How old is the earth?

[Halbhh]

Sigh…

You just can’t stop can you? You just can’t admit that you made a mistake.

whoa! It's extremely dangerous to set a judgment and standard against others, as people (even long time Christians) are not that perfect so that they can get away with judging others (not get caught by their own measure they applied to someone) :


7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

------
So, to avoid hell, don't judge other people.

I've learned to totally trust this -- anytime I judged someone in life, no matter how confident I felt about my own rightness, later God mercifully helped me see my own wrongness somewhere (in some other way even if another area of life)! I've learned to be more humble. (As you will recall, a real rule for us is "let him without sin cast the first stone.")

It's such a blessing to ever gain more humbleness --

"God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

(And we remember Christ taught us: "Unless you change and become like one of these little children, you will never enter heaven.")

--------
The only regular mortal human that God allowed to see his form (other than Christ) and spoke with to face to face -- Moses -- was "the humblest man in all of Israel" scripture tells us.

A great prayer is the Lord's prayer: we literally pray for help to not fall into temptation, and to be delivered out of evil, including our own wrongs we do.

On the internet, we will be tempted every day such things as for example perhaps to argue from pride or such, and so we need to pray as Christ taught us to pray, in Matthew 6.

 

[public hermit]

You're doing a lot of guessing when you insist on conclusions that are of the form -- "day does not mean day" in Gen 1 or Ex 20:8-11, "morning and evening are not one day" in Gen 1, and "we are getting bad information since Moses did not understand all of science".

In Dan 8 -- Daniel is given information that he says he does not understand and yet STILL God moves upon him to accurately state his vision complete with all of its symbols accurately stated.

Moses did not know all that God knew to create the world and all life on it in 7 days - but he DID know what a day was, he DID know what a morning and evening were, and did know what plants, animals, water, air were.

you are eisegeting wild ideas that go against the actual content of the text.

Even the atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities agree with what I am saying - although they reject the Bible as teaching truth.

==========================
Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

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.’​

"My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally." John Dominic Crossan

At least one biblical scholar disagrees. Personally, I think the whole idea that we can peer into the "author's intent" is a fool's errand. We can hardly peer into the intent of the person sitting next to us.

 

[Halbhh]

You're doing a lot of guessing

What have I repeatedly said about my own views in the thread (over 6 times and then I stopped counting), I said they are including guesses:

Now if you care -- and it's not an important topic at all! -- my mere opinion: my guess is that the days in the vision in Genesis 1 were actual days like...

Did you realize I pointed that out over and over in this thread? I'd guess not, but now you know.

Do I say it often enough though? After all, you thought I did not say it, right?

Let me begin to highlight that more.

Bob, I think you will be agreeing with this: God not only never said to us precisely how old the Earth is, He also never in any way encouraged or suggested to us we make that important.

You know this yes?

So therefore it is unimportant, by God's standards of what He wants of us. This isn't commanded to us nor suggested to us to be an important thing we should be doing.

(so it can only be ok as merely a form of friendly discussion, only!)

Certainly if we ever lift up our ideas/doctrines/theories about the precise age of Earth we variously come up with as if important or a Truth (capital T, God's Words) while in fact all those numbers are actually not in the scripture but are from ourselves....that claim our own numbers are God's Word is sin.


Let's begin to emphasise that even more often! --

Anyone's idea about how old the Earth is from scripture is always for 100% of people involving their guesses, and it's very much for the best each person be saying that. Romans 14.... (applies to all of us!)

We all should be saying we are only giving merely our own views! (Not "Truth", when it's only a viewpoint with a human devised/calculated number)



I've have said this many times, but maybe not enough!

Ask yourself: are you helping other people remember your ideas are simply your own?

 

[Halbhh]

"day does not mean day"

Bob, you put quotations so that sounds as if I said that sentence (or something like it)....

When actually I wrote:

So...my guess [is] they are 24 hour days

what I've repeatedly already written above (several times now) -- the days in Genesis 1 were real, 24 hour days, with an evening and a morning -- there were 6 real 24 hour days, as I said several times).

my guess is that the days in the vision in Genesis 1 were actual days like we have in a very ordinary human sense (just my guess) -- plain human style 24 hour days,

Would you like another 3 quotes from this same thread just like those?

