Genesis 1: Exposition and Doctrine of Creation

[SkyWriting]

I think he is still complaining that I refuse to assume creation week immediately followed the original creation. All the text tells us about that is it was, 'in the beginning'. The Genesis account emphasizes the creation of life, not the age of the earth.

Awesome analysis.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks

 

[Calminian]

I think he is still complaining that I refuse to assume creation week immediately followed the original creation. ....

Well "refuse" is the right word, but there's nothing to assume. The creation week is the beginning. Mark has been refuted on this in multiple forums, and definitely still refuses to be corrected by scripture. (I speak of him in the 3rd, because he refuses to dialog with me on this, though I'm open to a friendly exchange if he's willing.)

There is a move as of late, to revive the gap theory under different names such as historical creationism, and that's surely where he's getting most of his ideas. In essence, they all attempt to separate the 6 day 'creation week' from the 'beginning.' The problem is, this is impossible. Christ tells us very plainly, Adam and Eve were made, not just during the creation week, but from the 'beginning.'

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female.’​

If Adam and Eve were from the beginning, and they were created on the last day of creation, then creation week must be referring to the beginning.

Peter also believed the 'creation' week and 'the beginning' were the same thing. Here he implies the living dying process has been going on since the beginning.

2Pet. 3:4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”​

Paul also equated the creation of the world with the creation of man.

Rom. 1:120 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

There is no possible way to pull off this separation. Scripture is clear, Adam was made in the beginning, not just at some time billions of years later toward the very end of the creation. Mark doesn't like the evolutionary part of science, but for some reason can't let go of the deep beliefs that go hand and hand with it. Scripture teaches a young earth. We just have to deal with it.

 

[mark kennedy]

I guess we can try this again, couldn't hurt. This, more then any part of the post is what I want to address:

Mark doesn't like the evolutionary part of science

That is absolutely not true, I have continually made it crystal clear that evolution is the genuine article of science, defined as, 'the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time'. Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, is the presupposition that 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition' (Darwin). Too many times have I posted this distinction for you to have been unaware of it. I will deal with the equivocation of these two very different things the same way if it's being propagandized by a rabid Darwinian or over zealous YEC.

Well "refuse" is the right word, but there's nothing to assume. The creation week is the beginning. Mark has been refuted on this in multiple forums, and definitely still refuses to be corrected by scripture. (I speak of him in the 3rd, because he refuses to dialog with me on this, though I'm open to a friendly exchange if he's willing.)

No, Creation week doesn't start until verse three regardless of when you think the original creation was. The age of the earth is not an issue and I can think of no reason a Creationist would insist it must unless...their not.

There is a move as of late, to revive the gap theory under different names such as historical creationism, and that's surely where he's getting most of his ideas.

There is no theory here, just three verses. I had never heard of the gap theory before you started obsessing over it. I get my convictions and expositions from the clear testimony of Scripture and one prevailing maxim, speak where the Scriptures speak and remain silent where the Scriptures are silent. You should try it some time.

In essence, they all attempt to separate the 6 day 'creation week' from the 'beginning.' The problem is, this is impossible. Christ tells us very plainly, Adam and Eve were made, not just during the creation week, but from the 'beginning.'

No what the age of the earth does is it drowns any discussion of the creation in useless speculation. The earth and the universe may be very young, it may be very old, it is irrelevant to the creation of life, especially the creation of Adam. We have talked about this, the creation of Adam is inextricably linked to the genealogies and thus the timeline of Scripture from Adam to Christ, there are no gaps. Between the original creation and creation week there may or may not be time wise, either way it's irrelevant. Not because I think that will please secular skeptics, but because I know the Scriptures and let them speak for themselves.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female.’​

If Adam and Eve were from the beginning, and they were created on the last day of creation, then creation week must be referring to the beginning.

That's called an equivocation fallacy, you are pretending the creation of the heavens and the earth and the creation of Adam are inextricably linked time wise. They are not the same, all we know about the creation of the heavens and the earth is it was in the beginning, the creation of Adam is another matter and no matter how hard you try to equivocate the two they are not the same thing.

