How old is the earth?

[EarlyActs]

Don’t read what is not there. He does not mention any source of light only light itself.
Sources came later.

So you are assuming that the material is just miraculous and has no natural source. All a writer can do is POV. What he wrote is what Adam would have seen on day 1. That does not prove that it was not starlight arriving from the distance, which would have started at least 4 years earlier from Centauri. And it can’t be anything local that was a sign or marker.

If you disrupt the normal, at what point does normal light start? Are you saying the whole event is like the Cana wedding miracle of Jn 2? Then why have 6 logical days that build on each other? He could do it all at once or make fish that did not need an ocean and then make the ocean after.

I’m just saying it is sketchy to leave the natural meaning.

If you switch to a metaphorical meaning for light, God is light, so why is there any darkness at first? The answer is that there is darkness from the POV of earth and it is in the normal sense. Bc no starlight had arrived.

The only reference to starlight is in v16 and it is rather detached, without detail. That’s bc the subject of ‘Shami’ is the local system and a few markets. The distant things were already there and light was arriving.

 

[Alive]

The Bible is not a science book…start here.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.”

(John 1:1-3 NAS20)

 

[EarlyActs]

It is the term illumination actually. What would be the source of that?

A person does have to be able to form a picture bc these things are real physical reality. Look into storyboard creation and work out your own for the succession of times here: before Day 1, Day 1, Day 4, etc.

Look at the video and see if 0:01 matches v2 and 0:20 matches v3.

 

[ChristB4us]

Why impose categories they don’t exist? You are not willing to know Hebrew terms, but you are willing to impose things that don't exist. Way to go!

Your abive response to my reply below:

well, if you are specifically referring to verse 8, then remember that there are 3 heavens; the first is the sky or the upper atmosphere which is what verse 8 is referring to as that first heaven and the second is that universe as in outer space, and the third is God's throne which exists outside the reality of the heavens and the earth.

So that firmament in verse 8 is that first heaven. ~~ end of my quote

What categories do not exists? The 3 heavens? Then explain why God's throne is considered the third heaven and what differentiates as the first and second heaven then?

2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

In the context of 2 Corinthians 12:1-5, Paul was testifying "indirectly" about the apostle John and that book of Revelation.

Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Do you have another application for the third Heaven as not being God's throne? Or do you have another explanation other than the first heaven being the sky or upper atmosphere and the second heaven being outer space?

 

[EarlyActs]

The Bible is not a science book…start here.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.”

(John 1:1-3 NAS20)

Unless it is not. All Christian believers historically have tried to firm integration and unity not a dis.

It can be shown doctrinally that to disintegrate the text makes the whole think collapse. It becomes neo-orthodox—spiritually true but historically false.

And you haven’t even read the treatment. Is this how you do research? Disagree first and read later?

 

[EarlyActs]

Your abive response to my reply below:

well, if you are specifically referring to verse 8, then remember that there are 3 heavens; the first is the sky or the upper atmosphere which is what verse 8 is referring to as that first heaven and the second is that universe as in outer space, and the third is God's throne which exists outside the reality of the heavens and the earth.

So that firmament in verse 8 is that first heaven. ~~ end of my quote

What categories do not exists? The 3 heavens? Then explain why God's throne is considered the third heaven and what differentiates as the first and second heaven then?

2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

In the context of 2 Corinthians 12:1-5, Paul was testifying "indirectly" about the apostle John and that book of Revelation.

Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Do you have another application for the third Heaven as not being God's throne? Or do you have another explanation other than the first heaven being the sky or upper atmosphere and the second heaven being outer space?

In Gen 1, only the two are mentioned and actually we agree. Distant vs local.

It is later that we are told that the distant is a curtain concealing God, Ps 104.

 

[David1701]

That would be true of creation in general, but surly you must have noticed the repeat creation that makes it difficult. Or the question of how long was the earth dark and covered.

If, in mentioning repetition, you are referring Gen. 2, then that is a recapitulation of part of the creation week, with more detail.

How long was the earth dark and covered? Part of one day (i.e. less than 24 hours).

 

[David1701]

That’s the problem right there. The firmament is local, not distant.

So what normal natural light is available 3 days earlier than the local .light of day 4?

I’m not being obnoxious; I’m trying to help people I know get off to a smooth start.

What I have found does not have the usual problem with distant starlight. That problem is the subject of many, many studies and talks.

