Why Old Earth creationism doesn't work

[BNR32FAN]

They have very much to do with the topic, because they're described in Genesis. They inform us of what Genesis is about.

You can't just read Genesis 1:1 and then act as if Genesis 1:2 and beyond are unimportant to establishing context.

Genesis 1:1 tells us God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:2 tells us they were without form. That doesn’t tell us that it didn’t take place on day one.

 

[Job 33:6]

You’ve already wasted my time with one 26 minute video I’m not watching a 5 hour video just to waste more time.

If you think studying the Bible is a "waste of time" then that's your own shortcomings.

At the end of the day, the context is Blatantly ancient near east, and thus, the text is in fact describing ex materia creation.

And if you're unwilling to examine context, then you're just wasting your own time.

 

[Job 33:6]

Genesis 1:1 tells us God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:2 tells us they were without form. That doesn’t tell us that it didn’t take place on day one.

Nope. The context is ancient near east:

And the evidence is right here in the Bible. I won't repeat, but I'll just quote myself. Every creation day begins with "and God said" so creation didn't begin until Genesis 1:3.

Genesis‬ ‭1:3‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬
[3] Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

[6] And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”

[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.

[14] And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

[20] And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.”

[24] And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so.

[26] Then God said, “Let us make humans in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the wild animals of the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Look at these verses. Every single day begins with God speaking. And God said.

The initial ex materia creation doesn't actually begin until verse 3.

Verse 2, just like in Genesis chapter 2 with no plants water or people to till the field, is a description of the formless and empty earth. And then after the background description is given, then God forms Adam. And in Genesis 1, after the background description is given, then God says "let there be light".

God creates with use of the spoken word. God creates by speaking. And since God didn't speak until verse 1:3, we know that creation didn't begin until 1:3. Verse 2 is just a background. Verse 1 is an introduction.

Also, Genesis chapter 2 starts the same way.
1. In the beginning.
2.The land was without plants, water, or people to till the field.
3. Then God began creating by forming Adam.

Chapter 1 :
1. In the beginning
2. Earth was formless and void
2. God said let there be light

Just read the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that the formless earth in both chapter 1 and 2 is just a background description preceeding ex materia creation in verse 3 and in chapter 2 the empty land proceeds the creation of Adam from dust of the ground, ex materia.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you think studying the Bible is a "waste of time" then that's your own shortcomings.

At the end of the day, the context is Blatantly ancient near east, and thus, the text is in fact describing ex materia creation.

And if you're unwilling to examine context, then you're just wasting your own time.

Now you’re just misquoting me. I never said studying the Bible is a waste of time, I said listening to commentaries is and I even gave examples of why it’s a waste of time. There are commentaries for every heresy known to man, that’s why I don’t use them. Instead I study the Bible and on occasion the early church writings from the first two centuries.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Nope. The context is ancient near east:

And the evidence is right here in the Bible. I won't repeat, but I'll just quote myself. Every creation day begins with "and God said" so creation didn't begin until Genesis 1:3.

Genesis‬ ‭1:3‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬
[3] Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

[6] And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”

[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.

[14] And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

[20] And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.”

[24] And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so.

[26] Then God said, “Let us make humans in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the wild animals of the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Look at these verses. Every single day begins with God speaking. And God said.

The initial ex materia creation doesn't actually begin until verse 3.

Verse 2, just like in Genesis chapter 2 with no plants water or people to till the field, is a description of the formless and empty earth. And then after the background description is given, then God forms Adam. And in Genesis 1, after the background description is given, then God says "let there be light".

God creates with use of the spoken word. God creates by speaking. And since God didn't speak until verse 1:3, we know that creation didn't begin until 1:3. Verse 2 is just a background. Verse 1 is an introduction.

Also, Genesis chapter 2 starts the same way.
1. In the beginning.
2.The land was without plants, water, or people to till the field.
3. Then God began creating by forming Adam.

Chapter 1 :
1. In the beginning
2. Earth was formless and void
2. God said let there be light

Just read the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that the formless earth in both chapter 1 and 2 is just a background description preceeding ex materia creation in verse 3 and in chapter 2 the empty land proceeds the creation of Adam from dust of the ground, ex materia.

You say “just read the Bible” then you keep posting commentaries. If I hadn’t been studying my Bible I wouldn’t be able to participate in this discussion. I don’t do commentaries, I do my own study because without doing your own study you’ll never know who to believe if all you do is let other people tell you what the Bible teaches.

 

[Job 33:6]

You say “just read the Bible” then you keep posting commentaries. If I hadn’t been studying my Bible I wouldn’t be able to participate in this discussion. I don’t do commentaries, I do my own study because without doing your own study you’ll never know who to believe if all you do is let other people tell you what the Bible teaches.

You won't be able to decipher what Genesis says if you aren't willing to study what it's context is:

The video above can help explain.

Without context analysis, you have no controls on your interpretation.

 

[Job 33:6]

You won't be able to decipher what Genesis says if you aren't willing to study what it's context is:

The video above can help explain.

Without context analysis, you have no controls on your interpretation.

And to be honest, if you don't study the context of Genesis, then it's obvious why you would think the earth is 6,000 years old.