Peter also believed the 'creation' week and 'the beginning' were the same thing. Here he implies the living dying process has been going on since the beginning.

Something I've never denied.

2Pet. 3:4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”​

Paul also equated the creation of the world with the creation of man.

No he didn't, you equivocated them. Paul just says the beginning with no reference to the time frame.

Rom. 1:120 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

There is no possible way to pull off this separation.

There is no separation to pull off, a text without a context is a pretext and your begging the question of proof on you hands and knees. It's not wonder Evolutionists can run us in circles endlessly since guys like you take the bait hook, line and sinker. What gets buried in arguments like your is everything that follows the first couple of verses in Genesis 1.

I can't imagine any Creationist seriously making this argument unless you want attention drawn away from the actual testimony of Scripture.

Scripture is clear, Adam was made in the beginning, not just at some time billions of years later toward the very end of the creation. Mark doesn't like the evolutionary part of science, but for some reason can't let go of the deep beliefs that go hand and hand with it. Scripture teaches a young earth. We just have to deal with it.

What your doing is equivocating the original creation with creation week, probably because you don't want anyone reading beyond the first couple of verses. I most certainly do like the evolutionary part of science I just don't equivocate it with Darwinism the way you do.

Scripture teaches nothing with regards to the age of the earth or the universe. The heavens and the earth may be very young and they may be very old, the Scriptures are silent on that point.

This sounds like a diversion because you can't link anything in Scripture to your fallacious arguments equivocating original creation with creation week. I think you know it, that's the part that annoys me, your actual arguments on the other hand are fish in a bucket.

I still think your a TE sock puppet.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Calminian]

Reading through you post, I actually didn't see a response, just a dogmatic assertion that creation week doesn't start until verse 3 and some very poor attempts at insults which rolled off my back. I'll see if I can find a semblance of a response.

....That's called an equivocation fallacy, you are pretending the creation of the heavens and the earth and the creation of Adam are inextricably linked time wise. They are not the same, all we know about the creation of the heavens and the earth is it was in the beginning, the creation of Adam is another matter and no matter how hard you try to equivocate the two they are not the same thing.

From the "beginning of creation" is not unclear. It's crystal clear. You may think the age of the earth is irrelevant, but this is what scripture teaches. I'm not willing to say which biblical truths are irrelevant, and which are not. Mankind is said to be created from the beginning of the creation of the world. You're saying scripture is not clear. I'm going to side with scripture.

No he didn't, you equivocated them. Paul just says the beginning with no reference to the time frame.

The beginning of creation is a reference to time. Since the creation of the world, men have observed God's creation. You can either believe this or refuse to, but this statement makes it clear mankind is associated with the beginning of the world, not just the beginning of biological life.

There is no separation to pull off, a text without a context is a pretext and your begging the question of proof on you hands and knees.

I still think your a TE sock puppet.

Seems from here out, you ran out or responses and went back into insult mode. I'm disappointed. I thought you'd be a bit more thoughtful.

grace and peace

 

[mark kennedy]

Reading through you post, I actually didn't see a response, just a dogmatic assertion that creation week doesn't start until verse 3 and some very poor attempts at insults which rolled off my back. I'll see if I can find a semblance of a response.

That's really not necessary, you don't have an argument.

From the "beginning of creation" is not unclear. It's crystal clear. You may think the age of the earth is irrelevant, but this is what scripture teaches. I'm not willing to say which biblical truths are irrelevant, and which are not. Mankind is said to be created from the beginning of the creation of the world. You're saying scripture is not clear. I'm going to side with scripture.

Yes it is, the heavens and the earth were created, 'in the beginning', that's crystal clear.

The beginning of creation is a reference to time. Since the creation of the world, men have observed God's creation. You can either believe this or refuse to, but this statement makes it clear mankind is associated with the beginning of the world, not just the beginning of biological life.

You can say that as many times as you like, the Scriptures don't.

Seems from here out, you ran out or responses and went back into insult mode. I'm disappointed. I thought you'd be a bit more thoughtful.

