Age of the earth...Young or old?

[Sereni-tea]

That sounds like something borrowed from from N. T. Wright...

No, not N.T. Wright. My ideas about Genesis 1 have come from a number of prominent Hebrew scholars and scholars of the ancient near east (Walton, Mackie, Heiser, and others). N.T. Wright's focus is 1st century Judaism.

The Bible very largely explains itself. It needs to be interpreted according to its own explanations, using normal rules of hermeneutics. Of course we can look up dictionaries and commentaries, but we must not twist the plain meaning of Scripture, to fit some supposed way of thinking of an ancient culture. We must also not put an extra layer between the reader and the meaning of Scripture, as the Roman Catholics do.

You are right that we must not twist the plain meaning of Scripture. But whose plain meaning are we talking about? Yours, someone from a non-western culture? Or ancient Israel? Do you really think the ancient Israelites thought the way we do today? Because really, they did not. We do not realise how much we approach Scripture with our own biases. We approach it with our own questions, wanting our own answers, forgetting that the Israelites lived in a very different time, with a very different culture, and questions very different to our own. We know a lot about ancient cultures thanks to the work of scholars. We should not ignore this.

It's about how, and in what timescale, God created all things. Of course his sovereignty is implicit in that, but his sovereignty is not the subject.

No, that is your bias. The passage is a polemic against the surrounding cultures who belileved the sun, moon, animals, birds, etc were God. Genesis 1 tells us Yahweh is the one true God who created all things. God's sovereignty is very much the subject here.

Stop trying to shoehorn "reigning" into everything. That's not how to do proper hermeneutics.

The legal Sabbath was about resting from works and worshipping the LORD. The New Covenant Sabbath is resting from our own works, in Christ. It is not about reigning.

How can I shoehorn 'reigning' into everything, when that is what the Bible is about? Yaweh is God. There is no other.

Just as God ordered creation over six days and then 'rested' on the sabbath, in other words, enjoy ruling over His creation, the Israelites were also the spend 6 days working and then spend the sabbath enjoying the provisions the Lord their God had given them. They worshipped God because of who He is and what He has done.

We rest in Christ because He is our Lord and God, our Saviour and King and has conquered Sin and Death.

 

[David1701]

No, not N.T. Wright. My ideas about Genesis 1 have come from a number of prominent Hebrew scholars and scholars of the ancient near east (Walton, Mackie, Heiser, and others). N.T. Wright's focus is 1st century Judaism.

Ah, the notorious Michael Heiser; I'd forgotten that he's quite popular on that other forum.

You are right that we must not twist the plain meaning of Scripture. But whose plain meaning are we talking about? Yours, someone from a non-western culture? Or ancient Israel? Do you really think the ancient Israelites thought the way we do today? Because really, they did not. We do not realise how much we approach Scripture with our own biases. We approach it with our own questions, wanting our own answers, forgetting that the Israelites lived in a very different time, with a very different culture, and questions very different to our own. We know a lot about ancient cultures thanks to the work of scholars. We should not ignore this.

There are not "yours and mine" plain meanings of Scripture! If it requires recondite knowledge of ancient civilisations, then it's not plain, is it?

No, that is your bias. The passage is a polemic against the surrounding cultures who belileved the sun, moon, animals, birds, etc were God. Genesis 1 tells us Yahweh is the one true God who created all things. God's sovereignty is very much the subject here.

Well, you didn't get that (the part about polemic against surrounding cultures) from the Bible, so whose supposition is it?

How can I shoehorn 'reigning' into everything, when that is what the Bible is about? Yaweh is God. There is no other.

The Bible is about many, many things. To say that the Bible is about God reigning, as if that were all, is a partial truth declared as if it were the whole truth, which makes it an untruth. God's sovereignty is often not the subject of this or that particular passage.