The firmament (i.e. expanse) is usually taken to mean the sky; and yes, that's local to the earth; however, this is not what we have been discussing.

We are not discussing what natural light is available now! We are discussing the creation week, in which God created light on Day 1 and the stars on Day 4.

I didn't say that you were being obnoxious.

Yes, distant starlight is a scientific challenge to understand, in view of the Bible's timeline. My view is that God stretching out the heavens gives the impression of vast amounts of time, without there being vast amounts of time.

 

[David1701]

If you research you will find that Luther, Calvin, Schofield for ex saw an extension of time of some sort. The idea that there was nothing at all before Day 1 is very recent.

Scofield was a charlatan, largely responsible for spreading the lies of Dispensationalism.

The "idea" that there was nothing before Day 1 comes from believing what Genesis 1 says.

The imperfect mode of the Hebrew tense is mentioned in many, many articles. Thus translated ‘when God began creating, the earth was already …’. See the TEV.

Then why do no trustworthy translations translate it that way? The translators were experts in Hebrew you know.

The TEV is one of the worst translations in the English language!

On word choice, the English heavens is very unfortunate when it is so easy to see the two in the text and that God is in a third. All you need to do is use the side-by-side qbible.com.

Here are the BDB (one of the most respected Hebrew-English lexicons) definitions of the word translated as "heavens", in Gen. 1:1.

- Original: שׁמה שׁמים
- Transliteration: Shamayim
- Phonetic: shaw-mah'-yim
- Definition:
1. heaven, heavens, sky
-a. visible heavens, sky
--1. as abode of the stars
--2. as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
-b. Heaven (as the abode of God)
- Origin: from an unused root meaning to be lofty

V8 tells us that the area called the heavens is local and in the firmament, and distant stars are certainly outside that. The two groups of lights have different purposes. Just like 2 Peter 3 where the universe is simply old but the earth was then formed out of water. In Gen 15 , 2000 years on, the distant stars will have a message but it is numeric, their volume. The ancients ‘read’ stars as those verbs say.

Verse 8 tells us that, on Day 2, God created the expanse and called it "sky" (one of the meanings of the Hebrew word).

You are creating difficulties where none exist.

 

[EarlyActs]

If, in mentioning repetition, you are referring Gen. 2, then that is a recapitulation of part of the creation week, with more detail.

How long was the earth dark and covered? Part of one day (i.e. less than 24 hours).

The repetition is the title line is often read as an "event." This is one thing, immediately, that people are not used to. If they read Genesis 10x, they would see that there are many title lines.

Your answer on dark and covered is not right. As you can see from the structure, a Day only begins by God speaking. All of those same Genesis sections just mentioned that have title lines also have pre-existing backstory. That's what v2 is. Compare Dr. Lennox on this; 'anyone reading Gen 1 can see that each day starts with 'And God said...' so v2 is before Day 1.'

I can't write out the entire journal for each answer, but you are way short on familiarity.

I'll paste the masthead points here so people see everything in one place:


*creation week of local things was recent. Gen 1 was not about the lifeless, distant universe, except for the detached line at the end of v16.

*the earth had been there for a little before Day 1 while for various reasons

*evolution is unknown in the universe

*the text's local POV is retained

*the distant lifeless objects (a few of them) provided Day 1 light, not the messengers of Day 4.

*2 Peter 3 finalizes a time distinction with his verbs (to exist from of old) vs (to be formed out of water like pottery).

*The designation YEC is unhelpfully unclear, because it is creation week that is recent, not the materials.


--p12 of BACK IN BUSINESS, the book version of the journal before the summer edition came out

 

[EarlyActs]

The firmament (i.e. expanse) is usually taken to mean the sky; and yes, that's local to the earth; however, this is not what we have been discussing.

We are not discussing what natural light is available now! We are discussing the creation week, in which God created light on Day 1 and the stars on Day 4.

I didn't say that you were being obnoxious.

Yes, distant starlight is a scientific challenge to understand, in view of the Bible's timeline. My view is that God stretching out the heavens gives the impression of vast amounts of time, without there being vast amounts of time.

If the vast amounts are lifeless, what does it matter? God still did it. But it is not the subject of Gen 1.

 

[EarlyActs]

Scofield was a charlatan, largely responsible for spreading the lies of Dispensationalism.

The "idea" that there was nothing before Day 1 comes from believing what Genesis 1 says.