I haven't ran out of arguments, we have exhausted the text. This is nothing personal, there is only one reason you would insist the Scriptures mean something neither implied nor stated. You want Creationists to think they must believe in a young earth even though the Scriptures teach nothing of the sort. Just one, and it is not because you are trying to defend the Scriptures. It's to distract from what follows.

 

[Calminian]

That's really not necessary, you don't have an argument.

Yes it is, the heavens and the earth were created, 'in the beginning', that's crystal clear.

Actually the heavens and the earth and Adam and Eve, to be thorough.

his is nothing personal....

It's between you and God. I don't pretend to know your motives.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually the heavens and the earth and Adam and Eve, to be thorough.

The heavens and the earth were created 'in the beginning', Adam and Eve were created 6000 years ago. They could have happened at the same time or the heavens and the earth could have been billions of years ago. Nothing in the statement, in the beginning' can be interpreted as 6000 years ago no matter how much you torture the text or the context.

It's between you and God. I don't pretend to know your motives.

There's no secret motive here, just a straightforward reading of the text.

 

[Calminian]

Mark's says, "The heavens and the earth were created 'in the beginning', Adam and Eve were created 6000 years ago....."

Christ's says, Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mark's view: They could have been made at the beginning.

Christ's view: They were made at the beginning.

I'm going with Christ on this one.

Paul sides with Christ as well:

Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Mark's view: They could have been observing since the creation of the world.

Paul's view: They were observing since the creation of the world.

I think you get the point.

grace and peace

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark's says, "The heavens and the earth were created 'in the beginning', Adam and Eve were created 6000 years ago....."

Specifically day 6 of creation week.

Christ's says, Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mark's view: They could have been made at the beginning.

Mark does not equivocate beginning with the creation of heavens and the earth the way you want me to.

Christ's view: They were made at the beginning.

Which can be the creation of the heavens and the earth, creation week, or both. A text without a context is a pretext.

I'm going with Christ on this one.

You mean your going to put words in his mouth like you put words in mine.

Paul sides with Christ as well:

Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Mark's view: They could have been observing since the creation of the world.

You have completely distorted the meaning, God's eternal power and Godhead have nothing to do with the age of the earth and you know it. Now your equivocating young earth cosmology with all theistic conviction and revelation. Your only doing this because you desperately want the strongest argument evolutionists have to be essential doctrine in the mind of creationists. Not once have you defended the Scriptures, all you have done is to insist on an erroneous interpretation that you have extended to the New Testament.

Paul's view: They were observing since the creation of the world.

I think you get the point.

grace and peace

He didn't say 'view creation' Paul said, 'since creation'. Again you have shamelessly distorted the clear testimony of Scripture and there is no logical reason for this. What I have been saying isn't opposed to young earth creationism, neither does it support an old earth cosmology.

What my view does is allow the conversation to move beyond the first few verses. Something you are absolutely opposed to and I'm convinced it's because you want Creationists to argue dogmatically for the irrelevant.

I still think you a sock puppet for TE, if not Darwinism. Come to think of it, I don't think you ever really argued against either and I know for a fact you shamelessly torture the meaning of Scripture to suite your capricious opinions.

How many times have you seen me debate evolutionists? If your paying attention you know I do not quit. If you keep arguing this in circles I'm just going to watch your arguments spiral deeper and deeper into your fallacious logic. Now your twisting the meaning of 'creation' and 'beginning' in the New Testament which makes you erroneous on a doctrinal and theological level. Your also trying to connect this whole question of an absolute date for the creation of the universe with salvation which calls for a strong apologetic response.

Better pull up, I've never seen anyone recover from this kind of downward spiral. You keep arguing in circles that are getting tighter and tighter, circling the drain and it's just a question of time. Better pull up and I mean that as a friend, a co worker and a brother in Christ. You provoke an apologetic response and well...like I said, I've never seen anyone recover from it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Calminian]

Wow, now you believe there are 2 creations. This just goes to show how the gap theory plays havoc on hermeneutics. I like that fact that gap theorists find ways to deal with the death before sin problem, but at the same time, the hermeneutical backflips they do render the Bible meaningless. It really becomes an anything goes hermeneutic and that's the real danger of it.

