How old is the earth?

[David1701]

So the upshot is you don’t believe in integration of the revealed and natural knowledge. You dismiss the natural. This turns the Bible into a neo-orthodoxy that is repellent to a rational mind.

—————————

What I really want is a thoughtful discussion of the masthead list, posted 4 times above.

We are to pursue the true and rational says Paul in Acts 26. ‘Soephronose’

Each of those features show the Bible to be appealing to outside reality that confirms it.

More begging the question and straw man insults - not impressive.

If you can't discuss a topic without resorting to insults and logical fallacies, then why would anyone want to read your journal?

 

[EarlyActs]

So the upshot is you don’t believe in integration of the revealed and natural knowledge. You dismiss the natural. This turns the Bible into a neo-orthodoxy that is repellent to a rational mind.

—————————

What I really want is a thoughtful discussion of the masthead list, posted 4 times above.

We are to pursue the true and rational says Paul in Acts 26. ‘Soephronose’

Each of those features show the Bible to be appealing to outside reality that confirms it.

Did you ask if I was insulted after several decades of research putting this together?

 

[EarlyActs]

More begging the question and straw man insults - not impressive.

If you can't discuss a topic without resorting to insults and logical fallacies, then why would anyone want to read your journal?

They are not logical fallacies if you dismiss a decade of background on something you think you know. How many times have you read Cassuto, the guy that saved the Bible from JEPD?

Why aren't you asking yourself where 'magical' light came from in Gen 1, instead of favoring a rational answer?

Most of your questions have been quite condescending. Btw, the TEV reference was a mistake, and not my first time with that. I was referring to the NET with its piles of grammatical notes, which clearly show the adverbial position of v2.

 

[EarlyActs]

I deleted out the inappropriate bit insulting members who do not agree.
As far as the part in bold…ya don’t always get what you want
Ease up friend. Not everyone is gonna buy what is being sold.

Who would want "customers" who don't read a journal but know all about it? Who won't even interact with the masthead, or chapter list? But call themselves 'defending' Christian faith. So yes, I value my journal, but I'm hoping to help people actually think about what they are doing.

 

[EarlyActs]

What's better: unbelievers encountering a semi-creation view or a view that allows for longer lifeless time, for rational reasons, before a lively recent creation week?

 

[EarlyActs]

The defense of Christian faith needs to go in a rational direction if possible, not toward magical light sources, etc. Acts 26

 

[EarlyActs]

the problem with earlier time is evolutionary change. There is no such thing. That is why there is no problem with lifeless time as the Bible depicts.

 

[ChristB4us]

It actually is the POV of the speaker: he is on earth. He's not in a jet flying over the world.

I actually see Him creating everything from the Third Heaven, outside the realm of our reality which He is creating. Granted the Spirit of God was moving across the water but He is speaking creation into existence from the Third Heaven since earth was not there in day one and neither was the heavens ( the first & second one ).

 

[EarlyActs]

Re the 'mastheads'
I just noticed that the scope of creation is not clear..

It's the first item and is improved here (see underlined):

>Creation week of local things was recent! Gen 1 was not about the lifeless, static, distant universe, other than one off-tempo phrase at the end of v16. The creation is the forming of the crust and atmosphere, as the pottery allusion in 2 Peter 3 confirms.

 

[EarlyActs]

I actually see Him creating everything from the Third Heaven, outside the realm of our reality which He is creating. Granted the Spirit of God was moving across the water but He is speaking creation into existence from the Third Heaven since earth was not there in day one and neither was the heavens ( the first & second one ).

The earth was already there before day 1. Any Hebrew grammatical commentary will show you the adverbial role of v2, the same as in ch 5:1, 2. The question is a Hebrew grammar question not what things look like in English. 'when God began creating (forming the crust and atmosphere) of the earth...' This is the description consistent with the pottery imagery of 2 Peter 3.

Yes, he was outside 1 and 2.