See the problem. You'd better edit! Because you've falsely represented what I said in a very prejudiced way, that amounts to false witnessing about what I wrote. I think maybe you didn't intend to do that, but wrongly trusted some other person writing some post to guess wrongly about what I said maybe.... even if you weren't trying to distort and misrepresent my posts and it was entirely accidental, you still would be guilty of a lesser mistake but still a wrong you should want to avoid of guessing what I said without knowing and then asserting a guess about what I might have written without admitting it was only a guess.

 

[Halbhh]

You're doing a lot of guessing when you insist on conclusions that are of the form -- "day does not mean day" in Gen 1 or Ex 20:8-11, "morning and evening are not one day" in Gen 1, and "we are getting bad information since Moses did not understand all of science".

In Dan 8 -- Daniel is given information that he says he does not understand and yet STILL God moves upon him to accurately state his vision complete with all of its symbols accurately stated.

Moses did not know all that God knew to create the world and all life on it in 7 days - but he DID know what a day was, he DID know what a morning and evening were, and did know what plants, animals, water, air were.

you are eisegeting wild ideas that go against the actual content of the text.

Even the atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities agree with what I am saying - although they reject the Bible as teaching truth.

==========================
Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

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.’​

Bob, since you represented things I wrote as if the opposite of what I said, I wonder that for you as a Christian what you will do about that?

None of us is perfect, but this was very awful, to be represented to have said opposite things to what I've repeatedly said in this thread -- I've repeatedly said I think they were real days, 24 hour (over 6 times), that every word is true and that I believe every word.

And you've written to me as if I'm an atheist and said opposite things to what I clearly wrote. No one could possibly read my posts and imagine anything but that I believe fully in Genesis chapter 1 word for word, every word, and even that these were actual days, and more....

That's really serious to paint it as the opposite.

It's not something to just forget about until after you do 1rst John 1:8-10 for that kind of stuff!

 

[BNR32FAN]

whoa! It's extremely dangerous to set a judgment and standard against others, as people (even long time Christians) are not that perfect so that they can get away with judging others (not get caught by their own measure they applied to someone) :


7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

------
So, to avoid hell, don't judge other people.

I've learned to totally trust this -- anytime I judged someone in life, no matter how confident I felt about my own rightness, later God mercifully helped me see my own wrongness somewhere (in some other way even if another area of life)! I've learned to be more humble. (As you will recall, a real rule for us is "let him without sin cast the first stone.")

It's such a blessing to ever gain more humbleness --

"God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

(And we remember Christ taught us: "Unless you change and become like one of these little children, you will never enter heaven.")

--------
The only regular mortal human that God allowed to see his form (other than Christ) and spoke with to face to face -- Moses -- was "the humblest man in all of Israel" scripture tells us.

A great prayer is the Lord's prayer: we literally pray for help to not fall into temptation, and to be delivered out of evil, including our own wrongs we do.

On the internet, we will be tempted every day such things as for example perhaps to argue from pride or such, and so we need to pray as Christ taught us to pray, in Matthew 6.

I’m not the one being a hypocrite or “actor” here. Jesus isn’t saying not to judge people he’s saying not be be a hypocrite by judging people for doing the same things you do yourself.

““Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7‬:‭1‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Jesus also warned us to beware of false prophets, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and chaff among the wheat. “You will know them by their fruits”. Also in Matthew 7.

Paul specifically said that we are to judge people who are in the church.

“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭5‬:‭9‬-‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

You’ve not been honest throughout this discussion and I apologize if that is a harsh way to say it but I’m really at a loss of how to sugar coat this. I prove you wrong by quoting the scriptures and you say that they’re not written accurately. I can’t be expected to just let that go unchallenged.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But supposing 'time' in heaven is one for one identically the same as this 'time' here on this world -- this current world that isn't eternal and will "pass away" is merely one possibility. The idea that time in heaven is only merely just like time on Earth isn't a fact, but an idea/hypothesis/theory or assumption (probably something that most never even thought about).

We do have a verse from 2nd Peter that suggests time in heaven might not be like time on Earth....

I wasn’t referring to time in heaven we were talking about time in the garden of Eden which was on earth not in heaven. I have no clue what time is like in heaven.

 

[Halbhh]

I’m not the one being a hypocrite or “actor” here. Jesus isn’t saying not to judge people he’s saying not be be a hypocrite by judging people for doing the same things you do yourself.

““Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7‬:‭1‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Jesus also warned us to beware of false prophets, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and chaff among the wheat. “You will know them by their fruits”. Also in Matthew 7.

Paul specifically said that we are to judge people who are in the church.