....He didn't say 'view creation' Paul said, 'since creation'. Again you have shamelessly

LOL. Now young earth creationism is shameful. I'm so glad you're no longer pretending to be a young earth creationist.

distorted the clear testimony of Scripture and there is no logical reason for this. What I have been saying isn't opposed to young earth creationism, neither does it support an old earth cosmology.

If you say that long ages are possible then yes it supports old earth creationism. Old earth creationists like Hugh Ross both claim scripture is silent about the age of the earth. You guys are virtually identical, though you arrive at your destinations by different routes.

But more importantly, you've distorted both Paul and Christ. Paul is telling us that men are without excuse, as they have been observing creation since the beginning of creation (and there is only one creation). And Christ said Adam and Eve were made at the beginning of creation. There's no wiggle room on this. They did not interpret the creation account the way you do. They didn't divide Gen. 1 into 2 creation accounts nor did they make a distinction between the creation week and the beginning. These are all creations of your own making.

And ironically, I'm at peace with my view and feel no need to mudsling with you.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wow, now you believe there are 2 creations. This just goes to show how the gap theory plays havoc on hermeneutics. I like that fact that gap theorists find ways to deal with the death before sin problem, but at the same time, the hermeneutical backflips they do render the Bible meaningless. It really becomes an anything goes hermeneutic and that's the real danger of it.

You have made two mistakes, first, you let the issue get isolated. No matter how many ways you rehash the discussion you can't escape the fact that the original creation is 'in the beginning'. Actually there are eight rounds of creation, the original creation and then creation week. The second mistake you made is you made this about me, that's when I know you have nothing else. The ad hominem is the last line of defense for the indefensible argument.

I can let you argue this in circles endlessly. All I need is to establish an obvious fact that you deny and the end game is inevitable.

LOL. Now young earth creationism is shameful. I'm so glad you're no longer pretending to be a young earth creationist.

No what's shameful is the way you try to manipulate Christian conviction to agree with obvious matter of opinion. Clearly all we know about the original creation is that it was 'in the beginning', if you had a real argument for the actual age we would have heard it by now. You don't even try to do that, you equivocate the original creation and creation week. Not so bad, in and of itself but then you commit your ultimate error, you demand it of all believers.

I know your in error, you might be right about the age of the universe, but your wrong about making that mutually exclusive with faith. You can only have one motive for this, you want Christians arguing mindlessly for the irrelevant.

If you say that long ages are possible then yes it supports old earth creationism. Old earth creationists like Hugh Ross both claim scripture is silent about the age of the earth. You guys are virtually identical, though you arrive at your destinations by different routes.

Nonsense, Hugh Ross takes Genesis 1 and turns it into whatever he want's it to be, just like your doing. This is to dismiss attention from creation week, which is exactly what your doing. I've shown you the literary terrain and you have seen some pretty extensive expositions and exegetical notes only to trample every one of them under foot. You're just too consistent for this to be accidental.

But more importantly, you've distorted both Paul and Christ.

No sir, your the one who has made shallow, indefensible statements imposing your private interpretation on Genesis account and the New Testament witness. The only word you care about is 'beginning' and all you are doing with that is making it mean things the Scriptures never intended. Pedantic, shallow special pleading, with callous disregard for real world meaning. Shameful!

Paul is telling us that men are without excuse, as they have been observing creation since the beginning of creation (and there is only one creation). And Christ said Adam and Eve were made at the beginning of creation. There's no wiggle room on this.

Paul is saying that 'since the creation', God's revelation has reached all mankind so that they are without excuse. That is before the Scriptures are ever encountered you know who God is and what God is like because God has shown it to you. Beginning is just a reference to creation but you have divorced the term for it's context so you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. A text without a context is a pretext and you have abandoned the clear testimony of Scripture in favor of your own private interpretation.

They did not interpret the creation account the way you do. They didn't divide Gen. 1 into 2 creation accounts nor did they make a distinction between the creation week and the beginning. These are all creations of your own making.