However, not examining context of Genesis means that you haven't actually investigated what it meant to the original authors.

Which is to say, you basically haven't actually read Genesis before.

 

[Job 33:6]

You say “just read the Bible” then you keep posting commentaries. If I hadn’t been studying my Bible I wouldn’t be able to participate in this discussion. I don’t do commentaries, I do my own study because without doing your own study you’ll never know who to believe if all you do is let other people tell you what the Bible teaches.

It would be like if I said:

"There is water in the trunk".

And I could be talking about

water in a tree trunk.
Water in an elephant trunk
Water in a car trunk

Etc

If you haven't reviewed the context of the passages, then the meaning of the text will remain elusive to your interpretation.

you have to be willing to engage in a discussion on context, else there are no controls on how you interpret the text. You could essentially believe in anything.

But review of the ancient near east context reveals, quite obviously I would say, that the creation described in Genesis is ex materia.

And this context is different than the context of the new testament. It's inappropriate to read the new testament backwards into the old testament, even though I would otherwise agree that there is a matter of revelation that must be addressed.

 

[BNR32FAN]

However, not examining context of Genesis means that you haven't actually investigated what it meant to the original authors.

First of all you don’t know who the original authors are although it’s typically associated with Moses’ work it’s not actually revealed anywhere in the scriptures. Second Genesis is obviously not the result of the understanding of ancient Hebrews since the story predates even Adam and is not the testimony of actual eyewitnesses. Third the original authors didn’t have all the information that we have now that was revealed by God thru the scriptures 4000 years after the creation process. So their interpretation was based on less information than what we have since Christ’s ministry. Fourth Jesus repeatedly criticized the Pharisees’ comprehension of scripture.

 

[Job 33:6]

First of all you don’t know who the original authors are although it’s typically associated with Moses’ work it’s not actually revealed anywhere in the scriptures. Second Genesis is obviously not the result of the understanding of ancient Hebrews since the story predates even Adam and is not the testimony of actual eyewitnesses. Third the original authors didn’t have all the information that we have now that was revealed by God thru the scriptures 4000 years after the creation process. So their interpretation was based on less information than what we have since Christ’s ministry. Fourth Jesus repeatedly criticized the Pharisees’ comprehension of scripture.

You can't say that the text predated Adam because the Hebrew Bible is written...in Hebrew. A language that doesn't predate mankind.

I read the Bible based on the age of the Bible. And the age of the ancient isrealites.

You're trying to read the Bible from a context in which there is no literature substantiating an earlier hypothetical context.

You're citing an imaginary proto-text that doesn't exist.

 

[Job 33:6]

You can't say that the text predated Adam because the Hebrew Bible is written...in Hebrew. A language that doesn't predate mankind.

I read the Bible based on the age of the Bible. And the age of the ancient isrealites.

You're trying to read the Bible from a context in which there is no literature substantiating an earlier hypothetical context.

You're citing an imaginary proto-text that doesn't exist.

Also, isrealites are not the same as Pharisees. Ancient isrealites like Moses of course are many centuries older than the Pharisees.

You're trying to argue for a pre-Adam author of Genesis. But Genesis is an ancient near east text.

And you can't argue that Genesis isn't ancient near eastern because the Bible itself is written in Hebrew, an ancient near east language.

You can't even use the word "Adam" without referencing Hebrew because "Adam" is a Hebrew word meaning mankind.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And to be honest, if you don't study the context of Genesis, then it's obvious why you would think the earth is 6,000 years old.

However, not examining context of Genesis means that you haven't actually investigated what it meant to the original authors.

Which is to say, you basically haven't actually read Genesis before.

Your statements here are obviously not truthful and instead of making false accusations you could take a look at some of the 21000 posts I’ve made here on CF in the last 6 years and see if they contain evidence of study. I mean you’re accusing me of not studying the context while you quote other people’s study. The difference between us is I’ve arrived at my interpretation by my own personal study while you’ve arrived at your interpretation because someone told you what the Bible says. See my interpretation says that God began His work when He created the earth from nothing while your’s says He began His work after the earth was already created, which doesn’t make any sense at all I might add.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You can't say that the text predated Adam because the Hebrew Bible is written...in Hebrew. A language that doesn't predate mankind.

I never said the text predates Adam I said the story does which means that the story is not the testimony of eyewitnesses.

 

[Job 33:6]

First of all you don’t know who the original authors are although it’s typically associated with Moses’ work it’s not actually revealed anywhere in the scriptures. Second Genesis is obviously not the result of the understanding of ancient Hebrews since the story predates even Adam and is not the testimony of actual eyewitnesses. Third the original authors didn’t have all the information that we have now that was revealed by God thru the scriptures 4000 years after the creation process. So their interpretation was based on less information than what we have since Christ’s ministry. Fourth Jesus repeatedly criticized the Pharisees’ comprehension of scripture.

And another thing,

The Bible cannot mean today, what it didn't originally mean to the original authors.

The meaning and definition of words in the Bible, they do not change over time.

So if the original Hebrew isrealites author wrote something down, what they wrote will always remain static. And what they intended to say, will always be what the text means.