There is at least 4 years of 'kavov' your #2, because Centauri's light did not get to earth until Day 1, and Centauri is 4 years plus away in LYs. God stretched out the 'kavov' he did not place it like the lights of 'shami' (your #1, the firmament). The ancients did not interact much with the 'kavov'; much more interested in the meaning of active objects.

If you are going to invent magical light when there are rational explanations, I can't continue with you. Adding more lifeless time before is not a problem because there is no evolutionary activity attached to it.

Big Ed has programmed us to attach evolutionary force to time. There is no such connection. So our Christian statements must make this clear. Really clear.

 

[ShepherdsPie]

Why aren't you asking yourself where 'magical' light came from in Gen 1, instead of favoring a rational answer?

The beautiful, brilliant Light we read about in Genesis 1 must be the glorious Sheckinah glory of Christ Jesus!

 

[EarlyActs]

THE MASTHEAD STATEMENTS OF THE

YOUNG, LOCAL, CREATION-WEEK JOURNAL

Marcus Sanford, Editor

June 2024

[email protected]







>Creation week of local things was recent! Gen 1 was not about the lifeless, static, distant universe, other than one off-tempo phrase at the end of v16. The creation is the forming of the crust and atmosphere, as the pottery allusion in 2 Peter 3 confirms.



>The earth may have been here for a while before day 1 for various reasons Biblical and natural.



>Evolution is unknown in the universe.



>The text’s local POV (from the surface of earth) is retained.



>The distant lifeless objects simply provided day 1 light (either naturally or speeded), not God’s designed messages like through the local objects. If Day 1 light was natural, the distant lifeless universe was ‘stretched out by God’ at some earlier time (the light-years math). God still created all the others, but for a different purpose not very explicit to earth.



>2 Peter 3’s finalization intended a time disconnection between the distant universe and earth, and did not put the distant universe in “creation”, neither when thinking about Genesis nor when reporting the skeptical cult’s delusion (the ‘stoicheians’). Again, this is about the crust and atmosphere, not the older materials.



>The designation YEC is unclear on the critical but non-evolutionary time distinction of 2 Peter 3 and the rest of scripture about it. So is the accusation about a gap existing between 1:1 and 2.

 

[EarlyActs]

The beautiful, brilliant Light we read about in Genesis 1 must be the glorious Sheckinah glory of Christ Jesus!

Then everything is symbolic and poetry. No, if there is a rational, normal explanation, we should go with it. If Centauri's light is not enough, there must have been others in addition. The distant stars are not the same as the shami and just barely mentioned at the end of v16, the kavov.

 

[ShepherdsPie]

Then everything is symbolic and poetry. No, if there is a rational, normal explanation, we should go with it. If Centauri's light is not enough, there must have been others in addition. The distant stars are not the same as the shami and just barely mentioned at the end of v16, the kavov.

Well no, not everything. But certainly, God uses symbology and yes, even poetry in His Word. Ever read the book of Revelation? God is God. And He is a God of miracles and wonders. Do you not know?

Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young. Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

- Isaiah 40:4,7-8,11-15,17-18,21-22,25-26,28 (KJV)

Lu

 

[David1701]

They are not logical fallacies if you dismiss a decade of background on something you think you know. How many times have you read Cassuto, the guy that saved the Bible from JEPD?

The Bible does not need to "saved".

Why aren't you asking yourself where 'magical' light came from in Gen 1, instead of favoring a rational answer?

Why are you blasphemously claiming that the light created in Gen. 1 was "magical"?

The rational answer (rational, in the sense of believing what God says) is that the light in Gen. 1 was created by God, as part of Day 1 (before he created the stars).

Most of your questions have been quite condescending. Btw, the TEV reference was a mistake, and not my first time with that. I was referring to the NET with its piles of grammatical notes, which clearly show the adverbial position of v2.

The NET does indeed have many notes, in many of which the translators express their opinions as to the correct interpretations. This does not mean that their notes are always correct.

 

[Musician]

And there has never been any evolution of any kind.

Like the old joke goes "If man evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?"

 

[EarlyActs]

The Bible does not need to "saved".


Why are you blasphemously claiming that the light created in Gen. 1 was "magical"?