“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭5‬:‭9‬-‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

You’ve not been honest throughout this discussion and I apologize if that is a harsh way to say it but I’m really at a loss of how to sugar coat this. I prove you wrong by quoting the scriptures and you say that they’re not written accurately. I can’t be expected to just let that go unchallenged.

I've said what I think and always repeatedly said when anything is just a guess. I did not present a guess or an idea as being fact or scripture. It's been very clear. So, to judge me as dishonest is extremely dangerous to you on the Day of Judgment, because we have measured to us what we have used against others!

So, to avoid that horrible fate, refrain from judging others!

 

[BNR32FAN]

I've said what I think and always repeatedly said when anything is just a guess. I did not present a guess or an idea as being fact or scripture. It's been very clear. So, to judge me as dishonest is extremely dangerous to you on the Day of Judgment, because we have measured to us what we have used against others!

So, to avoid that horrible fate, refrain from judging others!

Jesus didn’t teach that we are not to judge others. That passage is saying don’t be a hypocrite.

 

[Halbhh]

Jesus didn’t teach that we are not to judge others. That passage is saying don’t be a hypocrite.

I was entirely honest, saying things I know are true and also things I think are right -- never stating what I think isn't correct above. See, that's why you put yourself in danger from the real Judge that sees all... He knows I said honestly what I understand, and so when you said I was "dishonest." -- an accusation of lying -- that accusation puts you in real danger until you repent.

 

[BobRyan]

-- I've repeatedly said I think they were real days, 24 hour (over 6 times), that every word is true and that I believe every word.

Then I totally misunderstood your post.,

Only that God helps us to understand.
God aided him very strongly to understand, giving both spoken words and also even 'days' with a morning and evening --

That's familiar: morning time and evening time: I can understand this vision now -- it's here on Earth, and this is a day!....
In this way, the person receiving this amazing vision that would have been beyond their comprehension could begin to understand it was Earth he was seeing, being made.

Of course, God can do all things, and doesn't have to work slowly, but could make Earth in 1 second.....

But that would be very hard to comprehend as being Earth being made, if it suddenly appears out of nothing fully formed with animals and all the rest....

So, in this vision, creation is shown in a way we can understand.

It unfolds over time in the vision. In 'days' we can recognize as being on Earth -- that's what was seen.

It's understandable to us mortal humans.

God also spoke words to make it clear that Earth was being formed -- and that it is "good" for us as our home. "Very good"....

It "appears" you may be saying God showed Moses one thing - when in fact it is actually another thing that really happened at creation week but God thought Moses would like it better if God showed him a seven day week instead of what actually happened.

I may have misunderstood your intent.

The words are enough to help make it clear -- God made our home Earth -- everything.

"God made everything in some way not as yet defined" is sort of what we have already in Gen 1:1.

You appear to wipe out all the details in the entire chapter and then circle back to 1:1 as the only details that you will accept. when you say something of the form -- "God made everything including the Earth" then add "somehow note stated, and in some time frame not stated, and in some sequence not stated" -- even though those ARE the details stated in the verses that follow Gen 1:1

But then in the remainder of the chapter God shows the actual real-life timeline and the real life sequence for the specific making of all life on Earth as well as our Sun and our moon.

Here I'd better say that certainly visions aren't like a video recording though. (it would be a disrespectful cartoon version of God to claim so!)
God didn't need to set up a camera and record it and then later replay the recording for the person given this revelation....
Instead, all visions are actually given from God -- He creates the vision for us.

So that we can understand what we never could otherwise.
A vision is always a kind of stylized representation of something important. A created scene.

IN this case it is literally showing what happened - so not at all in symbols. Moses was "no darwinist" -- he was not at all inclined to
reinterpret symbols and transform them into Darwinism - neither were his readers inclined to such gymnastics.

I suppose we agree on this as well.

They are stylistical representations. They are like something, instead of being a photo recording of something.

IT is not true that God never shows someone an actual event that happened in history or that will happen in the future.

We should always take a time to sometimes read to just listen to the chapter, without thinking about any debate or doctrinal thing we heard, etc.

IT is as if you are saying "read the text without paying attention to the details".

Or am I misunderstanding you again?

That's the main best thing we must gain from Genesis 1 -- just pure listening to hear and be lifted up, ready to continue reading the word....

And pay attention to every detail it gives for it is from God "who cannot lie" as Titus 1 affirms.