I rejected the document hypothesis, framework hypothesis, JEPD arguments ad infinitum ad nauseam before I ever encountered the Creation/Evolution controversy. I know how to follow the narrative, I know how to navigate Scriptures using landmark contextual markers. You do not have the slightest bearing that there is a context, it's your private play thing you can mold like play doe and turn it into whatever you want to pretend it is.

It's down to one word, 'beginning', that's your fatal error. I'm just watching the downward spiral. I've never seen this happen to a Creationist, it's actually kind of fascinating.

And ironically, I'm at peace with my view and feel no need to mudsling with you.

There is no need to sling mud but I would like to hit you in the face with a lemon meringue pie right now to stop you from making these awful fallacious errors. This is the same argument anyone would get because I measure everything said against the clear testimony of Scripture. Call it peace if you like but that kind of self satisfaction proceeds from indifference.

Your running out of rationalizations, spirally into your own fallacious fabrication. The circles are getting tighter and your error is become more obvious, even to you. Pull up Calminian, it will make no difference to me but this kind of stoic defense of the indefensible will gut your expositions. There's still time, pull up, I hate to see a fellow Creationist do this to himself because it's invariably, intellectual suicide.

Put down the fallacious argument and step away from it, that's all you have to do.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Calminian]

...No matter how many ways you rehash the discussion you can't escape the fact that the original creation is 'in the beginning'.

LOL. "The original creation." Now I've heard it all.

Actually there are eight rounds of creation....

I stand corrected.

Clearly all we know about the original creation is that it was 'in the beginning',

Mark really? Of course we know more than that. We know that in the beginning, God made them male and female. We know that from the beginning of the creation of the world men have been without excuse based on observing God's creation. We know what days particular things in creation were made and that heaven and earth and all in them were made in the 6 days. Ex. 20:11

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them

This verse is what drove me from the gap theory to the day age theory.

but then you commit your ultimate error, you demand it of all believers.

I can only scratch my head and wonder where you got this. God allows all men a choice to believe what they want. I'm in no position to demand anything. I've argued with you in fact, about you excluding theistic evolutionists from the faith. I disagree with them, but if they have Christ, they are saved. In fact, I actually had to persuade you on this.

But I know what scripture says, and can easily pick apart your gap theory. Try as you will to make me into a meanie, I'm a very tolerant nice guy. But if you post something I believe to be in error, I will address it.

Nonsense, Hugh Ross takes Genesis 1 and turns it into whatever he want's....

LOL. I actually commend Ross for at least moving from the gap theory, to the day age theory which at least does't decimate Ex. 20:11. I think both you and Hugh miss the mark, though.

No sir, your the one who has made shallow, indefensible statements imposing your private interpretation on Genesis account and the New Testament witness. The only word you care about is 'beginning' and all you are doing with that is making it mean things the Scriptures never intended. Pedantic, shallow special pleading, with callous disregard for real world meaning. Shameful!

So you believe anyone that interprets Mark 10:6 as saying that male and female were created at the beginning of creation are shameful? Sheesh Mark. Sure you're not getting just a bit emotional?

Paul is saying that 'since the creation', God's revelation has reached all mankind so that they are without excuse. That is before the Scriptures are ever encountered you know who God is and what God is like because God has shown it to you. Beginning is just a reference to creation but you have divorced the term for it's context so you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. A text without a context is a pretext and you have abandoned the clear testimony of Scripture in favor of your own private interpretation.

I have no idea what you just said here. Seriously I made an argument, and don't see a response to it at all.

I rejected the document hypothesis, framework hypothesis, JEPD arguments ad infinitum ad nauseam

So does Hugh Ross BTW.

There is no need to sling mud but I would like to hit you in the face with a lemon meringue pie right now to stop you from making these awful fallacious errors.

I believe you. I can see you have a bit of a aggressive violent side. These debates just don't get me that agitated.

 

[mark kennedy]

LOL. "The original creation." Now I've heard it all.

I'm just surprised you can hear it at all. Everything in the first verse is in absolute terms, especially creation. Thus original creation, but you would have to care what the text says for that to matter.

