The Return of My Ex Nihilo Challenge

Gregory Thompson · Saturday at 3:47 PM

On the second day, the firmament later named heaven separated the waters.

There is a heaven we look at. It is a manifestation of the fourth day.

There is also a heaven behind the sky heaven we look at. This "above heaven" is where God is. Where the waters by contrast are so calm, it is a sea of glass.

When the heaven rolls up like a scroll, God will be made visible.

So the singular heaven makes sense since there is a heaven above the heaven.

DamianWarS · Tuesday at 4:50 AM

Gregory Thompson said:
On the second day, the firmament later named heaven separated the waters.

There is a heaven we look at. It is a manifestation of the fourth day.

There is also a heaven behind the sky heaven we look at. This "above heaven" is where God is. Where the waters by contrast are so calm, it is a sea of glass.

When the heaven rolls up like a scroll, God will be made visible.

So the singular heaven makes sense since there is a heaven above the heaven.

It depends the order of the account as per western step logic (unlikely) or Hebraic block logic (which can be implicated by the Chiastic structure) Is it that the light was spoken first and on day four the sun created? Or their literal sequence is not the focus, and instead the sequence presented has other goals in mind, perhaps a ordering or significance given this also has a perfect fit over a redemptive metaphor that light is spoken into us when we are broken, empty and of darkness. Then other events takes place like the separating the waters above/below (baptism) rising new (the earth rising from the waters) then our fruit happens, we are filled with all manner of seed baring plants, teaming with life and the commandment to multiply ending in a complete restoration. 1:1 and 2:1 form a Chiastic pair so are likely refering to the same thing, given they are the same Hebrew word why fight it? I find literal approaches to this account the most uninteresting, and least impactful, where the redemptive message the most interesting and hugely relevant in this very moment.

Gregory Thompson · Tuesday at 12:24 PM

DamianWarS said:
It depends the order of the account as per western step logic (unlikely) or Hebraic block logic (which can be implicated by the Chiastic structure) Is it that the light was spoken first and on day four the sun created? Or their literal sequence is not the focus, and instead the sequence presented has other goals in mind, perhaps a ordering or significance given this also has a perfect fit over a redemptive metaphor that light is spoken into us when we are broken, empty and of darkness. Then other events takes place like the separating the waters above/below (baptism) rising new (the earth rising from the waters) then our fruit happens, we are filled with all manner of seed baring plants, teaming with life and the commandment to multiply ending in a complete restoration. 1:1 and 2:1 form a Chiastic pair so are likely refering to the same thing, given they are the same Hebrew word why fight it? I find literal approaches to this account the most uninteresting, and least impactful, where the redemptive message the most interesting and hugely relevant in this very moment.

Sounds complicated.

I mean, the days are actually numbered in an order.

DamianWarS · Tuesday at 9:09 PM

Gregory Thompson said:
Sounds complicated.

I mean, the days are actually numbered in an order.

The chiastic structure is present even if you don't choose to study it. My estimation the structure is cascading in 2 parts. Broadly the days 1-3 are organizing, separating where days 4-6 a filling up. 1:1 obviously paired with 2:1 which leaves 1:2 with 2:2-3 and when studied is a natural pair of contrasting darkness/light, empty/full, inform/formed, incomplete/compete etc...

A1 1:1-
A2 1:2-
B1 Day 1-
B2 Day 2-
B3 Day 3-
-B1 Day 4
-B2 Day 5
-B3 Day 6
-A1 2:2-3
-A2 2:1

Day 1 is a disembodied light, day 4 the bodies of light are created which feels a bit like the cart before the horse. The days are indeed ordered but in what way? Light spoken into darkness has undeniable spiritual application that the NT affirms, to start, Christ calls himself the light of the world but more directly we see the comparison in 2 Cor 4:6.