Just as God ordered creation over six days and then 'rested' on the sabbath, in other words, enjoy ruling over His creation, the Israelites were also the spend 6 days working and then spend the sabbath enjoying the provisions the Lord their God had given them. They worshipped God because of who He is and what He has done.

Do you believe that God enjoyed ruling over his creation, as he created it? Or was that in abeyance, until creation was complete?

We rest in Christ because He is our Lord and God, our Saviour and King and has conquered Sin and Death.

Not the point...

The Sabbath exists because the Lord is sovereign (as does everything else) but it is not about "reigning".

 

[Sereni-tea]

There are not "yours and mine" plain meanings of Scripture! If it requires recondite knowledge of ancient civilisations, then it's not plain, is it?

Examining the literary and cultural context of the Bible gives you a much better understanding of any passage of Scripture. The culture of the ancient Israelites was very different to our own. So learning how they thought, what their concerns were, how they would have understood the passage is very much a worthwhile endeavour.

Well, you didn't get that (the part about polemic against surrounding cultures) from the Bible, so whose supposition is it?

I did mention that I have study the works of a lot of Hebrew and ancient near eastern scholars. In doing so, it became very clear to me, given the literary and cultural contexts of the passage, and also comparing it to other creation accounts from surrounding nations, the similarites and (more importantly) the differences are astounding. But why would this be surprising? Assuming the traditional view of Moses as the author of Genesis, he has just brought the Israelites out of Egypt where they had been living for the last 400 years. Do you think they had not been influenced by the Egyptian and surrounding neighbours beliefs in their many gods? Don't you think Moses would have been keen to tell them that Yahweh - the God who just defeated Pharoah and the Egyptian gods - is the one true God who is the creator of all things, including the sun, moon, animals, birds, etc that the Egyptians and their neighbours worship? That He created everything by the power of His Word, and not by the gods having battles, etc, and that all men and women, and not just the Pharoahs of the world, are made in the image of God?

These were what concerned the ancient Israelites; not how many years ago the earth was created and not how science fits into the passage. These are the things that concern us, and to read that into the passage is to bring your own subconscious biases into the text. Place the text in its proper context, and far from being a straigh-forward account, the text comes alive - a literary masterpiece, with layer upon layer of intricately woven golden treasure - every word speaking volumes about the majesty, glory and power of Our Creator.

 

[David1701]

Examining the literary and cultural context of the Bible gives you a much better understanding of any passage of Scripture. The culture of the ancient Israelites was very different to our own. So learning how they thought, what their concerns were, how they would have understood the passage is very much a worthwhile endeavour.

You have this the wrong way round. What matters most is what God's intention was, what his concerns were and the meaning that he intended in the passage. This is mainly ascertained by study of the grammar, context, meanings of words and other passages that deal with the same subject.

Sometimes the Bible, far from pandering to a particular culture, is seeking to correct the thinking of that culture and to bring it see things the way the Lord does.

I did mention that I have study the works of a lot of Hebrew and ancient near eastern scholars. In doing so, it became very clear to me, given the literary and cultural contexts of the passage, and also comparing it to other creation accounts from surrounding nations, the similarites and (more importantly) the differences are astounding. But why would this be surprising? Assuming the traditional view of Moses as the author of Genesis, he has just brought the Israelites out of Egypt where they had been living for the last 400 years. Do you think they had not been influenced by the Egyptian and surrounding neighbours beliefs in their many gods? Don't you think Moses would have been keen to tell them that Yahweh - the God who just defeated Pharoah and the Egyptian gods - is the one true God who is the creator of all things, including the sun, moon, animals, birds, etc that the Egyptians and their neighbours worship? That He created everything by the power of His Word, and not by the gods having battles, etc, and that all men and women, and not just the Pharoahs of the world, are made in the image of God?

Other creation accounts are corrupted versions of what happened (sometimes very corrupted); but, that does not mean that the Genesis account is a polemic (that is merely speculation).

