How Old Is The Earth

[Job 33:6]

What if other books of the Bible are mythological?

How do you distinguish one from the other?

In scholarship, mythological does not mean that a story is not true. But it's generally understood that, particularly in the old testament, there are major mythological themes in the text. Sometimes resulting in stories being called mythological history, or theological history.

Things like Psalm 74:14-17, Isaiah 27:1 and Psalm 89:9-10 among other passages, describes the mythological sea dragon, Rahab or leviathan, that represents the chaotic seas, tehom.

But many of these themes are also mixed and melted into actual historical events, or reflect historical events.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm reading Wikipedia article on the book of Enoch right now.

Book of Enoch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the article:

In 1838, Laurence also released the first Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch published in the West, under the title: Libri Enoch Prophetae Versio Aethiopica. The text, divided into 105 chapters, was soon considered unreliable as it was the transcription of a single Ethiopic manuscript.

I am still looking into it more, and other Apocrypha.

God Bless.

Here's a decent video as well, that covers some enochian content.

He usually loses me after about 40 min though in this video.

Another book worth reading, even though it's not canon and isn't considered inspired, would be the book of the giants.

And of course, Dr. John Walton and Dr. Tremper Longman III, their book "the lost world of the flood".

 

[Neogaia777]

@Job 33:6

The problem is, if you/me start going down this road of some books being totally mythological, then other people are going to come out of the woodwork and say that there was no literal Adam or Eve, or Garden of Eden, or Flood or Noah, or maybe even Moses or Exodus, as many are trying to say that right now, etc, and I don't believe that, etc.

But the evidence they come up with against them, might even be able to decieve even the elect maybe, etc.

So where do we draw the line, etc?

 

[Job 33:6]

@Job 33:6

The problem is, if you/me start going down this road of some books being totally mythological, then other people are going to come out of the woodwork and say that there was no literal Adam or Eve, or Garden of Eden, or Flood or Noah, or maybe even Moses or Exodus, as many are trying to say that right now, etc, and I don't believe that, etc.

But the evidence they come up with against them, might even be able to decieve even the elect maybe, etc.

So where do we draw the line, etc?

It's debated of course. But I usually follow similar ideas of Dr. John Walton. In differentiating between cultural reference, and revelation in the Bible.

Some things are fully known to be ideas drawn from the ancient near east. Things well established in history throughout Egypt and Babylon. Similar to how the Bible is written in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, some things the Biblical authors use simply because that's the culture and the place that they live in.

Ancient Near East cosmology is a common example as well.

Whereas revelation is viewed as the unique components of scripture that went against the culture of the time. Monotheism. The Trinity. God loving mankind rather than creating us to be slaves. Creating us in the Image of God rather than out of tiamats demon blood. And things of this nature.

So we can read material and educate ourselves. And practice and grow in the faith. And practice being faithful readers.

Reading first Enoch isn't a sin. You don't have to convert to Egyptian paganism. But people can still read about the ancient world and study and learn about it, and use it to help inform our understanding of the Bible.

People don't need to worship Enoch or start believing in apocryphal texts. But we can still use it to inform our understanding of Jude or Peter.

 

[SuperCow]

There's a difference between believing a book is accurate, and believing a book is inspired. The Maccabees is often cited by historians whenever that period of Jewish history is discussed as no other historical account is as detailed. I personally think Maccabees 1 & 2 should be part of the canon. The reasons for its dismissal are not valid in my opinion, especially since that period is prophesied in Daniel and the book is quoted in Hebrews. For the first few decades of its existence (from 1611-1640 AD), the King James Version included the Apocryphal books in its canon. Some Bibles in Eastern Orthodox churches still have them today.

There's also partial accuracy, half-truths and copy corrupted. Enoch or Yashar could fall into this category. Any book that old had to go through a world of violence, an earth-wide flood disaster. (Whether you believe the Hebrew translation means that water covered the entire earth or not, the event definitely affected the entire earth.) It would be difficult to preserve their integrity when other cultures could not do the same for their own history.

But even so, not everything in the Bible is history. Psalms teaches with poetry (and probably at one time, music). It's quite possible that the Song of Solomon is more like a stage play than a literal event. Some prophecies (like Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation) have symbolisms rather than specifics. Jesus taught with parables. Maybe the book of Job is a parable. It's certainly difficult to believe somebody witnessing Yahweh and Satan arguing about the righteousness of the man Job as it does in the beginning and three male friends giving long-winded poetic speeches arguing with Job over his predicament.