Light spoken into darkness is a salvation event (metaphorically) just as I was once of darkness and light was spoken into me. It is critical that light is first to know that no intermediary thing gives me the light and it is direct from God (of it were source from the sun I might be worshiping the sun). If the sun then it make more physical sense but the metaphor would fall appart. The account clearly has metaphor application (2 Cor 4:6 proves that) and there is a prioritization of the light first.

I frankly don't care much about the lit. application as I don't see it has much value. If it was a billion years, 6 days, or a single moment, from our perspective the earth, sky, sun, moon etc... are still here in the same way so nothing changes. The account itself is traditionally penned by Moses some 2500 years after the event so the perspective of the post-exodus Hebrews is the same. There are some non negotiables of course such as everything comes from God but how you approach the lit. application of the account is not something that has a lot of spiritual merit. I believe in God either way.

But the spiritual application is immense and once you stop forcing a lit. application and focus on the spiritual application different goals are revealed that show a beauty and intention in the order that the lit. can't do. I don't deny the ordering has purpose, but we need to establish the most important purpose of the account first before we can define it's order. We default to a lit. view and tends have an effect of only talking about the lit. application and not the spiritual application. I would rather not comment on the lit. application because it's so uninteresting and talk more about the spiritual application because it's so life giving.

Gregory Thompson · 2025-09-03T04:43:00-0500

DamianWarS said:
The chiastic structure is present even if you don't choose to study it. My estimation the structure is cascading in 2 parts. Broadly the days 1-3 are organizing, separating where days 4-6 a filling up. 1:1 obviously paired with 2:1 which leaves 1:2 with 2:2-3 and when studied is a natural pair of contrasting darkness/light, empty/full, inform/formed, incomplete/compete etc...

A1 1:1-
A2 1:2-
B1 Day 1-
B2 Day 2-
B3 Day 3-
-B1 Day 4
-B2 Day 5
-B3 Day 6
-A1 2:2-3
-A2 2:1

Day 1 is a disembodied light, day 4 the bodies of light are created which feels a bit like the cart before the horse. The days are indeed ordered but in what way? Light spoken into darkness has undeniable spiritual application that the NT affirms, to start, Christ calls himself the light of the world but more directly we see the comparison in 2 Cor 4:6.

Light spoken into darkness is a salvation event (metaphorically) just as I was once of darkness and light was spoken into me. It is critical that light is first to know that no intermediary thing gives me the light and it is direct from God (of it were source from the sun I might be worshiping the sun). If the sun then it make more physical sense but the metaphor would fall appart. The account clearly has metaphor application (2 Cor 4:6 proves that) and there is a prioritization of the light first.

I frankly don't care much about the lit. application as I don't see it has much value. If it was a billion years, 6 days, or a single moment, from our perspective the earth, sky, sun, moon etc... are still here in the same way so nothing changes. The account itself is traditionally penned by Moses some 2500 years after the event so the perspective of the post-exodus Hebrews is the same. There are some non negotiables of course such as everything comes from God but how you approach the lit. application of the account is not something that has a lot of spiritual merit. I believe in God either way.

But the spiritual application is immense and once you stop forcing a lit. application and focus on the spiritual application different goals are revealed that show a beauty and intention in the order that the lit. can't do. I don't deny the ordering has purpose, but we need to establish the most important purpose of the account first before we can define it's order. We default to a lit. view and tends have an effect of only talking about the lit. application and not the spiritual application. I would rather not comment on the lit. application because it's so uninteresting and talk more about the spiritual application because it's so life giving.

I've picked apart the seven days of creation myself.

Even when the seven days of creation are enacted within my spiritual life, it is in sequence. When God creates, that's how He does it, it's a window into His personality.

Did you know that the time after the exiting of the garden mimics the Seven days of creation? (in sequence)

Even the end sequence in revelation is in numerical order.

The first era of humanity was the pre-flood, light and darkness scattered amongst the souls of humanity. By choosing one family to survive, this separated the light and the darkness.