More than this "it is the details" that we see affirmed not just in Genesis but in the "legal code" of Ex 20:11

Bob, since you represented things I wrote as if the opposite of what I said, I wonder that for you as a Christian what you will do about that?

Ok - so I have put the key parts of your post here and I have shown how it looks like what I said about your post was getting communicated to me from your own words.

Feel free to address these details and point to where I was not getting your actual meaning in what you said. I am open to correction if you deal with specifics.

 

[BobRyan]

"My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally." John Dominic Crossan

John seems to make a few wild assumptions. And they don't end with his proclivity to re-imagine Genesis (as if we would set the Bible aside and just his word for what the text must have said - had we read it).

John Dominic Crossan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"His work is controversial, portraying the Second Coming as a late corruption of Jesus' message and saying that Jesus' divinity is metaphorical"

There is enough there for the "reader beware" message to be seen loud and clear

At least one biblical scholar disagrees.

A boat load of "skip the details" scholars are available for those looking

Key in this next section is the phrase "world class university"
==========================
Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

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.’

 

[BobRyan]

Just because a day for mortal humans is 24 hours doesn't mean that controls God. He could have a day that lasts 9 billion years, or a millisecond.

So...my guess they are 24 hour days is only a guess, not more. My guess is that the days were actually like snapshots in time of real actual days, and in the scene being seen in the vision, each day would show more of creation on Earth accomplished.

There is something called "exegesis".

IT means we need to look closely at the writer and at the intended contemporary readers to see how the language the writer is using would be understood.

Did the writer and the readers know what "evening and morning were" and that they were considered to be "one day". From sunset to sunset is one day even to this very day. This is not rocket science.

The burden of "is not one day" would be on the one trying to insert the idea (if we allow the rules of exegesis to determine meaning).

So while you say "it is your guess" to accept the text as it reads. It is a bit more than that when we subject the text to the rules of exegesis.

But in your post you seem to reduce it down to the idea that in someway "God made everything including the Earth" -- which (if that is the most we can know with certainty from Gen 1) opens the door for a lot of alternatives to the details actually in the text.

 

[public hermit]

John seems to make a few wild assumptions. And they don't end with his proclivity to re-imagine Genesis (as if we would set the Bible aside and just his word for what the text must have said - had we read it).

John Dominic Crossan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"His work is controversial, portraying the Second Coming as a late corruption of Jesus' message and saying that Jesus' divinity is metaphorical"

There is enough there for the "reader beware" message to be seen loud and clear

A boat load of "skip the details" scholars are available for those looking

Key in this next section is the phrase "world class university"
==========================
Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

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.’

What are your thoughts on my comment that trying to determine the author's intent is not a worthy pursuit? It's speculation, which is fine, but there is simply no way to know, particularly when it comes to discerning whether an ancient author writing about God intended a writing to be taken literally or not.

I would say, specifically, when it comes to the primeval history of Genesis, the symbolism is so rich that insisting the author intended all of it to be taken literally defies credulity. But, again, who knows? I think our focus should be on the spiritual truths/insights in the primeval history, of which there are many. Genesis 1 alone is full of spiritual insight about God, creation, and humanity. And those are accessible whether one takes it literal or not.

 

[BobRyan]

What are your thoughts on my comment that trying to determine the author's intent is not a worthy pursuit?

Its total nonsense as almost every Christian scholar on planet earth will affirm since it would be tossing out exegesis and instead simply "making stuff up" whenever you read a text of scripture.

What "problem" would that solve for Christians - because at this point it looks like the very thing that Atheists suggest. What am I missing?

It's speculation, which is fine, but there is simply no way to know, particularly when it comes to discerning whether an ancient author writing about God intended a writing to be taken literally or not.

not true as even James Barr points out.

If the atheists can see the flaws in that idea - how much more the Christians?

I would say, specifically, when it comes to the primeval history of Genesis, the symbolism is so rich

As James Barr points out - there is no symbolism in that text.

there is no reason for the reader to suppose that "days are not days" that "an evening and morning is not a day" , that "plants are not plants" and that the "sun is not the sun".

In fact we have the same 7 day affirmation for it - in the legal code of Ex 20 -- and no scholar argues that the legal code in Exodus 20 is symbolic.

As we all know.

Genesis 1 alone is full of spiritual insight about God, creation, and humanity

No doubt . but a lot of forms of writing have "spiritual insight about God, creation, and humanity" -- your argument requires paying no attention to the details in the text when understanding its intended meaning.