Then why do no trustworthy translations translate it that way? The translators were experts in Hebrew you know.

The TEV is one of the worst translations in the English language!


Here are the BDB (one of the most respected Hebrew-English lexicons) definitions of the word translated as "heavens", in Gen. 1:1.

- Original: שׁמה שׁמים
- Transliteration: Shamayim
- Phonetic: shaw-mah'-yim
- Definition:
1. heaven, heavens, sky
-a. visible heavens, sky
--1. as abode of the stars
--2. as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
-b. Heaven (as the abode of God)
- Origin: from an unused root meaning to be lofty



Verse 8 tells us that, on Day 2, God created the expanse and called it "sky" (one of the meanings of the Hebrew word).

You are creating difficulties where none exist.

In Gen 1 you will see that 'shami' confines itself. They are the marker/communicator stars. Only 2000 years later does 'kavov' have a communication, and it is only a vast number (Gen 15).

The mode of the opening line is not a mistranslation. Many good Hebrew instructors see it. Cassuto, who saved the text from the JEPD fiasco, showed that such verbs belong with the pre-existing conditions lines of most of Genesis narratives.

For ex., were Rachel's relatives and beauty just true on the day of that story of meeting Isaac? Of course not. The backstory had been true for years. The same with v2.

There is no confusion in the view I have worked out. It is simply the logical question as an anchor: if there is no life in the universe, what difference does it make how long (finite, of course) the lifeless distant universe has been there? If the sensibility of this will help people trust the Bible, what is the problem? Jesus constantly pointed to the provable.

As a society we have got so used to mass repetition that we have no idea how to prove things. Most people don't know why the Mk 2 piece 'which is easier...' is there. It is there to provide instant proof.

 

[EarlyActs]

Scofield was a charlatan, largely responsible for spreading the lies of Dispensationalism.

The "idea" that there was nothing before Day 1 comes from believing what Genesis 1 says.


Then why do no trustworthy translations translate it that way? The translators were experts in Hebrew you know.

The TEV is one of the worst translations in the English language!


Here are the BDB (one of the most respected Hebrew-English lexicons) definitions of the word translated as "heavens", in Gen. 1:1.

- Original: שׁמה שׁמים
- Transliteration: Shamayim
- Phonetic: shaw-mah'-yim
- Definition:
1. heaven, heavens, sky
-a. visible heavens, sky
--1. as abode of the stars
--2. as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
-b. Heaven (as the abode of God)
- Origin: from an unused root meaning to be lofty



Verse 8 tells us that, on Day 2, God created the expanse and called it "sky" (one of the meanings of the Hebrew word).

You are creating difficulties where none exist.

Maybe you should visit a site where there are agnostics and see what things are problems about Gen 1. I mean expressions and overlaps, I don't mean the general idea of God's existence. You are in a pretend world if you don't realize people get very frustrated with Gen 1. These are real difficulties, you should not pretend they don't exist.

One of the first rules of lexical work is to remain in the local usage. You don't jump all over the Bible and find 3 meanings and pop in one you like. And v16 already has its detached reference to the 'kavov.' That is, the paragraph spent all that time on the local objects and then goes: The stars (were made) too. Obviously they are not local and don't have the sign function.


If you would answer the 0:01 vs 0:20 question, or work out your own storyboard, you might see the mistake of your previous conditions view. The land is already there in v2, but underwater (in ancient pottery practice, the good clay was often stored that way; cp 2 P 3 about pottery). What happens on Day 3 is that of moving furniture that already exists.

 

[ChristB4us]

In Gen 1, only the two are mentioned and actually we agree. Distant vs local.

So then we agree that the sky, hence the upper atmosphere is the first heaven, where Enoch & Elijah were taken up to, and the second heaven being outer space, the universe?

Since no man has ascended into Heaven as to God's Throne at the time Jesus had said this while on earth....

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Then this may explain that Enoch & Elijah may very well be the 2 prophets for the first half of the great tribulation that will appear in Jerusalem after the pre great tribulation rapture event as the two are being transported through time and space as Phil was transported from one place to another except via by the Spirit.

Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

It would explain how a disciple or more was transported to the western hemisphere as well to preach the gospel. Indian folklore of a white man appearing to them in that time period may be hard to find.

It is later that we are told that the distant is a curtain concealing God, Ps 104.