Mark really? Of course we know more than that. We know that in the beginning, God made them male and female. We know that from the beginning of the creation of the world men have been without excuse based on observing God's creation. We know what days particular things in creation were made and that heaven and earth and all in them were made in the 6 days. Ex. 20:11

We know that the 'heavens and the earth' were created 'in the beginning'. We know that the beginning of man was Adam. Both are starting points with their own context. Perhaps it was 6000 years ago that the heavens and earth were creation but you don't get to decide for me whether or not that true. Who died and made you pope to Protestants.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them

This verse is what drove me from the gap theory to the day age theory.

We talked about this, that is a specific word, the first time it's used is not Gen 1:1 it's here:

made (H6213 עָשָׂה `asah ) the firmament (Gen 1:7)​

The second time it's:

'fruit tree yielding (H6213) fruit after his kind' (Gen. 1:11)​

I can only scratch my head and wonder where you got this. God allows all men a choice to believe what they want. I'm in no position to demand anything. I've argued with you in fact, about you excluding theistic evolutionists from the faith. I disagree with them, but if they have Christ, they are saved. In fact, I actually had to persuade you on this.

Nonsense, this is the first time we have actually talked and you are arguing in circles. I have never doubted that many theistic evolutionists were Christians, my problem is that they have bought into an atheistic philosophy called Darwinism. You've never been much help with that and now I know why.

But I know what scripture says, and can easily pick apart your gap theory. Try as you will to make me into a meanie, I'm a very tolerant nice guy. But if you post something I believe to be in error, I will address it.

I don't have a theory, that's where you and I are different. I know the Scriptures and take them as written.

LOL. I actually commend Ross for at least moving from the gap theory, to the day age theory which at least does't decimate Ex. 20:11. I think both you and Hugh miss the mark, though.

Hugh Ross abandoned the clear testimony of Scripture, so have you.

So you believe anyone that interprets Mark 10:6 as saying that male and female were created at the beginning of creation are shameful? Sheesh Mark. Sure you're not getting just a bit emotional?

No, Mark 10:6 doesn't say the heavens and the earth were created 6000 years ago and it doesn't say they weren't. A text without a context is a pretext, you should write that down, you really need to learn what it means. You should also invest in a good Bible Dictionary but I warn you, those use real meanings.

I have no idea what you just said here. Seriously I made an argument, and don't see a response to it at all.

As many times as you have argued this in circles it shouldn't matter, you'll get a chance to argue it again, and again, and again...

So does Hugh Ross BTW.

I'm over Hugh Ross.

I believe you. I can see you have a bit of a aggressive violent side. These debates just don't get me that agitated.

Actually I'm not but I've seen this too many times to count. You will argue this in circles till it creates patterns in your thoughts and ruts in you expositions. After a while you won't be able gain a single insight, your expositions will become meandering and aimless.

It really doesn't matter to me, I think your just trolling the topic anyway. But just in case you seriously wanted to understand the Scriptures I was willing to give your attempt at an exposition every chance. What happens after that is up to you.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Calminian]

...We know that the 'heavens and the earth' were created 'in the beginning'. We know that the beginning of man was Adam.

No, you're changing scripture again. Man was created at the beginning of creation, not the beginning of mankind. That is Hugh Ross's exact argument which has been thoroughly refuted. Sarfati in particular deals with this argument in "Refuting Compromise" a book I highly recommend to you.

We talked about this, that is a specific word, the first time it's used is not Gen 1:1 it's here:

made (H6213 עָשָׂה `asah ) the firmament (Gen 1:7)​

The second time it's:

'fruit tree yielding (H6213) fruit after his kind' (Gen. 1:11)​

But 'asah is really a word you don't understand. It's a much simpler word than even made. In essence it carries the idea of did and requires immediate context.

To give an example in english:

John created a new pool in his backyard. First he did fill in the blank then he did fill in the blank ....

The did there is referring back to the initial creation. That's how simple that term is. It's never is used to contrast creating something with forming something from preexisting material. Context would be required to pull that meaning out of it.