These were what concerned the ancient Israelites; not how many years ago the earth was created and not how science fits into the passage. These are the things that concern us, and to read that into the passage is to bring your own subconscious biases into the text. Place the text in its proper context, and far from being a straigh-forward account, the text comes alive - a literary masterpiece, with layer upon layer of intricately woven golden treasure - every word speaking volumes about the majesty, glory and power of Our Creator.

The Bible is for all ages and generations, not merely the ancient Israelites.

Yes, there is a great deal of depth, in every part of the Bible; but, and this is very important, the surface layer of the Genesis narrative is a straightforward account of what was done and when. Deeper study is good, but any further layers add information, they do not contradict the basic account of what happened.

 

[Sereni-tea]

You have this the wrong way round. What matters most is what God's intention was, what his concerns were and the meaning that he intended in the passage. This is mainly ascertained by study of the grammar, context, meanings of words and other passages that deal with the same subject.

Yes, I agree. God is the author of Scripture and human authors were inspired by God to write what they wrote. All Scripture is "God breathed". And the literary context is extremely important in ascertaining the meaning of the passage - I believe I mentioned that.

Sometimes the Bible, far from pandering to a particular culture, is seeking to correct the thinking of that culture and to bring it see things the way the Lord does.

Agreed - hence why I am saying the passage is a polemic against the creation ideas of other cultures. God was correcting the creation ideas of the Israelites. But He was not correcting their 'science'.

Other creation accounts are corrupted versions of what happened (sometimes very corrupted); but, that does not mean that the Genesis account is a polemic (that is merely speculation).

It is based on a lot of study of the text in its original language and cultural setting. Why does this idea disturb you so much?

The Bible is for all ages and generations, not merely the ancient Israelites.

Yes, absolutely. The Bible is for us, but it was not written to us. There is a difference. God did not speak to the ancient Israelites in terms and concepts they did not understand. He used the language and concepts of the day so that they would understand what He was saying.

Yes, there is a great deal of depth, in every part of the Bible; but, and this is very important, the surface layer of the Genesis narrative is a straightforward account of what was done and when. Deeper study is good, but any further layers add information, they do not contradict the basic account of what happened.

This is very true. However, the idea of the surface layer being a straight-forward account of what happened is our own modern bias (based on our modern day thinking) that we have read into the text. It does not hold up under scrutiny from either the literary or cultural contexts. The literary context is very clearly using ancient cosmology, not modern science.

 

[David1701]

Yes, I agree. God is the author of Scripture and human authors were inspired by God to write what they wrote. All Scripture is "God breathed". And the literary context is extremely important in ascertaining the meaning of the passage - I believe I mentioned that.



Agreed - hence why I am saying the passage is a polemic against the creation ideas of other cultures. God was correcting the creation ideas of the Israelites. But He was not correcting their 'science'.



It is based on a lot of study of the text in its original language and cultural setting. Why does this idea disturb you so much?



Yes, absolutely. The Bible is for us, but it was not written to us. There is a difference. God did not speak to the ancient Israelites in terms and concepts they did not understand. He used the language and concepts of the day so that they would understand what He was saying.



This is very true. However, the idea of the surface layer being a straight-forward account of what happened is our own modern bias (based on our modern day thinking) that we have read into the text. It does not hold up under scrutiny from either the literary or cultural contexts. The literary context is very clearly using ancient cosmology, not modern science.

Here's the crux of the matter: when we apply standard, sound methods of biblical hermeneutics to the early chapters of Genesis (including comparing passages from elsewhere in the Bible), we find that (amongst many other things):

1) It's a straightforward narrative (this happened, then that, then this, etc)

2) The creation days are literal days (in the OT, every time "day" is accompanied by a number, morning or evening, it means a literal day)

3) Adam was created directly from dust (he did not evolve from lower life-forms)

4) Death entered the world through sin, which happened when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit (no death before Adam)

5) Adam's fall was near the beginning of creation, not billions of years later (from what Jesus said, in the NT)

6) The Sabbath is about resting from works and worshipping the Lord (nothing to do with reigning)

When you apply your methods, you come to very different conclusions. Your methods reach conclusions that not only contradict standard methods, but they also require specialist knowledge, which means that, to most people, the Bible would be a closed book, requiring knowledgeable teachers to stand between them and the understanding of God's word.