The prophets speak of the nations as waters, the separation of heaven and the earth nations happened after this. In the early part of the old testament, all nations believed in the same God who later believed in other gods. This era also had a division of nations occurring. Moses leaving Egypt and separating the sea to escape on dry land, was the beginning of the third day, as the youngest nation was established at the end of an era.

The third day featured not only Moses separating waters and walking on dry land, it featured Elijah separating the river and Elisha walking through. The Elijah-Elisha story was fulfilled through John the baptizer's baptism of Jesus who was immediately taken to the Desert by the Holy Spirit. Jesus also died on the third day after being crucified.

The fourth day is alluded to by Daniel in which "Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever." This speaks of our covenant, and the apostles.

The fifth day doesn't seem to be spoken of in Scripture. I could guess, but have to chalk it up to something only the Father knows.

The sixth day of the beast and the man are in Revelation, emphasis on the beast and the prophet being thrown into the lake of fire prior to the fulfillment of the seventh day.

The seventh day is that period described in Revelation 20 when Satan is sealed and cannot deceive the nations anymore. Since an era where the leaders of nations are not liars has not come, this is yet to be fulfilled.

The garden sequence ended with a deception, a judgment, and the entering into a new world. The Revelation sequence is the same.

To those saying "so what?" the gospel conclusion to this is: When God saw what had happened to the heaven and the earth, He immediately began creating a new one .. since this one would eventually become uninhabitable for all life. God didn't have to, this is just part of who God is.

That is the reason the concept I have of the seven days remains constant within me. Not just for the spiritual benefits and foundation, but also because of who God is.

AV1611VET · 2025-09-03T07:22:32-0500

Gregory Thompson said:
Even when the seven days of creation are enacted within my spiritual life, it is in sequence. When God creates, that's how He does it, it's a window into His personality.

Did God pronounce you "very good"?

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

DamianWarS · 2025-09-03T10:25:40-0500

Gregory Thompson said:
Even when the seven days of creation are enacted within my spiritual life, it is in sequence. When God creates, that's how He does it, it's a window into His personality.

I agree, but what you've detailed is a sequence showing prophetic application not literal application. Babylonians are credited with the 7 day week not the Hebrews which I know will not be a popular position, at least with some posters.

To critically approach this I ask why 7 days because the Bible doesn't answer that. Contrary to what some try and sell 7x4 does not equal a lunar month. Lunar activity does not align with solar activity in terms of counting days so although we may have natural lunar cycles we do not have natural 7-day cycles (we have 7 days cycles from our Western structures but not natural cycles)

A lunar month is 29.5 days 7x4 is only one option and maybe not the best you can come up with. Why not 3x10? 6x5/5x6 or flip it and have 4x7? Why not buffer the end of the month with the left over days?

Lunar alignment is not the best argument for 7 days as there can be other solutions so the 7 day choice can seem like a "close enough" sort of sentiment but it hardly feels carefully curated for us, rather two systems that will more often be out of alignment than in.

We as Christians say it's the number of completion, perfection or God's number but it is only that way because of the 7 days of creation and doesn't actually explain the origins of 7 days choice to begin with. Babylonians have an explanation that fits for an origin number of 7. They use 7 days because it was the number of visible celestial bodies (including the sun and moon) each day named after and the bodies venerated. Even the 7th day had a unique practice of not working.

The hebrew account may have taken the shape we see today at about the time of the Babylonian exile which is about where history inserts Hebrews adopting the 7 days. The creation account can still have prophetic alignment and still be just as divinely inspired with no less truth then it always did, but as a redemptive analogy taken from a pagan concept of 7 days, depaganizing it and and affirming monotheism as well as aligning with redemptive/prophetic plans. This would show us the literal account has transactional value as a pagan account reshaped to hold a far more deep and beneficial truth foreshadowing Christ, salvation, baptism, resurrection, the new heaven/earth and as you pointed out showing prophetic epochs and milestones. It also scoffs at competing accounts with its use of "the deep" a reference to another myth with a great battle between God and the Leviathan, but silenced in the account by spoken light and dismissing it.