The rational answer (rational, in the sense of believing what God says) is that the light in Gen. 1 was created by God, as part of Day 1 (before he created the stars).



The NET does indeed have many notes, in many of which the translators express their opinions as to the correct interpretations. This does not mean that their notes are always correct.

re saved
You seem to be very young and everything is black and white to you. In the late 19th cent, German Higher Criticism developed the JEPD theory which gained a lot of momentum. It basically destroyed the historic meaning of the Bible by saying that it was collection during the kingdom period or perhaps after when the shock of captivity needed to be overcome.

Rabbi Cassuto defeated this by showing the 4 part verbal recitation format all through Genesis. The JEPD theory pretty much sank.

But in some modern schools like the U Toronto Linguistics, Cassuto was 'buried' (suppressed). One professor interviewed in THE MOSES CONTROVERSY by Malone, said that at least 16 years had gone by, ruining all his Ph.D. work, when he heard his Ph.D. mentor joking about how long they had hidden Cassuto from the public, and a new storm erupted.

If you don't have background like this, please just listen and learn instead of telling us all the little you know.

"Saved" was not even used in the present tense above , but there are other forces trying to destroy it.

 

[EarlyActs]

The Bible does not need to "saved".


Why are you blasphemously claiming that the light created in Gen. 1 was "magical"?

The rational answer (rational, in the sense of believing what God says) is that the light in Gen. 1 was created by God, as part of Day 1 (before he created the stars).



The NET does indeed have many notes, in many of which the translators express their opinions as to the correct interpretations. This does not mean that their notes are always correct.

There is no blasphemy at all. The idea though that light without sources just happened when there are other things going on in the background, about which you seem in denial, makes the text sound magical, and there is no need. It is a disservice.

It is good to believe God of course, but many people have the scantest of background on things, but the most emphatic insistence that they are right. Check out social group studies, and you will see how unhealthy this is; and they correlate: the less people know, the more dogmatic and paranoid they are.

The irrational thing would be to say that there is some kind of light when stars are not there for 3 days. But what if 'shami' was not about distant stars (it is not)? Then that means light came from 'kavov.' So the closest option to earth that is a rational choice for Day 1 is Centauri. But one by itself is prob not what the text meant. it would be more sensible for there to be a cluster.

This why I have asked the group here to look at the 1st second of my video and the 20th, to see if the depict things correctly. The 1st is v2 and the 20th is v3 (pre-day-1 and Day 1). The place (earth) is awaiting the arrival of starlight. That has clear implications for the 'stretched out' 'kavov.'

If, for some reason, you feel threatened by what I'm saying, please visit the Masthead thread I just started. That will help you narrow down which component is a problem because it won't be all of them.

 

[EarlyActs]

The Bible does not need to "saved".


Why are you blasphemously claiming that the light created in Gen. 1 was "magical"?

The rational answer (rational, in the sense of believing what God says) is that the light in Gen. 1 was created by God, as part of Day 1 (before he created the stars).



The NET does indeed have many notes, in many of which the translators express their opinions as to the correct interpretations. This does not mean that their notes are always correct.

I have collected Hebrew grammatical comments for years. Other than a huge investment in reading the Hebrew, that is how we can follow what is actually going on. Yes they will make some mistakes.

 

[EarlyActs]

Well no, not everything. But certainly, God uses symbology and yes, even poetry in His Word. Ever read the book of Revelation? God is God. And He is a God of miracles and wonders. Do you not know?

Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young. Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

- Isaiah 40:4,7-8,11-15,17-18,21-22,25-26,28 (KJV)

Lu

Yes, there are miracles, and there are also what is called natural miracles; the fact that the earth produces food in its normal way is also, really, a miracle, but it happens at a predictable speed, and we have a role.

I have spent decades in Genesis and there is no need to go in the direction of some kind of magical poetic meaning for the light mentioned in v3. All we have to know is that 'shami' is limited to local things and he was not talking about local things making that light (they were started on Day 4.) He was talking about distant starlight arriving, which can provide a very definite date for everything involved.