In effect, if your methods were correct, they would lead to a form of Gnosticism, with esoteric knowledge, in which the clear, plain meanings of Scripture could not be trusted, and only the initiates would know the true meaning. This is clearly cultic.

I hope that you (and any who think like you) reconsider, because this affects not only the early chapters of Genesis, but the whole Bible and the gospel itself.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Here's the crux of the matter: when we apply standard, sound methods of biblical hermeneutics to the early chapters of Genesis (including comparing passages from elsewhere in the Bible), we find that (amongst many other things):

1) It's a straightforward narrative (this happened, then that, then this, etc)

Repeating that it is a straight forward narrative doesn't make it so. As I quoted before:
Genesis 1 … is not written in the style we normally associate with historical report. It is difficult even to describe the passage as prose. The original Hebrew of this passage is marked by intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and the lavish use of number symbolism. These features are not observed together in those parts of the Bible we recognize as historical prose.

You have yet to show me another straight-forward historical account that possesses all those characteristics.

2) The creation days are literal days (in the OT, every time "day" is accompanied by a number, morning or evening, it means a literal day)

I never disagreed with you about the days being literal 24 hour days.

3) Adam was created directly from dust (he did not evolve from lower life-forms)

We haven't discussed the creation of Adam and I am not an advocate of evolution.

4) Death entered the world through sin, which happened when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit (no death before Adam)

Yes and no. Are you talking about human death or any death? We have not discussed Adam and Eve and I don't think this is the thread to get started.

5) Adam's fall was near the beginning of creation, not billions of years later (from what Jesus said, in the NT)

Jesus mentioned nothing about when Adam's fall was.

6) The Sabbath is about resting from works and worshipping the Lord (nothing to do with reigning)

We disagree here.

When you apply your methods, you come to very different conclusions. Your methods reach conclusions that not only contradict standard methods, but they also require specialist knowledge, which means that, to most people, the Bible would be a closed book, requiring knowledgeable teachers to stand between them and the understanding of God's word.

In effect, if your methods were correct, they would lead to a form of Gnosticism, with esoteric knowledge, in which the clear, plain meanings of Scripture could not be trusted, and only the initiates would know the true meaning. This is clearly cultic.

I hope that you (and any who think like you) reconsider, because this affects not only the early chapters of Genesis, but the whole Bible and the gospel itself.

You are incorrect. I am teaching no such thing. I am trying to reclaim what the Bible meant to the original readers. To do so adds meaning and understanding to the Bible.

It is not esoteric knowledge and I reject any form of Gnosticism. I also reject trying to force modern ideas onto the text that it was never meant to have. You can read the Bible today and it shows the clear doctrine that Christians have held for millenia - God is the Creator of all things. He created a good world and made mankind in His image. He gave us rule over His creation.

However, the mistake we as Christian made was to forget out Jewish roots. This happened early on when the church became mostly Gentile. In doing so, we have lost some of the original meaning of the Bible as we moved further and further away from their culture. Today when we come to passages of Scripture we will read it with glasses coloured by our modern western culture. This is natural of course but can lead to mistakes.

Let me be clear - I do not believe the Bible says anything about the age of the earth. My understanding of the text can accommodate either a young earth or an old earth. My understanding is based on studying the literary and cultural context of the passage - the way every passage of Scripture should be studied. This is proper hermeneutics. The knowledge is available to anyone who wishes to learn it. This why God has given us scholars. We should not ignore them. Learning is not Gnosticism.