It is a very loaded account but the least valuable that I can account for is the literal, and for me is the most uninteresting part of the account. So did God did it in 7 days or exnihilo? I have no idea, but I don't think the account is going to help us sort it out, nor do I think that's the purpose.

AV1611VET · 2025-09-03T10:53:27-0500

DamianWarS said:
Babylonians are credited with the 7 day week not the Hebrews which I know will not be a popular position, at least with some posters.

Then why don't the Jews credit Babylon for it like you do?

From AI Overview:

Jewish tradition and the Bible credit God and the creation story with the seven-day week, not the Babylonians, though the Babylonians may have had a similar concept. While it is believed that the Babylonian calendar had a seven-day cycle linked to the lunar month, and some scholars suggest the Jewish week was influenced by Babylonian Sabbath-like practices, there is no direct evidence the Jews adopted it from them. The Jewish seven-day week is fundamental to their faith and directly tied to the Book of Genesis.

Perhaps they know something your college professors don't?

AV1611VET · 2025-09-03T11:05:24-0500

DamianWarS said:
To critically approach this I ask why 7 days because the Bible doesn't answer that.

It doesn't???

Then what's this ...

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

God took seven days ON PURPOSE, so as to be used as a template for a six-day workweek.

He is saying, in essence, "I worked six days and rested the seventh. You do the same."

AV1611VET · 2025-09-03T11:10:01-0500

DamianWarS said:
Contrary to what some try and sell 7x4 does not equal a lunar month. Lunar activity does not align with solar activity in terms of counting days so although we may have natural lunar cycles we do not have natural 7-day cycles (we have 7 days cycles from our Western structures but not natural cycles)

That's because the Fall put an end to perfect solar and lunar cycles.

The Fall threw everything out of whack; including orbital times.

AV1611VET · 2025-09-03T11:18:58-0500

DamianWarS said:
A lunar month is 29.5 days 7x4 is only one option and maybe not the best you can come up with. Why not 3x10? 6x5/5x6 or flip it and have 4x7? Why not buffer the end of the month with the left over days?

It's interesting you mention this mindset, as I once read a book that showed how the scientific community so oppressed the common people in France with their academic shenanigans, that decimal time was one of the contributors of the French Revolution.

And before anyone starts naysaying ... from AI Overview:

Decimal time was a component of the broader decimalization movement during the French Revolution, which aimed to create a more rational and secular society by replacing traditional, religiously-influenced systems with a decimal-based system. Introduced as part of the French Republican Calendar, decimal time divided the day into 10 hours, each with 100 minutes, and minutes into 100 seconds. Although the system offered mathematical advantages, the general public found it confusing and inconvenient, and it was officially abolished in 1795 due to widespread resistance and the logistical challenges of replacing clocks.

Gregory Thompson · 2025-09-03T16:16:07-0500

AV1611VET said:
Did God pronounce you "very good"?

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

God pronounced everything including humans very good. In the beginning there was no decay.

Gregory Thompson · 2025-09-03T16:18:33-0500

DamianWarS said:
I agree, but what you've detailed is a sequence showing prophetic application not literal application. Babylonians are credited with the 7 day week not the Hebrews which I know will not be a popular position, at least with some posters.

To critically approach this I ask why 7 days because the Bible doesn't answer that. Contrary to what some try and sell 7x4 does not equal a lunar month. Lunar activity does not align with solar activity in terms of counting days so although we may have natural lunar cycles we do not have natural 7-day cycles (we have 7 days cycles from our Western structures but not natural cycles)

A lunar month is 29.5 days 7x4 is only one option and maybe not the best you can come up with. Why not 3x10? 6x5/5x6 or flip it and have 4x7? Why not buffer the end of the month with the left over days?