But even when a book is inspired, things can creep into the text. People like to believe that their copy of the Bible is the infallible, perfect word of God, but on a word for word basis that is impossible. At a conceptual level that may be true, but it can easily be proven that since there are over 3000 translations of the Bible, with subtle (and in a few cases not so subtle) differences, that at least 2999 of them are different from the original text. Most Bibles contain footnotes when there are variations, which in itself disproves the idea of 100% perfection. So using extra-biblical sources when certain topics are vague or confusing can be helpful. Often the stye of writing or the abrupt change in the subject matter makes the job of discerning the additions easier.

 

[Neogaia777]

It's debated of course. But I usually follow similar ideas of Dr. John Walton. In differentiating between cultural reference, and revelation in the Bible.

Some things are fully known to be ideas drawn from the ancient near east. Things well established in history throughout Egypt and Babylon. Similar to how the Bible is written in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, some things the Biblical authors use simply because that's the culture and the place that they live in.

Ancient Near East cosmology is a common example as well.

Whereas revelation is viewed as the unique components of scripture that went against the culture of the time. Monotheism. The Trinity. God loving mankind rather than creating us to be slaves. Creating us in the Image of God rather than out of tiamats demon blood. And things of this nature.

So we can read material and educate ourselves. And practice and grow in the faith. And practice being faithful readers.

Reading first Enoch isn't a sin. You don't have to convert to Egyptian paganism. But people can still read about the ancient world and study and learn about it, and use it to help inform our understanding of the Bible.

People don't need to worship Enoch or start believing in apocryphal texts. But we can still use it to inform our understanding of Jude or Peter.

I realize reading the first book of Enoch is not a sin, but it's a pretty wild, fanciful book compared to the rest of the Bible, and I've heard contradicts a lot of the rest of the Bible also, etc.

So how do we know what it says is even true about the ancient world before the Flood, etc.

And how do we know if it wasn't just written later on by someone with maybe an agenda and a very fanciful imagination who had no real true way or idea of really knowing for sure about the ancient world before the Flood, or these things, etc?

Jeremiah 8:8-9

Ezekiel 22:28

God Bless.

 

[trophy33]

Oh it’s “lazy” then put your money where your mouth is and accept my challenge. Engage in the discussion on the lecture and point out exactly where my mistakes are in my refutation of it. You’re the one being lazy because I actually took the time to listen to the entire 1 hour 49 minute lecture, then I pointed out every mistake I noticed and explained why the guy was wrong and even gave time stamps for each point I made so that anyone who disagreed would be able to go straight to that portion of the video. I took the time and effort to make it as easy as possible for you to go straight to that particular portion of the video and make your case against what I wrote. You’re the one being lazy because you refuse to actually discuss the video. All you did was post a link to a video and that’s it, you never one engaged in the discussion about the video, so you’re the one being lazy in the discussion here not me. Someone tells you what to believe and you just believe it, no questions asked. I don’t approach the Bible like that, I think for myself and I actually do my own study instead of sitting back and relying on what someone else tells me that the Bible teaches. Here’s a link to my refutation.

Flat Earth Theory.

Oh come on! So Polaris just disappears when the south celestial pole is viewed? And no, Polaris is NOT directly above the North Pole. Polaris is seen to rotate around a center point just the same as all the other stars. The problem is that center point is completely different in the southern...

www.christianforums.com

This is not about laziness. I simply do not have time and energy to defend experts against your personal refutations or to respond to long posts, detail by detail. Its more useful for me to invest my time into other things. Also, I do not have the resources collected and ready, I would basically need to become the expert myself to bring you all the evidence, literature, languages, encyclopedias, journals, articles etc. Its too much work. If you reject for example Bible Dictionaries written by people who study it professionally, full time for decades, what can I do? I am nobody, I am just an interested layman who learns about it in my free time, among many other things.

When discussions go too deep into rabbit holes, I usually do not follow, because its without end. We should accept the consensus of experts/scholars to some extend, or else we would have only mess left. I do not say you must accept this specific scholar or this specific video, but I think you should consider to simply learn more and to be more open-minded in the area, instead of automatically fighting it because you have some pre-conceived beliefs.