What all scholars do agree with is "Moses was not a Darwinist" and they all agree that the newly freed slaves from Egypt standing at the foot of Sinai "were not darwinists either"

If someone tells you that the speed limit sign "merely conveys the care and concern that the government has for the people - but provides no more information than that" ... vs "the speed limit sign means what it says" -- is it your claim that there is no difference between those two ideas?? seriously?

 

[Halbhh]

There is something called "exegesis".

IT means we need to look closely at the writer and at the intended contemporary readers to see how the language the writer is using would be understood.

Did the writer and the readers know what "evening and morning were" and that they were considered to be "one day". From sunset to sunset is one day even to this very day. This is not rocket science.

The burden of "is not one day" would be on the one trying to insert the idea (if we allow the rules of exegesis to determine meaning).

So while you say "it is your guess" to accept the text as it reads. It is a bit more than that when we subject the text to the rules of exegesis.

But in your post you seem to reduce it down to the idea that in someway "God made everything including the Earth" -- which (if that is the most we can know with certainty from Gen 1) opens the door for a lot of alternatives to the details actually in the text.

Good question!

There is complexity in that Creation itself is wondrously extensive. And...yes, it is also simultaneously very simple: anything we see in nature, we can indeed we can be sure that God is the Creator!

And, that's entirely correct it's not just any old way anyone can imagine! It's the specific way God told us in Genesis 1.

Please don't miss that last sentence.

Genesis 1 is gives several details which as you know Christians have discussed a lot!...

I believe them all. But no 2 people on Earth have identical minds with all the same details of every thought.

If you just agree it's exactly like in Genesis 1 and we cannot though think identically because we literally are each unique individuals, and cannot think precisely the same on every thing -- no 2 human brains are identical.

(Romans 14 is very important to remember: we cannot demand others think precisely as we do. I wish the other person discussing with me would accept this fact we are under Romans 14.)

So, knowing we both believe Genesis 1.... then we could stop there, and be satisfied, right?

It is enough.

So, why would we even discuss details we will inevitably see in different ways?

Romans 14 says be careful what we are doing in that!

So, if you will tolerate (Romans 14 obedience) that we each think differently on something here and there, then we could in brotherly love share our thoughts without rancor or fighting!


If you are happy to learn my viewpoints on specific details, I'm happy to share them.

But to anyone, if it seems like a battle to you (any person reading this), then to any person feeling it's a battle, then don't try to seek out my viewpoint, because battle (with accusations, attacks, etc.) over our ideas about questions about scripture among believers isn't allowed to us -- Romans 14 says.


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

I give some of my own personal thoughts and ideas about small details of creation in Genesis 1 -- which I believe 100% of every word of (in modern accurate translations like NIV, ESV, NASB).


So, only to those that are unheated, and not looking to fight then you can read on. Someone feeling like a fight, stop, don't read my views. Pray instead the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6.



....

....




.....


Below I'll post my own mere ideas -- just my own personal ideas and thoughts>



...


----------------------------

Danger: Individual thoughts of another Christian on a hot topic for some....

...


In a simple, plain reading the beautiful text of Genesis 1 even just without any added ideas, reading in the most simple way possible, it says that early on the Earth was 'formless'.

--

2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

----
Amazingly modern science agrees totally with this, and that's really notable to me, in that often atheists try to argue science disproves the bible, but they are entirely wrong here.

The view in modern science theory is that very early if you could have a camera near the Earth's surface it would seen (visually all that could be seen visually) a swirling place without visible clear forms -- formless and void of any visible features to the eye!! -- to a putative observer near it, the early Earth was it was finishing up accreting in the mainstream theory.

If you could be there science thinks, near the surface you'd see...or rather, you'd see nothing distinct!.... -- just swirling mist and vapor.

A dark grey foggy view of swirling smoke, vapor, mist, nothing visible.

In the theory, for quite a while it would not yet have a clear night and day -- with a massive accretion disk above that blocked and diffused and reflected the sunlight away from the Earth below!

The eye could not yet even distinguish night and day down near the surface of the planet at that time.

Precisely like Genesis 1 says....

And then, eventually there would be gradual improvement in visibility over what we think at some point early on was a water world Earth.....

And it's a water world an eye might see at some point eventually when visibility allowed (according to mainstream science...)