Lunar alignment is not the best argument for 7 days as there can be other solutions so the 7 day choice can seem like a "close enough" sort of sentiment but it hardly feels carefully curated for us, rather two systems that will more often be out of alignment than in.

We as Christians say it's the number of completion, perfection or God's number but it is only that way because of the 7 days of creation and doesn't actually explain the origins of 7 days choice to begin with. Babylonians have an explanation that fits for an origin number of 7. They use 7 days because it was the number of visible celestial bodies (including the sun and moon) each day named after and the bodies venerated. Even the 7th day had a unique practice of not working.

The hebrew account may have taken the shape we see today at about the time of the Babylonian exile which is about where history inserts Hebrews adopting the 7 days. The creation account can still have prophetic alignment and still be just as divinely inspired with no less truth then it always did, but as a redemptive analogy taken from a pagan concept of 7 days, depaganizing it and and affirming monotheism as well as aligning with redemptive/prophetic plans. This would show us the literal account has transactional value as a pagan account reshaped to hold a far more deep and beneficial truth foreshadowing Christ, salvation, baptism, resurrection, the new heaven/earth and as you pointed out showing prophetic epochs and milestones. It also scoffs at competing accounts with its use of "the deep" a reference to another myth with a great battle between God and the Leviathan, but silenced in the account by spoken light and dismissing it.

It is a very loaded account but the least valuable that I can account for is the literal, and for me is the most uninteresting part of the account. So did God did it in 7 days or exnihilo? I have no idea, but I don't think the account is going to help us sort it out, nor do I think that's the purpose.

The time of God is as such: When the purpose is done, the time is completed.

Since God does not change, His concept of time prior to the creation of our solar clock has not changed either.

Ophiolite · 2025-09-03T17:20:22-0500

AV1611VET said:
It's interesting you mention this mindset, as I once read a book that showed how the scientific community so oppressed the common people in France with their academic shenanigans, that decimal time was one of the contributors of the French Revolution.

And before anyone starts naysaying ... from AI Overview:

Decimal time was a component of the broader decimalization movement during the French Revolution, which aimed to create a more rational and secular society by replacing traditional, religiously-influenced systems with a decimal-based system. Introduced as part of the French Republican Calendar, decimal time divided the day into 10 hours, each with 100 minutes, and minutes into 100 seconds. Although the system offered mathematical advantages, the general public found it confusing and inconvenient, and it was officially abolished in 1795 due to widespread resistance and the logistical challenges of replacing clocks.

Oh dear. You assert that "decimal time was one of the contributors of (sic) the French Revolution" and yet your own AI quote offers absolute contradiction, telling us that "it was introduced as part of the French Repulican Calendar". That is, its introduction followed the start of the French Revolution and therefore could not have contributed to it. (Or, contributed of it, if I choose your bizarre wording.)

To be clear the start of the revolution may be taken as any of these dates:

14 July 1879 - Storming of the Bastille
5 May 1789 — meeting of the Estates-General.
20 June 1789 — Tennis Court Oath
10 August 1792 — Fall of the monarchy

It is irrelevant which one you prefer, since all are considerably before the introduction of decimal time in 1793. I continued to amazed at how you are able to make a claim then offer a refutation of that claim as if it supported you. Quite remarkable.

DamianWarS · 2025-09-03T22:17:34-0500

AV1611VET said:
It's interesting you mention this mindset, as I once read a book that showed how the scientific community so oppressed the common people in France with their academic shenanigans, that decimal time was one of the contributors of the French Revolution.

And before anyone starts naysaying ... from AI Overview:

Decimal time was a component of the broader decimalization movement during the French Revolution, which aimed to create a more rational and secular society by replacing traditional, religiously-influenced systems with a decimal-based system. Introduced as part of the French Republican Calendar, decimal time divided the day into 10 hours, each with 100 minutes, and minutes into 100 seconds. Although the system offered mathematical advantages, the general public found it confusing and inconvenient, and it was officially abolished in 1795 due to widespread resistance and the logistical challenges of replacing clocks.