The laziness I was talking about in my previous post is not about discussing it here, but about learning things to understand the Bible more than just intuitively.

 

[Job 33:6]

I realize reading the first book of Enoch is not a sin, but it's a pretty wild, fanciful book compared to the rest of the Bible, and I've heard contradicts a lot of the rest of the Bible also, etc.

So how do we know what it says is even true about the ancient world before the Flood, etc.

And how do we know if it wasn't just written later on by someone with maybe an agenda and a very fanciful imagination who had no real true way or idea of really knowing for sure about the ancient world before the Flood, or these things, etc?

Jeremiah 8:8-9

Ezekiel 22:28

God Bless.

I don't think that the concepts of 1 Enoch are true. Maybe some small details are. Such as any mention of Noah, or God sending the flood. But other parts I would say are clearly just not true in any historical sense. Especially not the parts involving man eating giants. Why? Because there's no archaeological evidence for such things. The giant nephelim in Enoch are described as being something like 300 feet tall and they ate people. We find giant dinosaur bones, but there's no evidence for people that large in history (contrary to AI generated fake images).

However, that doesn't mean that the text isn't relevant to Bible study.

Fragments of Enoch have been found among the caves of qumran, among the dead sea scrolls. Which were caves in which early Jews preserved scripture at least a century or two before the new testament authors were ever born. These are texts that the new testament authors quote quite frequently. But right there along manuscripts of Psalms and Genesis and Daniel etc. there were other books that didn't make it into the Bible. Enoch, Jubilees, Book of the Giants. Etc. Genesis apocrypha is another.

Youd have to investigate the dead sea scrolls to see the various ways that the pots and scroll fragments were dated. But they typically are written in languages that predate the new testament authors. In dialects of Hebrew that predate Hebrew known at the time of the authors. Aside from typical archaeological studies.

The dead sea scrolls include much of the oldest manuscripts of the Bible that we have. But it just so happens that some apocrypha is there alongside the Bible.

And some early church fathers, Irenaeus and Tertulian, some argued for the canonicity of these texts. So that's something to be aware of too. And in Ethiopia it was considered canon by a church there.

But Enoch is just scratching the surface. There's a lot to see among extrabiblical texts.

There has been a later addition to 1 Enoch that involves a conclusion to the flood story though. It dates to after the new testament authors. In which the nephelim battle leviathan (during the flood) and are slain by, I believe it is the archangel Micheal. Which completes God's judgement. Like a side story to Noah's ark.

It's not canon, it's not inspired. Some of it is certainly false. But it gives insight into concepts that were circulating in the society of the new testament authors. When they were walking around preaching and sharing the gospel, people would have known some of these stories. Not just Genesis, but about angels rebelling and God responding with the flood. And so Peter and Jude reference these topics.

Jude 1:6-7 ESV
[6] And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— [7] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:4-6 ESV
[4] For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; [5] if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; [6] if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

They're talking about stories that people would have known about. Their audience would have known the references.

And a lot of the new testament is build up around old testament narratives. So even reading pagan texts, though they include false information, can give someone insight into what the world was like back then.

Reading ancient Egyptian pagan literature. It sounds strange. It isn't inspired, it's pagan. It's incorrect.

And yet, what did Moses have to deal with when the isrealites were struggling with the worship of Egyptian gods? By studying ancient pagan literature, even though it isn't true, we can learn about what Moses and Jacob and David etc. We can get some insight into what the world was like back then. What were people talking about and why were the Biblical authors so concerned about these other religions. And what ideas did Moses and others share with the wider ancient near east?

And I think most people would be surprised to see some of these things. And you'll never hear it covered in a church sermon. But among Biblical scholarship, it's common to hear it discussed.

Here are some interviews with evangelical Bible scholars that I've appreciated.

 

[trophy33]

You’re the one saying that God didn’t literally stretch out the heavens with His hands.

Yes. And you are the one saying "maybe", even though you read Genesis without any "maybe", interestingly. Why the inconsistency?

Do you also believe that God literally fought a literal dragon during the creation?

 

[trophy33]

I don't think that the concepts of 1 Enoch are true. Maybe some small details are. Such as any mention of Noah, or God sending the flood. But other parts I would say are clearly just not true in any historical sense. Especially not the parts involving man eating giants. Why? Because there's no archaeological evidence for such things. The giant nephelim in Enoch are described as being something like 300 feet tall and they ate people. We find giant dinosaur bones, but there's no evidence for people that large in history (contrary to AI generated fake images).