 

[David1701]

Repeating that it is a straight forward narrative doesn't make it so. As I quoted before:
Genesis 1 … is not written in the style we normally associate with historical report. It is difficult even to describe the passage as prose. The original Hebrew of this passage is marked by intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and the lavish use of number symbolism. These features are not observed together in those parts of the Bible we recognize as historical prose.

You have yet to show me another straight-forward historical account that possesses all those characteristics.



I never disagreed with you about the days being literal 24 hour days.



We haven't discussed the creation of Adam and I am not an advocate of evolution.



Yes and no. Are you talking about human death or any death? We have not discussed Adam and Eve and I don't think this is the thread to get started.



Jesus mentioned nothing about when Adam's fall was.



We disagree here.



You are incorrect. I am teaching no such thing. I am trying to reclaim what the Bible meant to the original readers. To do so adds meaning and understanding to the Bible.

It is not esoteric knowledge and I reject any form of Gnosticism. I also reject trying to force modern ideas onto the text that it was never meant to have. You can read the Bible today and it shows the clear doctrine that Christians have held for millenia - God is the Creator of all things. He created a good world and made mankind in His image. He gave us rule over His creation.

However, the mistake we as Christian made was to forget out Jewish roots. This happened early on when the church became mostly Gentile. In doing so, we have lost some of the original meaning of the Bible as we moved further and further away from their culture. Today when we come to passages of Scripture we will read it with glasses coloured by our modern western culture. This is natural of course but can lead to mistakes.

Let me be clear - I do not believe the Bible says anything about the age of the earth. My understanding of the text can accommodate either a young earth or an old earth. My understanding is based on studying the literary and cultural context of the passage - the way every passage of Scripture should be studied. This is proper hermeneutics. The knowledge is available to anyone who wishes to learn it. This why God has given us scholars. We should not ignore them. Learning is not Gnosticism.

Are you talking about human death or any death?

It's not what I'm talking about; it's what the Bible states. The Bible says that death came by sin. There was no death before sin.

Jesus mentioned nothing about when Adam's fall was.

I previously posted Scriptures proving that Adam was created and fell soon after creation. Have you forgotten so soon?

"What did Jesus teach?

Mark 10:6 (WEB) But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

This proves that God making mankind male and female was from the beginning of creation (i.e. during the Genesis creation week, not billions of years after the earth was created).

Mark 13:19 (WEB) For in those days there will be oppression, such as there has not been the like from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.

This shows that man's suffering started very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years later.

Luke 11:50,51 (WEB)
50 that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.’ Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

This places Abel's murder very close to the foundation of the world, not billions of years later."

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/age-of-the-earth-young-or-old.2083/post-92413

 

[Sereni-tea]

Luke 11:50,51 (WEB)
50 that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.’ Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

I think you need to not read into the text what you want to see. This is a good example. You claim that this places Abel's murder very close to the foundation of the world, but what about Zechariah's? It does say the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world. It's not just talking about Abel.

However, I never claimed that Abel's murder was billions of years ago. That was your assumption of what I said.

 

[Sereni-tea]

@David1701 Let me clarify the current situation.

You have stated that Genesis 1 is a straight-forward historical account because the text says this happened, then that, then the other.

I have disagreed citing the literary context of the account, mentioning its:

• intricate structure
• rhythm
• parallelism
• chiasmus
• repetition
• lavish use of number symbolism

No other straight-forward historical account in Scripture possess all these characteristics. You claimed there are others but have not been able to present them.

I have pointed out the inconsistencies in your approach. I have mentioned that the earth existed before day 1 of creation week according to verses 1 and 2. How long before? The Bible doesn't say.

I have pointed out the passage's use of light and Day in Day 1 but the no mention of the sun until Day 4.

We could examine further and look at the 'raqia' and the 'vault of heaven', the 'firmament', where God separated the waters above with the waters below. How does that fit in with your view - what are the 'waters above'?