What Bible version are you using? The KJV has it in this way:

Psalm 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

I do not see these curtains as concealing God.

If anything, it can refer to the first heaven, the upper atmosphere or the skies, since we do see the aurora borealis towards the poles that can stretch further south in times of sun spots or solar storms. They sure do come across like curtains to me.

 

[EarlyActs]

So then we agree that the sky, hence the upper atmosphere is the first heaven, where Enoch & Elijah were taken up to, and the second heaven being outer space, the universe?

Since no man has ascended into Heaven as to God's Throne at the time Jesus had said this while on earth....

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Then this may explain that Enoch & Elijah may very well be the 2 prophets for the first half of the great tribulation that will appear in Jerusalem after the pre great tribulation rapture event as the two are being transported through time and space as Phil was transported from one place to another except via by the Spirit.

Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

It would explain how a disciple or more was transported to the western hemisphere as well to preach the gospel. Indian folklore of a white man appearing to them in that time period may be hard to find.

What Bible version are you using? The KJV has it in this way:

Psalm 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

I do not see these curtains as concealing God.

If anything, it can refer to the first heaven, the upper atmosphere or the skies, since we do see the aurora borealis towards the poles that can stretch further south in times of sun spots or solar storms. They sure do come across like curtains to me.

The 2 prophets were taken up to God, as the transfiguration shows. That would be the presence of God.

The firmament is from our atmosphere up to the marker stars (those which visibly move). The ancient world did not use static stars except to mark zones. 'Shami' is about the markers/communicators.

 

[Carbon]

Scofield was a charlatan, largely responsible for spreading the lies of Dispensationalism.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[EarlyActs]

So then we agree that the sky, hence the upper atmosphere is the first heaven, where Enoch & Elijah were taken up to, and the second heaven being outer space, the universe?

Since no man has ascended into Heaven as to God's Throne at the time Jesus had said this while on earth....

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Then this may explain that Enoch & Elijah may very well be the 2 prophets for the first half of the great tribulation that will appear in Jerusalem after the pre great tribulation rapture event as the two are being transported through time and space as Phil was transported from one place to another except via by the Spirit.

Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

It would explain how a disciple or more was transported to the western hemisphere as well to preach the gospel. Indian folklore of a white man appearing to them in that time period may be hard to find.

What Bible version are you using? The KJV has it in this way:

Psalm 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

I do not see these curtains as concealing God.

If anything, it can refer to the first heaven, the upper atmosphere or the skies, since we do see the aurora borealis towards the poles that can stretch further south in times of sun spots or solar storms. They sure do come across like curtains to me.

As part of preserving the invisible nature and majesty of God, the 'kavov' that were stretched out acts as a prevention to seeing Him. The aurora disappear; does that mean if you watch until after you will see God? No.

Here are the masthead points of the journal. You don't seem to be willing to read it. I wonder why that is.

Please compare 0:01 and 0:20 of the video. Do they match the pre-existing and Day 1?




>Creation week of local things was recent! Gen 1 was not about the lifeless, static, distant universe.



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



>Evolution is unknown to the universe.



>The text’s local POV 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 skeptics delusion (the ‘stoicheians’).



>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.

(p12)

 

[David1701]

The repetition is the title line is often read as an "event." This is one thing, immediately, that people are not used to. If they read Genesis 10x, they would see that there are many title lines.

Your answer on dark and covered is not right. As you can see from the structure, a Day only begins by God speaking. All of those same Genesis sections just mentioned that have title lines also have pre-existing backstory. That's what v2 is. Compare Dr. Lennox on this; 'anyone reading Gen 1 can see that each day starts with 'And God said...' so v2 is before Day 1.'

I can't write out the entire journal for each answer, but you are way short on familiarity.

I'll paste the masthead points here so people see everything in one place:


*creation week of local things was recent. Gen 1 was not about the lifeless, distant universe, except for the detached line at the end of v16.

*the earth had been there for a little before Day 1 while for various reasons

*evolution is unknown in the universe

*the text's local POV is retained

*the distant lifeless objects (a few of them) provided Day 1 light, not the messengers of Day 4.

*2 Peter 3 finalizes a time distinction with his verbs (to exist from of old) vs (to be formed out of water like pottery).

*The designation YEC is unhelpfully unclear, because it is creation week that is recent, not the materials.