All of this is just like merely mainstream science of how the Earth formed, and how it was early on a water world, etc. -- perfect agreement there with Genesis 1:2

Then in time as the mist begins to clear even more the surface of the water would become visible out to a distance, to an observer near the surface, for the first time, so that they could distinguish a surface of water below and have some visibility that there is a cloud layer above -- 2 distinct regions visible for the first time to a human eye....

"Let there be light" and then night and day begin to be clearly distinct....

Then....

In time, as the mist and smoke clears more....

An ocean below would become visible, and through clear enough air, water above in the form of clouds. That would be like what we think happened by theory.

As in Genesis 1 !

"6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."

And then eventually land rises out of the water world Earth according to mainstream science theory.

Just like:
"9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good."

We know that plants of significant size (not just microscopic but larger, even feet across) would proceed moving animals of significant size.

Or:
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Eventually it's thought that what had been a 24/7/365 cloudy sky for a vast time would finally one day have a clear sky (clear atmosphere will little or no clouds for the first time ever).

The clouds finally fade away and a true clear sky to see out above the atmosphere finally arrives for the first time....

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

That sea animals would proceed land animals, we know from fossils.

Just like the text in Genesis 1...

And even in verse 22, when many translations rendered the hebrew into 'birds', one could wonder if 'birds' is really the right rendering:

and let 'birds' (NIV translation from verse 22)
וְהָע֖וֹף (wə·hā·‘ō·wp̄)
Conjunctive waw, Article | Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 5775: Flying creatures

Interestingly, the thinking is: "Insects first flew in the Carboniferous, some 350 to 400 million years ago, making them the first animals to evolve flight. "

So, it begins to be questionable if anything is even in a different order than generally we think in current mainstream theories....

Even though the text has to be a 'vision' (the writer wasn't there in person, but gets it from revelation, that is, as a vision, with some sparse amount of poetical narrative words to convey a general idea without specifics...) -- meaning it will be only a stylistic representation, as visions are...

It's almost enough to be suggestive in itself (coming so very long before these scientific understandings we have now...) of proof of God!

But, it's easy to argue, and that's important.

An outright proof of every bit of all of Genesis 1 that was unarguable (that no one could dispute reasonably...) would then obviate a key thing in the New Testament -- that God wants 'faith', which is specifically to trust Him before seeing proof. Since outright proof of God would preclude and obviate the chance for that specific 'faith' God is stated to want of us, we should expect all such proof to be easily argued against, and none of it to be outright unarguable type evidence.

We read in the New Testament that God wants faith from us, not to only believe because of proof ahead of time!

So, even though there is excellent agreement in science to Genesis 1 now, few or none can understand it well and it's easy to argue against.

And that's good!

God wants faith, not merely observation and then acceptance without faith.

 

[BobRyan]

And, that's entirely correct it's not just any old way anyone can imagine! It's the specific way God told us in Genesis 1.
Please don't miss that last sentence.

Genesis 1 is gives several details which as you know Christians have discussed a lot!...
I believe them all. But no 2 people on Earth have identical minds with all the same details of every thought.

If you just agree it's exactly like in Genesis 1 and we cannot though think identically because we literally are each unique individuals, and cannot think precisely the same on every thing -- no 2 human brains are identical.

Yet we can all study math, history, chemistry, physics and two people can indeed make A's on the final tests. We do have the ability to communicate accurately enough to get A's in the course when asked very specific questions on "details".

This is irrefutable.

What is more - God is an excellent communicator.

So, knowing we both believe Genesis 1.... then we could stop there, and be satisfied, right?

The chemistry teacher does not say "you all have the book -- no need to ask you any detailed questions to see how well you understand the material".

Because that sort of thing does not work in real life.

So, if you will tolerate (Romans 14 obedience) that we each think differently on something here and there, then we could in brotherly love share our thoughts without rancor or fighting!

Rom 14 addresses two issues

1. Eating vegetables vs meat (where in 1 Cor 8 the issue is explained in detail) - hint - the Jews were required to eat meat at Passover and at many of their religious services - this is not about Jews restricted to being vegetarian.

2. Lev 23 annual holy days where "one man observes one day above another, while another man observes every day" in that bible approved list.

But none of that is about "not taking scripure as it reads"

If you are happy to learn my viewpoints on specific details, I'm happy to share them.

I asked you specific questions because I want to know what you mean. And if you delete it all down to "we can only know with certainty the info we have in Gen 1:1 but can't know any of the details that follow" I want to know why you would say such a thing.