We could also look at the differences in the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 which causes issues for a 'straight-forward' reading of the text since the events happen in a different order.

Or we could look at God placing Adam in a deep sleep and compare that with every other account in Scripture of God putting people in a deep sleep where they have visions, not surgery. Why then do we interpret Adam's deep sleep differently?

Or we could also look at the 'talking snake' in Genesis 3 - obviously a straight-forward, everyday occurrence.

I have presented you with some of the background of the cultures of the ancient near east to support a better understanding of the passage in both its literary and cultural contexts. But you have dismissed it. Why?

But so far all your can do to try to defend your view is repeat over and over again that 'this happened, then that, then the other' or you use New Testament verses and again read into them what you want. If Abel's bood was shed at the foundation of the world, then so was Zechariah's who lived thousands of years later. You need to be consistent.

If you have a better argument, please present it.

 

[makesends]

Basic science. The gravity and magnetic field of the moon is what holds back the oceans and seas in its place. Without the sun there would be no gravity on earth. All the water would just float out into space. Do you think the earth wasn't tilt on its axis during that time?

How does basic science teach that the sun is the cause of earth's gravity? Earth is massive —thus its mass attracts its surface, including seas and land animals. Not to say that the sun and moon don't have any effect —far from it— but the sun and moon do not cause the earth's gravity.

 

[CrowCross]

Basic science. The gravity and magnetic field of the moon is what holds back the oceans and seas in its place. Without the sun there would be no gravity on earth. All the water would just float out into space. Do you think the earth wasn't tilt on its axis during that time?

"All the water would just float out into space."....says who?

 

[CrowCross]

I agree that God's glory is brighter than the sun. How could it not be. He is the Creator, the Alpha and Omega.
But we need to be careful about reading things into the text that is not stated. The text calls the light 'Day'. Where else in Scripture is God's glory referred to as 'Day'?

Revelation 21:23.

 

[David1701]

I think you need to not read into the text what you want to see. This is a good example. You claim that this places Abel's murder very close to the foundation of the world, but what about Zechariah's? It does say the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world. It's not just talking about Abel.

However, I never claimed that Abel's murder was billions of years ago. That was your assumption of what I said.

You clearly either didn't read my post fully, or didn't understand it; nor did you understand the Scripture.

The blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, means starting at the foundation of the world, not that they were all slain then! In other words, Abel was slain near the foundation of the world, and other prophets were slain later.

I neither assumed that you claimed that Abel's murder was billions of years ago, neither was that what I posted. What I posted meant that Abel's murder was near the foundation of the world, not billions of years later.

If you can't even understand simple posts and Scriptures, then you are far out of your depth for this kind of discussion.

 

[CrowCross]

Nobody said anything about "napping"!

It doesn't matter what the opinions of the "ancient world" were (if that even was their opinion). God's word tells us what it meant that he rested, in this context.

Gen. 2:1-3 (Webster)
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

That is what it says and that is what it means. There is nothing about God "taking up his reign" here, since God had always been reigning.

OBJECTIVITY MATTERS!

P.S. This seventh day is why the Jews were given the Sabbath day as a day of reigning - oops! No, they were given it as a day of rest from their works (not napping).

The ten commandments talks about it...even calls the Gen days....days....imaging that.

 

[David1701]

@David1701 Let me clarify the current situation.

You have stated that Genesis 1 is a straight-forward historical account because the text says this happened, then that, then the other.

I have disagreed citing the literary context of the account, mentioning its:

• intricate structure
• rhythm
• parallelism
• chiasmus
• repetition
• lavish use of number symbolism

No other straight-forward historical account in Scripture possess all these characteristics. You claimed there are others but have not been able to present them.

The Bible is FULL of such things, including narrative passages (in fact, often narrative passages).

Here are some examples.