--p12 of BACK IN BUSINESS, the book version of the journal before the summer edition came out

It's the first word of the book of Genesis (translated as "In the beginning") that is the title, not the whole verse.

Every day starts with evening (darkness), so you cannot have Day 1 starting with the creation of light.

Have you considered that your journal could be mistaken?

 

[EarlyActs]

So then we agree that the sky, hence the upper atmosphere is the first heaven, where Enoch & Elijah were taken up to, and the second heaven being outer space, the universe?

Since no man has ascended into Heaven as to God's Throne at the time Jesus had said this while on earth....

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Then this may explain that Enoch & Elijah may very well be the 2 prophets for the first half of the great tribulation that will appear in Jerusalem after the pre great tribulation rapture event as the two are being transported through time and space as Phil was transported from one place to another except via by the Spirit.

Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

It would explain how a disciple or more was transported to the western hemisphere as well to preach the gospel. Indian folklore of a white man appearing to them in that time period may be hard to find.

What Bible version are you using? The KJV has it in this way:

Psalm 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

I do not see these curtains as concealing God.

If anything, it can refer to the first heaven, the upper atmosphere or the skies, since we do see the aurora borealis towards the poles that can stretch further south in times of sun spots or solar storms. They sure do come across like curtains to me.

As part of preserving the invisible nature and majesty of God, the 'kavov' that were stretched out acts as a prevention to seeing Him. The aurora disappear; does that mean if you watch until after you will see God? No.

Here are the masthead points of the journal. You don't seem to be willing to read it. I wonder why that is.

Please compare 0:01 and 0:20 of the video. Do they match the pre-existing and Day 1?




>Creation week of local things was recent! Gen 1 was not about the lifeless, static, distant universe.



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



>Evolution is unknown to the universe.



>The text’s local POV 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 skeptics delusion (the ‘stoicheians’).



>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.

(p12)

It's the first word of the book of Genesis (translated as "In the beginning") that is the title, not the whole verse.

Every day starts with evening (darkness), so you cannot have Day 1 starting with the creation of light.

Have you considered that your journal could be mistaken?

Yes, the journal could be mistaken, but not on that. Every day starts with the speaking. the dark and covered is before that in the sense of 'already.' Just like the dozen other sections of Genesis with titles. This speaking-start is a poetically structural thing for all 6 days, and I won't be breaking it to please you.

The Hebrew profs I had at Regent College Canada confirmed why the 'already' mode is in v2; there is no question about v2. There is a slight question if v2 is meant to connect that way to v1, and they said the relation was unique compared to the many others. But not about the material in v2, which had been going on for some time.

It's good that you accept at least one of the components. Maybe some day you will see the pre-existing is standard in the other sections. In the case of the cataclysm, it goes on almost a chapter, before the action.





Here is the masthead of the journal. Please address these points. And please compare the two points in the ad. Why is there such resistance to do something so rational?





>Creation week of local things was recent! Gen 1 was not about the lifeless, static, distant universe.



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



>Evolution is unknown to the universe.



>The text’s local POV 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 skeptics delusion (the ‘stoicheians’).



>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.

(p12)

 

[EarlyActs]

David this whole post got into another post for some reason.

It's the first word of the book of Genesis (translated as "In the beginning") that is the title, not the whole verse.

Every day starts with evening (darkness), so you cannot have Day 1 starting with the creation of light.

Have you considered that your journal could be mistaken?

Yes, the journal could be mistaken, but not on that. Every day starts with the speaking. the dark and covered is before that in the sense of 'already.' Just like the dozen other sections of Genesis with titles. This speaking-start is a poetically structural thing for all 6 days, and I won't be breaking it to please you.

The Hebrew profs I had at Regent College Canada confirmed why the 'already' mode is in v2; there is no question about v2. There is a slight question if v2 is meant to connect that way to v1, and they said the relation was unique compared to the many others. But not about the material in v2, which had been going on for some time.

It's good that you accept at least one of the components. Maybe some day you will see the pre-existing is standard in the other sections. In the case of the cataclysm, it goes on almost a chapter, before the action.





Here is the masthead of the journal. Please address these points. And please compare the two points in the ad. Why is there such resistance to do something so rational?





>Creation week of local things was recent! Gen 1 was not about the lifeless, static, distant universe.



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



>Evolution is unknown to the universe.



>The text’s local POV 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 skeptics delusion (the ‘stoicheians’).



>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.

(p12)

Reply
Report Edit