And nothing can change that.

So if the ancient isrealites thought that the sky was made out of a glass dome with water over it, and they wrote Genesis 8:2 about windows closing in the sky dome to restrain the sky ocean...

Then that's what the text meant back then, and that's what the text will forever mean.

The moment you try to pull the text out of its original context, you open yourself up to false teachings and fluent unstable exegesis.

 

[Job 33:6]

I never said the text predates Adam I said the story does which means that the story is not the testimony of eyewitnesses.

There is no evidence that the story predates mankind. Nor that the text predates the ancient isrealites. Who would write such a story, and what language would it even be in?

I'm going to disagree and I'll tell you that text that describes the story, and thus the story itself, is about 3,000 years old. There is no evidence of Genesis prior to this in any cultural writings of ancient societies.

Also, there is nothing to be an eye-witness of, given that the Genesis text describes 3-tiered ancient near east cosmology. There is no eyewitness of the ordering of a flat earth for example, because of course the earth is not flat to begin with.

 

[Job 33:6]

I never said the text predates Adam I said the story does which means that the story is not the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Remember, God revealed himself to the ancient isrealites. His chosen people.

God don't reveal himself prior to mankind.

And so the story, Genesis, was revealed first to the ancient isrealites. In about 1,000 BC.

Prior to this time, there was no Genesis story. There was no revelation.

The story is not older than that. The text wasn't written down until it was firmly dated in the ancient near east

Meaning that the context of the writings, the context of the authors, and the context of the audience, are ancient near east.

It is not some proto-mankind, before the universe, eternal omnipresent omniscience forever scientifically accurate context.

The context is a product of the time and place in which it was originally authored by the inspired authors. To their ancient isrealites audience.

 

[Job 33:6]

Your statements here are obviously not truthful and instead of making false accusations you could take a look at some of the 21000 posts I’ve made here on CF in the last 6 years and see if they contain evidence of study. I mean you’re accusing me of not studying the context while you quote other people’s study. The difference between us is I’ve arrived at my interpretation by my own personal study while you’ve arrived at your interpretation because someone told you what the Bible says. See my interpretation says that God began His work when He created the earth from nothing while your’s says He began His work after the earth was already created, which doesn’t make any sense at all I might add.

If you're well studied on Genesis, then you would know that it describes things like ancient near east 3-tiered cosmology for example. As is plainly stated in the text.

In which case, you would know that the text is pre scientific, because obviously we don't live on a flat earth.

In which case, how could you then logically conclude that the Bible describes the age of the earth with any sort of scientific accuracy?

 

[Job 33:6]

If you're well studied on Genesis, then you would know that it describes things like ancient near east 3-tiered cosmology for example. As is plainly stated in the text.

In which case, you would know that the text is pre scientific, because obviously we don't live on a flat earth.

In which case, how could you then logically conclude that the Bible describes the age of the earth with any sort of scientific accuracy?

And if you think that 3-tiered ancient near east cosmology is not pre scientific, then you're going to be in a world of trouble explaining why every ancient near east culture, in and around ancient Isreal, how they were all similarly divinely inspired cosmologically, as the ancient isrealites. Even though the text very plainly and obviously, is pre-scientific.

It's completely irrational.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And another thing,

The Bible cannot mean today, what it didn't originally mean to the original authors.

The meaning and definition of words in the Bible, they do not change over time.

So if the original Hebrew isrealites author wrote something down, what they wrote will always remain static. And what they intended to say, will always be what the text means.

And nothing can change that.

So if the ancient isrealites thought that the sky was made out of a glass dome with water over it, and they wrote Genesis 8:2 about windows closing in the sky dome to restrain the sky ocean...

Then that's what the text meant back then, and that's what the text will forever mean.

The moment you try to pull the text out of its original context, you open yourself up to false teachings and fluent unstable exegesis.

You’re not making any sense at all because nobody could possibly know what took place before THE FIRST MAN WAS CREATED WITHOUT GOD SPECIFICALLY TELLING THEM. Therefore Genesis IS NOT the product of ancient Israel belief it is the product of God’s revelation. So the Israelites didn’t write that a glass dome covered the earth because it’s what they believed they wrote it because that what God told them to write.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is no evidence that the story predates mankind. Nor that the text predates the ancient isrealites. Who would write such a story, and what language would it even be in?

I'm going to disagree and I'll tell you that text that describes the story, and thus the story itself, is about 3,000 years old. There is no evidence of Genesis prior to this in any cultural writings of ancient societies.

Also, there is nothing to be an eye-witness of, given that the Genesis text describes 3-tiered ancient near east cosmology. There is no eyewitness of the ordering of a flat earth for example, because of course the earth is not flat to begin with.

I can’t even begin to fathom how you could honestly arrive at this conclusion based on what I wrote when I even reiterated on it explaining that the story took place before the text. What actually happened took place before anyone existed. The events that actually took place is the story. And that story was never told until Genesis was written. Honestly it seems like you’re deliberately trying to twist and misrepresent my statements in a dishonest attempt to discredit me. I feel like you’re just trolling the discussion at this point.