Genesis 32:1--33:20


A Jacob continues his journey to Canaan (32:1a)
B Angels of God encounter Jacob and he names the place "two camps" (32:1b-2)
C Jacob's entourage to Esau (32:3-6)
D Jacob fearfully prepares to meet Esau (32:7-21)
E Jacob and his entourage prepares to meet Esau (32:7-21)
X Jacob wrestles with a "man" and his name is changed to "Israel" (32:24-32)
E' Jacob prepares entourage to meet Esau (33:1-2)
D' Jacob meets Esau and bows seven times (33:3)
C' Jacob and Esau greet each other (33:4-7)
B' Jacob explains his "two camps" to Esau and departs (33:8-16)
A' Jacob arrives in Canaan (33:17-20)

In an extended chiasmus, like the one above, other chiastic structures may be contained.


Genesis 32:1-31


A The angels of God encounter Jacob -- place name changed to "Mahanaim" (1-2)
B Jacob sent messengers, listing possessions to Esau (3-8)
X Jacob's prayer to the LORD (9-12)
B' Jacob sent messengers and gifts to Esau (13-21)
A' A "man" opposes Jacob, blesses and changes his name to Israel, after which Jacob
renames the place as "Peniel" (22-31)


Jacob's invocation in verses 9-12 may also be structured as follows.


Genesis 32:9-12


Introduction: Jacob's invocation (9a)


A God's message to Jacob while in Haran (9b)
B God's promise of prosperity to Jacob (9c)
C Jacob's confession (10a)
D Jacob left Canaan only with a staff (10b)
X The Jordan River: a place of contrast (10c)
D' Jacob returns to Canaan with "two camps" (10d)
C' Jacob's petition (11)
B' God's promise of prosperity to Jacob (12a)
A' God's message to Jacob while in Canaan (12b)


and


Genesis 32:22-31

A Jacob did not cross the Jabbok that night, but remained alone (22-24a)
B A "man" wrestles with Jacob (24b-25)
C The "man's" request to Jacob (26a)
D Jacob requests a blessing (26b)
E The "man" asks Jacob his name (27a)
X Jacob's name changed to "Israel" (27b-28)
E' Jacob asks the "man" his name (29a-b)
D' The "man" blesses Jacob (29c)
C' Jacob's response by naming the place "Peniel" (30a)
B' Jacob says that he has seen God "face to face" (30b)
A' The sun rose upon Jacob as he crossed over Penuel alone (31)



Genesis 38:1-30


Introduction: Judah leaves his father's homestead and fathers three sons (1-5)


A The childless widow (6-11)


B a Tamar exchanges her widow's garb for that of a prostitute (14)
b Judah's proposition to Tamar (15-16b)
x Exchange of pledges (16c-18b)
b' Judah's consummation with Tamar (18c)
a' Tamar exchanges her prostitute's garb for that of a widow (19)


X a The kid is sent for the pledge; Tamar is not found (20)
b The Adullamite's inquiry about the prostitute (21a)
x The town people's response (21b)
b' The Adullamite's report to Judah (22)
a' The pledge is forfeited; Tamar is not found (23)


B' a Judah is informed that Tamar has a child by harlotry (24a-b)
b Judah's edict that Tamar should be burned (24c)
x Judah recognizes the items of his pledge (25-26a)
b' Judah's edict that Tamar is more righteous than he (26b)
a' Judah does not have relations with Tamar again (26c)


A' The birth of twins to a widow (27-30)

etc., etc., etc.

I have pointed out the inconsistencies in your approach. I have mentioned that the earth existed before day 1 of creation week according to verses 1 and 2. How long before? The Bible doesn't say.

And I've pointed out that your claim is untrue. The heavens and the earth were created on Day 1, then light was created, also on Day 1.

I have pointed out the passage's use of light and Day in Day 1 but the no mention of the sun until Day 4.

And I've pointed out that light was created on Day 1, then the sun was created on Day 4.

We could examine further and look at the 'raqia' and the 'vault of heaven', the 'firmament', where God separated the waters above with the waters below. How does that fit in with your view - what are the 'waters above'?