Decimal or sexagesimal systems of time is not my point, a day can be marked naturally by the rising/falling of the sun which can trigger natural circadian rhythms. (Lunar activity can also trigger natural processes) Decimal/sexagesimal time may align with a complete day cycle but does not align with when it gets dark or light as it's a changing variable based on seasons and global position. Their cuts in time be it 100 or 60 or some other number, although have historical purpose are broadly arbitrary and are not natural. We can developed rhythms based on these systems just as we can with a 7 day Western week, but these are not natural rhythms and require outside systems to developed them. The biblical 7 day cycle likewise is also not a natural cycles

AV1611VET · 2025-09-03T22:41:33-0500

DamianWarS said:
The biblical 7 day cycle likewise is also not a natural cycles.

My point though is that it was at one time.

Before the Fall.

After the Fall though, we now have to make adjustments, such as leap year, because everything is out of whack.

DamianWarS · 2025-09-04T08:40:37-0500

AV1611VET said:
My point though is that it was at one time.

Before the Fall.

After the Fall though, we now have to make adjustments, such as leap year, because everything is out of whack.

The account of the fall has similar problems as creation and it actually doesn't matter if it is literal or non literal as we approach it the same way. It too is presented at the earliest post Exodus which is 2500 years after the event. To critical approach it we need to ask what's the purpose of a 2500 year account of a fall is? Is it how we approach it literally or how we approach it spiritual?

The latter is easy, the fall tells us we are all in a fallen state and there is nothing we can do to fix it on our own merit. To me that's enough and I don't see the literal details adding anything. there are actually theological problems with before/after fall states. It is clear after the fall we need a saviour to redeem us which points to Christ (and sort of the purpose), but does this mean before the fall we didn't need Christ?

I posit that before the fall we needed Christ equally as much as after the fall. The fall event just makes it undeniabley so but a pristine piece of paper or a crumbled soiled one will both burn just as quickly when thrown into a fire. So we have to ask ourself is the fall event needed for us to need Christ? I would say no, it's not needed. But that's abstract and it might be hard to understand our need unless we can point to an event that shows that need and that's the purpose of the fall event, and like creation it's packed with a redemptive and prophetic messages that reveals God's plan.

We don't need Christ to forgive the fall event, we need Christ to make us unburnable in the presence of God. Forgiveness in fact is not the goal, it's a product along the way to the goal. The goal is communion with God, and in order to have the communion we need something/someone of the same substance of God and Man to work as an intermediary for us, that someone is Christ. We don't need the fall event to need Christ. The fall shows us our need for Christ but he shouldn't but Christ shouldn't be seen as a tow truck that pulls us out of our fallen state but instead the one who enables us to commune with God.

So when did the fall event happen? It doesn't matter. The important take away from the fall event is that we need a saviour.

AV1611VET · 2025-09-04T09:55:45-0500

DamianWarS said:
So when did the fall event happen? It doesn't matter. The important take away from the fall event is that we need a saviour.

Nice.

Now you're left having to explain why we need a leap year; as well as why entropy exists throughout the universe.

Not to mention why we are sinners.

As we're fond of saying:

We're not sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.

But that aside, please explain why our days aren't exactly 24 hours, and our months are not exactly 30 days, and our years are no longer exactly 360 days.

And if the moon was created to rule the nighttime sky, why is there a time when it is out during the day (what we call "new moon")?

Also, why is our magnetic field getting weaker? why is our moon receding from the earth at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year? why this and that?

Can you explain all this sans the Fall?

The Return of My Ex Nihilo Challenge

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Follower of Isa Al Masih

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Follower of Isa Al Masih

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Follower of Isa Al Masih

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency