proof. We, as Christians, know that proof indeed exists.

Romans 1:20-23 KJV For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.​

This means nothing to an atheist, because they 1) don't believe the Bible is the word of God, 2) don't see proof in creation that God exists, despite the fact that it's readily apparent.

The question to ask is why?

1 Corinthians 2:14-16 KJV But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

Proverbs 19:3 KJV The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the Lord.​

The answer lies in the heart of the person.

God preserves our free will by isolating us from any possible bias on His part. While His law is placed in our hearts, it's up to us to heed the call, to hear the knock, to seek.

Romans 2:14-16 KJV For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.​

Revelation 3:20 KJV Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Matthew 7:7-8 KJV Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
​

The question then is, how do you change a person's heart? By planting seeds.

Matthew 13:3-9 KJV And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; and when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
​

Unbelievers are in various states of heart. Some hearts are hard as a rock. Some have softened somewhat through their own experiences. There is no way for us to know where each person stands. The best thing we can do is plant hearty seeds of truth, so that they can grow. This means picking and choosing the best seeds, so that they will have the best chance of taking root—but you have to remove the rocks and the weeds first. More on that in a minute.

It's also important to recognize when not to throw pearls to swine.

Matthew 7:6 KJV Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
​

Atheist forums, especially, can be a hostile place where they are just waiting with baited breath to tear into a Christian poster.

This is not to say that we shouldn't try, but remember, God leaves some to their own reprobate mind, because they are lost. He even gives them strong delusion in the last days.

Romans 1:28 KJV And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 KJV And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
​

The answer is not in trying to argue proof. The answer is to look at the heart of the matter.

• Admit that you can't provide proof, even though proof is self-evident.
  
• Help them understand that belief has to come first. Faith. As a heart softens, opens to belief and seeks honestly and earnestly, proof is given through the Holy Spirit.
  
• Share the Gospel and show love and compassion. Arguments don't soften the heart.

While there is truth in your posts, it's going to fall on deaf ears, because their hearts are hardened and will not hear the truth. It is a change of heart that has to happen and the most powerful thing that can change a person's heart is love.

Once the heart softens (fertile ground), it gives the Holy Spirit a chance to work in a person's life. The delusion is broken and truth is allowed in.