Conjectures about what the "waters above" are (e.g. clouds) are irrelevant to our discussion.

We could also look at the differences in the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 which causes issues for a 'straight-forward' reading of the text since the events happen in a different order.

Genesis 2 is mostly a recap of Day 6, with much more detail.

Or we could look at God placing Adam in a deep sleep and compare that with every other account in Scripture of God putting people in a deep sleep where they have visions, not surgery. Why then do we interpret Adam's deep sleep differently?

What do you mean by "interpreted"? God put Adam into a deep sleep for surgery (as we do nowadays). There is absolutely nothing difficult to understand about this, and there is no need for esoteric "interpretations"; it means what is says and says what it means (there's an antimetabole for you).

Or we could also look at the 'talking snake' in Genesis 3 - obviously a straight-forward, everyday occurrence.

Straightforward, yes; everyday, no.

I have presented you with some of the background of the cultures of the ancient near east to support a better understanding of the passage in both its literary and cultural contexts. But you have dismissed it. Why?

Because you have used those claimed contexts to contradict the plain meaning, resulting in an esoteric interpretation requiring arcane knowledge. This is not how to interpret the Bible.

But so far all your can do to try to defend your view is repeat over and over again that 'this happened, then that, then the other' or you use New Testament verses and again read into them what you want. If Abel's bood was shed at the foundation of the world, then so was Zechariah's who lived thousands of years later. You need to be consistent.

I've covered your gross lack of understanding, leading to your sentence that I've made bold, above (in post 414).

If you have a better argument, please present it.

LOL!

You need to put your man-made teachings aside, and pray about this. The Holy Spirit does not lead people into confusion and error.

 

[Arial]

You have stated that Genesis 1 is a straight-forward historical account because the text says this happened, then that, then the other.

I have disagreed citing the literary context of the account, mentioning its:

• intricate structure
• rhythm
• parallelism
• chiasmus
• repetition
• lavish use of number symbolism

This sounds as though you are interpreting what is historical narrative according the the rules of interpreting poetry.

 

[Binyawmene]

How does basic science teach that the sun is the cause of earth's gravity? Earth is massive —thus its mass attracts its surface, including seas and land animals. Not to say that the sun and moon don't have any effect —far from it— but the sun and moon do not cause the earth's gravity.

Sure. The simple answer is mass. The law of gravity is what goes up must come back down. Gravity is "an invisible force that pulls objects toward each other. Earth's gravity is what keeps you on the ground and what makes things fall." The gravity of Earth comes from the mass distribution within Earth and the centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation. Without the sun and the moon, there would be no gravity. It's obvious the sun was there in Genesis 1:1 "God created the heavens" and Isaiah 45:12 "stretched out the heavens, and all their host" (outter space where planets, moons, and stars are located, and also earth Job 26:7) and without the gravitational pull between the sun and earth. The water on earth would be foating or even drifting off into space. And the moon came on the scene in Genesis 1:9 "waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place" (Proverbs 8:29, Job 26:10) without the gravitational pull of the earth and moon, then earth would reamin a water-world so to speak.

 

[Alive]

The earth itself is responsible for its gravity force...it is relatively powerful due to the density of its materials made up of heavy elements.
The overall 'design' of the earth, atmosphere and the mass of the moon and sun, are a perfect balance set up by God to allow for the life that He designed. Its truly amazing how one small change in that balance could have such a great effect.
Its all Him.

Psa. 19:1 (NAS20S) The heavens tell of the glory of God; And their expanse declares the work of His hands.

2 Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.

3 There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard.

4 Their line has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has placed a tent for the sun,

5 Which is like a groom coming out of his chamber; It rejoices like a strong person to run his course.

6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens, And its circuit to the other end of them; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

 

[JIM]

Without the sun and the moon, there would be no gravity.

That is absolute nonsense.