However, that doesn't mean that the text isn't relevant to Bible study.

Fragments of Enoch have been found among the caves of qumran, among the dead sea scrolls. Which were caves in which early Jews preserved scripture at least a century or two before the new testament authors were ever born. These are texts that the new testament authors quote quite frequently. But right there along manuscripts of Psalms and Genesis and Daniel etc. there were other books that didn't make it into the Bible. Enoch, Jubilees, Book of the Giants. Etc. Genesis apocrypha is another.

Youd have to investigate the dead sea scrolls to see the various ways that the pots and scroll fragments were dated. But they typically are written in languages that predate the new testament authors. In dialects of Hebrew that predate Hebrew known at the time of the authors. Aside from typical archaeological studies.

The dead sea scrolls include much of the oldest manuscripts of the Bible that we have. But it just so happens that some apocrypha is there alongside the Bible.

And some early church fathers, Irenaeus and Tertulian, some argued for the canonicity of these texts. So that's something to be aware of too. And in Ethiopia it was considered canon by a church there.

But Enoch is just scratching the surface. There's a lot to see among extrabiblical texts.

There has been a later addition to 1 Enoch that involves a conclusion to the flood story though. It dates to after the new testament authors. In which the nephelim battle leviathan (during the flood) and are slain by, I believe it is the archangel Micheal. Which completes God's judgement. Like a side story to Noah's ark.

It's not canon, it's not inspired. Some of it is certainly false. But it gives insight into concepts that were circulating in the society of the new testament authors. When they were walking around preaching and sharing the gospel, people would have known some of these stories. Not just Genesis, but about angels rebelling and God responding with the flood. And so Peter and Jude reference these topics.

Jude 1:6-7 ESV
[6] And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— [7] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:4-6 ESV
[4] For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; [5] if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; [6] if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

They're talking about stories that people would have known about. Their audience would have known the references.

And a lot of the new testament is build up around old testament narratives. So even reading pagan texts, though they include false information, can give someone insight into what the world was like back then.

Reading ancient Egyptian pagan literature. It sounds strange. It isn't inspired, it's pagan. It's incorrect.

And yet, what did Moses have to deal with when the isrealites were struggling with the worship of Egyptian gods? By studying ancient pagan literature, even though it isn't true, we can learn about what Moses and Jacob and David etc. We can get some insight into what the world was like back then. What were people talking about and why were the Biblical authors so concerned about these other religions. And what ideas did Moses and others share with the wider ancient near east?

And I think most people would be surprised to see some of these things. And you'll never hear it covered in a church sermon. But among Biblical scholarship, it's common to hear it discussed.

Here are some interviews with evangelical Bible scholars that I've appreciated.

BTW, do you have some good, longer video about the Sumerian/Akkadian culture and its influence on the Mesopotamian concepts? Its difficult to find a good one.

 

[Job 33:6]

BTW, do you have some good, longer video about the Sumerian/Akkadian culture and its influence on the Mesopotamian concepts? Its difficult to find a good one.

You might find useful content in "Reading Genesis 1 and 2: an evangelical conversation".

John Waltons books, the lost world of Genesis One in particular. The lost world of the flood.

John Waltons NIV application commentary.

The IVP Old Testament Background Commentary.

That's mostly where I've picked up on Sumerian and Akkadian material pertaining to the Bible.

Walton will reference Eridu Genesis in various places.

Or I'll look at interviews or read material online about enuma Elish from various scholars. Ammar Annus or from Eckart Frahm.

The "What your pastor didn't tell you" has a lot of good interviews that often involve a lot of book plugs for further reading.

Tremper Longman III. He co authors with Walton on the lost world of the flood. But you can find his content out there as well. He's a really good writer.

https://www.amazon.com/Fictional-Akkadian-Autobiography-Comparative-Biotransformation/dp/0931464412

 

[trophy33]

Or I'll look at interviews or read material online about enuma Elish from various scholars. Ammar Annus or from Eckart Frahm.

Yeah, Enuma Elish and the Babylonian influence is relatively easy to find, but to find a good, detailed lecture about Sumer or Akkadia, not so much. However, I will watch this one.

Regarding printed books, its not so easy for me to order them and read them, I live in Europe, so its a bit more difficult for me to read such long, specialized texts in English. Thats why I prefer videos when possible, its a bit easier, because spoken English does not use as many rare words as books.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yeah, Enuma Elish and the Babylonian influence is relatively easy to find, but to find a good, detailed lecture about Sumer or Akkadia, not so much. However, I will watch this one.

Regarding printed books, its not so easy for me to order them and read them, I live in Europe, so its a bit more difficult for me to read such long, specialized texts in English. Thats why I prefer videos when possible, its a bit easier, because spoken English does not use as many rare, technical words as books.

Do you use Logos Bible Study Software? You might also like logos Bible software if you don't already use it. It has a digital library of thousands of books for Bible study. And every month they release a book for free. The web app is free to use, but their basic cheaper packages are nice for everyday people.

Logos | The Most Complete Bible Study Platform

Jump into Logos and experience the most powerful bible study platform that will equip you to go deeper into scripture so you will know the Word like never before.

www.logos.com

And yea, I usually try to find video content on authors before I dive into their books. It helps me understand who I'm dealing with before I spend money or time on their literature.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yeah, Enuma Elish and the Babylonian influence is relatively easy to find, but to find a good, detailed lecture about Sumer or Akkadia, not so much. However, I will watch this one.

Regarding printed books, its not so easy for me to order them and read them, I live in Europe, so its a bit more difficult for me to read such long, specialized texts in English. Thats why I prefer videos when possible, its a bit easier, because spoken English does not use as many rare words as books.

What scholars do you listen to or read on the subject?

I also have enjoyed Claus Westermann's Genesis 1 and 2 Commentary. I don't buy all the commentaries because they are so expensive, but they can be borrowed from local libraries for free. Which is how I do most of my study.

Though John Waltons Lord World series is pretty cheap on Amazon.

 

[trophy33]

Do you use Logos Bible Study Software? You might also like logos Bible software if you don't already use it. It has a digital library of thousands of books for Bible study. And every month they release a book for free. The web app is free to use, but their basic cheaper packages are nice for everyday people.

No, not really. I know about it, but I use rather online sources like biblehub.com

And yea, I usually try to find video content on authors before I dive into their books. It helps me understand who I'm dealing with before I spend money or time on their literature.

Me too, but I must say I am mostly disappointed when I buy books after watching the videos. First, I do not like the American bloated style of writing (full of irrelevant personal stories, sometimes even about the author's childhood and similar). Second, it seems to me that there is not so much additional useful information compared to videos, mostly repetition and irrelevant additions.

 

[trophy33]

What scholars do you listen to or read on the subject?

I also have enjoyed Claus Westermann's Genesis 1 and 2 Commentary. I don't buy all the commentaries because they are so expensive, but they can be borrowed from local libraries for free. Which is how I do most of my study.

Though John Waltons Lord World series is pretty cheap on Amazon.

My first contacts with the area were in my childhood/teens when I was given a Bible Dictionary from the church members. Also, based on my location, I absorbed some influences of German schools of thought, for example reading Erich Sauer's book about the Old Testament (The Dawn of World Redemption is the title in English). Also introductions to biblical books in the Ecumenical Bible could have played a small role (at least as an information "there is something like that").

Though, I began to study it more consciously later, after and during online discussions. Inspiring Philosophy channel, Biologos, John Walton and M. Heiser were probably the first ones I found on youtube. I also watched various debates with Kent Hovind and similar and read the YEC books, Ken Ham, websites like AiG (I grew up as an YEC). The "Hugh Ross view" was an intermediate stage for me, for a time, after the YEC.

Recently, I also found "Ben S" channel (I think it was from some post of yours) and I am currently watching the youtube channels Fall of civilizations and History with Cy.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, not really. I know about it, but I use rather online sources like biblehub.com


Me too, but I must say I am mostly disappointed when I buy after books that. First, I do not like the American bloated style of writing (full of irrelevant personal stories, sometimes even about the author's childhood and similar). Second, it seems to me that there is not so much additional useful information compared to videos, mostly repetition and irrelevant additions.

I agree. Unless it's a technical commentary, I think videos usually get the general point across. If the author is on a social media platform.

Unfortunately though, I've found that, of the most technical commentaries I've read, I don't find video content for them. So I have to keep going back to my bookshelf to find things. And that makes it harder to share.

It may have been this forum, but we've been talking about the book of Enoch. And it's not that easy to find interviews of scholars talking about the very specific parallels between Enoch and Jude. So I had to go to logos to pull up a book, to then share. So I do that a lot.

It's also challenging because information is dispersed in many places. Walton may cover some Akkadian material in one book, then some other Babylonian material in another book.

And I'll have to sit and try to remember which book that particular reference is in. So I might have to jump from one book to another to track down information.

But usually authors are pretty good at organizing material.

All the while, it's just a hobby for me of relatively low importance usually. So I'm also limited in communication oftentimes because I just don't care enough to do the legwork to address some things.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is not about laziness. I simply do not have time and energy to defend experts against your personal refutations or to respond to long posts, detail by detail. Its more useful for me to invest my time into other things. Also, I do not have the resources collected and ready, I would basically need to become the expert myself to bring you all the evidence, literature, languages, encyclopedias, journals, articles etc. Its too much work. If you reject for example Bible Dictionaries written by people who study it professionally, full time for decades, what can I do? I am nobody, I am just an interested layman who learns about it in my free time, among many other things.

When discussions go too deep into rabbit holes, I usually do not follow, because its without end. We should accept the consensus of experts/scholars to some extend, or else we would have only mess left. I do not say you must accept this specific scholar or this specific video, but I think you should consider to simply learn more and to be more open-minded in the area, instead of automatically fighting it because you have some pre-conceived beliefs.

The laziness I was talking about in my previous post is not about discussing it here, but about learning things to understand the Bible more than just intuitively.

But you’ve just said yourself here in this post that you don’t know why that professor interprets Genesis 1 the way he does. You’re placing an expectation on me to learn why he interprets it the way he does but you yourself haven’t done that. What you’re doing is just posting this guy’s lecture on the subject and taking it as fact just because he’s a college professor and now you’re telling me that you don’t have the time to explain his approach so you expect me to study and research his position to try to learn more about it when that’s what you should be doing since you’re the one who accepts his opinion. So basically someone told you what to believe and you believed it and you don’t even know why you believe it other than because he is considered to be a Hebrew scholar. That’s basically what you’ve just told me in this post.

 

[trophy33]

But you’ve just said yourself here in this post that you don’t know why that professor interprets Genesis 1 the way he does. You’re placing an expectation on me to learn why he interprets it the way he does but you yourself haven’t done that. What you’re doing is just posting this guy’s lecture on the subject and taking it as fact just because he’s a college professor and now you’re telling me that you don’t have the time to explain his approach so you expect me to study and research his position to try to learn more about it when that’s what you should be doing since you’re the one who accepts his opinion. So basically someone told you what to believe and you believed it and you don’t even know why you believe it other than because he is considered to be a Hebrew scholar. That’s basically what you’ve just told me in this post.

I know why, generally. You can read much of my reasoning in various posts. However, I do not have time and resources to go to lengthy debates about specific video details, when you reject generally accepted facts, encyclopedias, dictionaries, works, university materials etc. I would need to defend education, scholarship and scientific consensus as such, which is a too exhausting task for occasional online discussion.

Its a very similar issue to proving basic knowledge to flat earthers - unending, exhausting and time consuming task without much outcome.

 

[Platte]

You're caught in a big fat lie. You said:

Yes, in an underhanded way you are trying to assert your belief. You are indeed claiming this, therefore you have lied. Why should I even continue a conversation with you? You're not trustworthy.

I assure you I don’t lie about my Biblical beliefs. Those were 2 different statements.

I believe Adam was created as a man probably 18-35 years old. Same with Eve. I believe God created tall trees and ripe vegetation at creation. I believe the animals he created were mating age. They we all created at a practical age. Wouldn’t be very practical to create Adam as a newborn baby.

God created the perfect environment for man to thrive. Earth is the only place that we are aware of in the universe that can sustain life. Everything had to be in an exact and precise manner in his creation of the universe for Earth to be able to sustain life. The universe as we see it is what was created (understanding the minute changes in the universe that have occurred over the past 6000 years)

The age of the universe as you see is the age it had to be for man to live on Earth.

And the purpose of creation was for man to live on earth.

So the universe was indeed created 6000 years ago. But it’s age when it was created like Adam, the trees, the ripe vegetation, the animals(or anything else God created 6000 years ago)…was much older.