 

[BobRyan]

In a simple, plain reading the beautiful text of Genesis 1 even just without any added ideas, reading in the most simple way possible, it says that early on the Earth was 'formless'.

2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

----
Amazingly modern science agrees totally with this, and that's really notable to me, in that often atheists try to argue science disproves the bible, but they are entirely wrong here.

The view in modern science theory is that very early if you could have a camera near the Earth's surface it would seen (visually all that could be seen visually) a swirling place without visible clear forms -- formless and void of any visible features to the eye!! -- to a putative observer near it,

The modern 'Story' is that earth was "a rock" still cooling from its heat of formation - when suddenly it got plastered by a bunch of ice commets pummeling the Earth so massively that the "created the water" on the surface and also below the surface.

By contrast in Genesis 1 the Earth has "water covering the surface of the deep" as the start point after it had been created by something in the Gen 1:1 past.

If you could be there science thinks, near the surface you'd see...or rather, you'd see nothing distinct!.... -- just swirling mist and vapor.

They don't provide water vapor in their stories - they present a lifeless dry planet because the heat had burned any water off that may have been there.

"Let there be light" and then night and day begin to be clearly distinct....

Then....

In time, as the mist and smoke clears more....

An ocean below would become visible, and through clear enough air, water above in the form of clouds. That would be like what we think happened by theory.

As in Genesis 1 !

"6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."

And then eventually land rises out of the water world Earth according to mainstream science theory.

now lets observe all the details you needed to skip over from vs 2 to vs 8 (since your next text is vs 9)

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 let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters that were below the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse “heaven.” And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

So then one rotation of the planet in Gen 1:3 "evening and morning" -- means there was a light source on one side of the planet and it was rotating. -- that is day 1.

Next we have the next rotation of the planet where our atmosphere is created - without any plants, without any reference to tectonic plate movement. All within one rotation - one "evening and morning".

Though Moses' readers may not have understood that each of THEIR evening-morning sequences involved the rotation of the planet - still they knew what day was, and they knew what evening-and-morning was. Which conveyed the time frame detail - perfectly.

God is an effective, expert, accurate communicator.

Just like:
"9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good."

We know that plants of significant size (not just microscopic but larger, even feet across) would proceed moving animals

9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas”; and God saw that it was good.

We know that the sinking of the ocean floor and the rising of the continents would result in the waters gathered into one area and the dry land in the other area. God does not state the details other than to say that the waters gathered in one place (a Pangaea like arrangement).

11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth produced vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, according to their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

So then in that third rotation of the planet the oceans form, the Earth is dry , the oceans are in one place, the plants sprout up and have fruit.

So then both sea and land vegetation - but no animal life in sea or on land and all of it in one rotation of the planet according to the text.

End of Day 3 -- the third rotation of planet Earth since day 1.

(BTW - not ONE scientist today claims that Earth used to rotate at "a different speed" 6000 years ago.). And Genesis 1 does not give us any reason to suppose such a thing either.

...
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

That sea animals would proceed land animals, we know from fossils.'

Day four does not say any sea or land animals exist and neither does day 3 say they existed.
What we do find in day four is that the Sun and moon come into being - BEFORE any animals at all-- sea OR land.

At least evolutionist story telling does agree with that detail.

What day four also provides is the fact that the plants only have one rotation of Earth using the Day 1-3 "light source" before they get the Day 4 light source of the "Sun" on one side of Earth.

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

One more rotation of planet Earth and we have "day four" - one more "evening and morning". And in that time frame both the Sun and the moon come into being. So now the light source is Sun and Moon for the first time in the historic account.

Even though the text has to be a 'vision' (the writer wasn't there in person, but gets it from revelation, that is, as a vision, with some sparse amount of poetical narrative words to convey a general idea without specifics...) -- meaning it will be only a stylistic representation, as visions are...

It's almost enough to be suggestive in itself (coming so very long before these scientific understandings we have now...) of proof of God!

But, it's easy to argue, and that's important.

so now "more details" that your story seems to need to skim past

20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

On day 5 (the fifth rotation of the planet, the fifth evening and morning sequence) we have both sea animals and birds created on the same single day. We also have the fact that birds fly "above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens" and that gives us some information for the "context" of terms like "expanse" and "heavens" used earlier in the chapter.

Which means that the plants on land and sea are fully available as food for sea animals and for birds.

