I received an invitation to join here

[EarlyActs]

Psalm 104:6-9 KJV
Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. (worldwide rather than local)
[7] At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. (abatement of water).
[8] They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
[9] Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. (the current tides)

OK, so the features of the cataclysm are new to you. check the Genesis Apologetics 23 min video found by searching Noah's flood and pangea tectonics. There are threads on that if you want to use the same search terms here at CCCF and not bother John with a separate topic

 

[EarlyActs]

re LA Times articles
The reality of internet references problems is gagging me. Only one comes up, the one mentioned above without anyone's name to it and nothing about 200kya. I can't even reference the LA Times reason for why they interviewed her, because the article I read was polemic: that conventional science was being honest about these things by extending to the recent date of 200kya. Since they are not mentioning either of those things anymore , it is now a worthless reference, to me.

 

[John Bauer]

Genesis 1 is that evidence about the material!

1. First, tell me what "ontology" is. (Because I don't think you know, which cripples this whole discussion.)

2. Then, show me from the text of Genesis 1 that the ancient Hebrews had a material ontology.

Our communication is approaching the irrational point.

You can't follow what I am saying. Fair enough. But that's a statement about you, not this conversation.

The reality of internet references problems is gagging me. Only one comes up, the one mentioned above without anyone's name to it and nothing about 200kya.

Give me a link to the one that came up.

 

[prism]

OK, so the features of the cataclysm are new to you. check the Genesis Apologetics 23 min video found by searching Noah's flood and pangea tectonics. There are threads on that if you want to use the same search terms here at CCCF and not bother John with a separate topic

I never claimed to be an expert on cataclysms, and I wouldn't suppose a 23-minute video would make me one either. Do they offer a different opinion of Psalm 104:6-9?

 

[EarlyActs]

I never claimed to be an expert on cataclysms, and I wouldn't suppose a 23-minute video would make me one either. Do they offer a different opinion of Psalm 104:6-9?

It shows the enormous tectonic scale of the event.,

 

[EarlyActs]

1. First, tell me what "ontology" is. (Because I don't think you know, which cripples this whole discussion.)

2. Then, show me from the text of Genesis 1 that the ancient Hebrews had a material ontology.




You can't follow what I am saying. Fair enough. But that's a statement about you, not this conversation.




Give me a link to the one that came up.

What difference do you find between an ontology and a cosmology? Then maybe I can understand what you mean.

As I said in previous post, right now only one LA Times article comes up, and its not the one I read 5 years ago. The one that was there 5 years ago named the woman (prob Schweitzer) and dealt extensively with 200kya. Do you trust major media so much that they can never lie or twist things?

I have been unclear in the past, for sure, but I find your line about material origin to be utterly unclear; that's about you and whether what you are saying survives questioning.

 

[EarlyActs]

I read several definitions of ontology. How does the text not provide its own? It states several meaningful relationships between things. It doesn't do it as elaborate 19th century writers would, but so what? That would mean nothing written before the 19th century had any worth.

If it was intended to refute Egyptian theology, then all the more. But it was already there, so Egyptian theology later attempted to refute it.

But if it will help to read something that may speak to 19th century questions, here is Dr. Schaeffer in HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT:

What we are talking about is the philosophic necesity, in the area of being and existence , of the fact that God is there. That is what it is all about: He is there.

There is no other suffcient philosophical answer than the one I have outlined. ...There is only one philosophy, one religion, that fills this need in all the world's thought, whether the East, the West, the ancient the modern, the new , the old. Only one fills the philosophical need of existence, of being, and it is the Judaeo-Christian God--not just an abstract concept, but rather that this God is really there. He really exists. ...It is not a time to be defensive. There is no other answer.
p13

 

[prism]

It shows the enormous tectonic scale of the event.,

I saw a video on the Mount Saint Helens 'cataclysm' and that obviously did not make me an expert, so why should this other video you are offering make me an expert on cataclysms?

 

[EarlyActs]

I saw a video on the Mount Saint Helens 'cataclysm' and that obviously did not make me an expert, so why should this other video you are offering make me an expert on cataclysms?