That's why we see God saying things like, Let's create (bara') man in our image. Then God made ('asah) man in his image. 'asah. God said let's create man, then God did it.

No, Mark 10:6 doesn't say the heavens and the earth were created 6000 years ago and it doesn't say they weren't. ....

If the genealogies have no gaps and add up to 6000 years, then yes that's exactly what Jesus was saying. The genealogy of mankind started with Adam at the beginning of the creation of the world.

If there are gaps, that starting date could be pushed out to possibly 10,000 years, or even further. But no matter what, man is as old as the earth, less a few days.

It really doesn't matter to me, I think your just trolling the topic anyway. .....

If I'm trolling then so is Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, ICR, Creation Today and virtually all other creation ministry out there, because they all agree with me on this issue. The only ones on your side, that scripture is silent about the age of the earth, are the likes of Hugh Ross and gap theorists.

 

[jacksonduluth]

Jesus spoke of marriage (Adam and Eve) as "from the beginning".

 

[SkyWriting]

I think he is still complaining that I refuse to assume creation week immediately followed the original creation. All the text tells us about that is it was, 'in the beginning'. The Genesis account emphasizes the creation of life, not the age of the earth.

As we see a clock ticking, we see time passing toward our "Surely he will die" death. That is the reason for time. God doesn't need it. Creation week was well before Adams's fall from grace. So up till that time, time, as we experience it, did not exist. Creation week happened in a timeless state. God tells us it was orderly so we follow the example of what he SAID. We wouldn't want to form our lives around what scientists dream up every fifth Tuesday of the month as the truth.

 

[Calminian]

Jesus spoke of marriage (Adam and Eve) as "from the beginning".

Bingo! This is the effective death of gap theories. The six days are the beginning. That's the point of scripture.

 

[SkyWriting]

Jesus spoke of marriage (Adam and Eve) as "from the beginning".

Yes, Adam and Eve were the first created before "time" even existed.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Mark Kennedy said:

Creation from Nothing:

Genesis 1 uses a special word to describe God's creation of the 'heavens and the earth' (Gen 1:1), life (Gen 1:21) and man (Used 3 times in Gen 1:27). That word is 'bara' (bara' Strong's H1254 בָּרָא ) the Hebrew Qal form means: To shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject).

The Hebrew word 'baw-raw' (H1254 בּרא bârâ') is used in the absolute sense and it means creation ex nihilo which means out of nothing, always in reference to God and mostly found in Genesis and Isaiah:

Created, Used 33 times: Gen:1:1, Gen:1:21, Gen:1:27 (3), Gen:2:3-4 (2), Gen:5:1-2 (3), Gen:6:7, Deu:4:32, Psa:89:12, Psa:102:18, Psa:104:30, Psa:148:5, Isa:40:26, Isa:41:20, Isa:42:5, Isa:43:1, Isa:45:7-8 (2), Isa:45:12, Isa:45:18 (2), Isa:48:7, Isa:54:16 (2), Jer:31:22, Eze:21:30, Eze:28:13, Eze:28:15, Mal:2:10 (Strong's)​

Praise to the Lord from Creation

148 Praise the Lord!

Praise the Lord from the heavens;
Praise Him in the heights!
2 Praise Him, all His angels;
Praise Him, all His hosts!
3 Praise Him, sun and moon;
Praise Him, all you stars of light!
4 Praise Him, you heavens of heavens,
And you waters above the heavens!

5 Let them praise the name of the Lord,
For He commanded [בָּרָא bara'] and they were created/.
6 He also established them forever and ever;
He made a decree which shall not pass away.

If God created the sun and moon and stars before day 4, as you said, then where did He put them before day 2, because as of day 1 there was no stretched out heavens between the divided in two waters.

So if the heavens were not stretched out from this created globe of water, out of which all created things and all powers come, until day 2 of creation week when the heavens were stretched out from this earth between the divided in two waters of creation, and the heavens were named at that time, and exist in at least three stories -as the Word does say, with Paradise being in Eden in the third heaven, as Paul also declares- then where was the sun you say was created before the heavens were stretched out?
Let us "really, and truly" do Genesis 1!