An outright proof of every bit of all of Genesis 1 that was unarguable (that no one could dispute reasonably...) would then obviate a key thing in the New Testament -- that God wants 'faith',

The bigger problem with your view is all the details you leave out. Outright proof would have to first start with accounting for the actual details in the text not ignoring them.

Day 6 -- the biggest day of details of all

24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the animals of the earth according to their kind, and the livestock according to their kind, and everything that crawls on the ground according to its kind; and God saw that it was good.

The first thing God makes with full completeness on Day 6 is all land animals in their various species, kinds, families fully formed. Which means that the plants on land are fully available as food for animals. Not something like "an amoeba that eventually gives rise to all phyla on the Earth in that single rotation of the planet"​

26 Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every animal of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Last of all God makes two humans. Their diet is vegan.
The animals are eating plants as their food.

There is no predation death - which is one of the MANY killers for the doctrines of evolutionism that say it is competition and predation that get to the state of having humans, animals, fish, birds etc all on planet Earth.

So, even though there is excellent agreement in science to Genesis 1 now, few or none can understand it well and it's easy to argue against.

With sufficient distance from the details - almost anything can be promoted.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Then I totally misunderstood your post.,





It "appears" you may be saying God showed Moses one thing - when in fact it is actually another thing that really happened at creation week but God thought Moses would like it better if God showed him a seven day week instead of what actually happened.

I may have misunderstood your intent.

"God made everything in some way not as yet defined" is sort of what we have already in Gen 1:1.

You appear to wipe out all the details in the entire chapter and then circle back to 1:1 as the only details that you will accept. when you say something of the form -- "God made everything including the Earth" then add "somehow note stated, and in some time frame not stated, and in some sequence not stated" -- even though those ARE the details stated in the verses that follow Gen 1:1

But then in the remainder of the chapter God shows the actual real-life timeline and the real life sequence for the specific making of all life on Earth as well as our Sun and our moon.

IN this case it is literally showing what happened - so not at all in symbols. Moses was "no darwinist" -- he was not at all inclined to
reinterpret symbols and transform them into Darwinism - neither were his readers inclined to such gymnastics.

I suppose we agree on this as well.

IT is not true that God never shows someone an actual event that happened in history or that will happen in the future.

IT is as if you are saying "read the text without paying attention to the details".

Or am I misunderstanding you again?

And pay attention to every detail it gives for it is from God "who cannot lie" as Titus 1 affirms.

More than this "it is the details" that we see affirmed not just in Genesis but in the "legal code" of Ex 20:11


Ok - so I have put the key parts of your post here and I have shown how it looks like what I said about your post was getting communicated to me from your own words.

Feel free to address these details and point to where I was not getting your actual meaning in what you said. I am open to correction if you deal with specifics.

Is it just me or is he actually saying that the scriptures were written inaccurately? What I’m seeing is that he’s saying that Moses misinterpreted a vision God gave him about Genesis. First of all we aren’t even sure that Moses wrote Genesis but many do believe that and second we have no idea how the story of Genesis was revealed to the author. That’s quite a vision with numerous intricate details spanning what 1500 years or so for the entire book of Genesis? How can someone claim that the author misinterpreted a vision that we know absolutely nothing about or if it even existed to begin with. How can anyone possibly have that information to make such a statement? It’s fabricated that’s how. That’s the only logical explanation because no one can possibly have that information because it doesn’t exist. And on top of that supposedly we can’t use Exodus 20:11 as evidence because that’s not the main focus of the chapter. So apparently Exodus 20:11 is also written inaccurately. He’s basically saying “I’m not wrong, Moses and the author of Genesis are wrong”. I mean am I the only one seeing this or are you seeing this as well?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Ok... but you know if you can change the rules of time and space, anything could be forced into a truth. But I get you.

We know from genealogical records that from the time Adam became mortal until when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, was around 4000 years. So, 2000 years later, we know that length of time is 6,000 years.

But what we don't know the length of time between when Adam was created until through his disobedience he became mortal. It was when he became mortal, that the clock started winding down to his death approximately 600 years later.

When a person is immortal, there is no sense of time. In fact time doesn't matter. Time matters to us because once we are born, sometime in the future we are going to die. So while Adam was immortal, time wasn't an issue, so it was not measured. Is is conceivable that Adam and Eve could have lived thousands of years before the snake appeared and tempted Eve.

So, the belief that the earth was just 6,000 years old is a misunderstanding that the creation week and the Fall happened within a short time. But we are not told how long it would have been, because time was not an issue until the Fall of man.