Did I say it would? I was suggesting it because you sounded like you were unfamiliar with the scale of the event in Ps 104. 2, I believe you will find it is a landmark production in visualizing (authentically) how the combined information that we now have about tectonics and mega-sequences would look, without which I believe the event withers and is diminished in our minds. You could even say Ps 104 couldn't possibly cover it like it should.

And even then it does not cover everything that it could have. I was recently near a flood and saw 20 square yards changed drastically by it. I had just seen new footage on the post ice age Missoula flood, and realized that the miniature event could create things just like this on a regional scale.

In 1905 most fundamentalists believed the Genesis flood merely had to do with the Caspian sea. It was the mid 1900s before people realized it was much larger.

 

[prism]

Did I say it would? I was suggesting it because you sounded like you were unfamiliar with the scale of the event in Ps 104. 2, I believe you will find it is a landmark production in visualizing (authentically) how the combined information that we now have about tectonics and mega-sequences would look, without which I believe the event withers and is diminished in our minds. You could even say Ps 104 couldn't possibly cover it like it should.

And even then it does not cover everything that it could have. I was recently near a flood and saw 20 square yards changed drastically by it. I had just seen new footage on the post ice age Missoula flood, and realized that the miniature event could create things just like this on a regional scale.

In 1905 most fundamentalists believed the Genesis flood merely had to do with the Caspian sea. It was the mid 1900s before people realized it was much larger.

I see a world wide flood written all over that passage in Ps. 104. I may not be a cataclysmic expert (see post #81), but I know the effective power of God's Word. He speaks / it happens.

 

[EarlyActs]

Post 81 is great, but in 1905 Bible fundamentalists thought that the Genesis flood was only of the Caspian Sea bc of what science was saying, even in light of ps 104 Isn’t it helpful to know that there are manifold indicators of world-wide cataclysm?

 

[John Bauer]

What difference do you find between an ontology and a cosmology? Then maybe I can understand what you mean.

Ontology vs. cosmology

Ontology asks, "How is reality defined?" Cosmology asks, "How is reality structured?" My question for you concerns ontology, not cosmology: Did those to whom Genesis was written have a material ontology? In other words, did they believe a thing exists (a) by virtue of its constituent physical material, or (b) by virtue of its function in God’s covenantally ordered system?

The temple illustrates the point

According to a substance–material ontology—which is Hellenistic, by the way, long after Genesis was written—the temple exists by virtue of its physical form (stone, wood, marble, and gold). The building is there, standing before you. By way of contrast, in a functional–relational ontology (which is covenantal in nature), the temple exists by virtue of being God's dwelling place and focal point of worship. If abandoned by God, the temple no longer exists, even though its material form persists.

Biblical implications

According to scripture, something can have physical substance without existing—Genesis 1:2 speaks of creation as tohu va-bohu ("formless and void," cf. Jer. 4:23)—and something can exist without physical substance—angels exist despite not having any physical form (in the baryonic sense).

Here is the point

If ancient Israel had a functional–relational (covenantal) ontology, then Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins. What it's doing is narrating the assignment of functions and functionaries within God's covenantal order by his word. Therefore, the claim that God created in six days doesn't address the age of the earth. Genesis is literally true even if the earth is billions of years old. That is why the ontological question is crucial to responsible exegesis (and cannot be assumed without begging the question). I am willing to accept that the ancient Israelites had a material ontology but it would have to be demonstrated exegetically, not merely assumed without evidence.

I have been unclear in the past, for sure, but I find your line about material origin to be utterly unclear.

I hope that clears it up. If not, I might be able to simplify it even further.

Right now, only one LA Times article comes up—and it's not the one I read five years ago. The one that was there five years ago named the woman (probably Schweitzer) and dealt extensively with 200 kya.

Then I'm afraid your claim—that Schweitzer said dinosaur collagen is not more than 200 kya—is without a shred of evidence and cannot be believed. It will have to be set aside until you can prove it.

Do you trust major media so much that they can never lie or twist things?

I cannot (and don't) trust major media at all, and precisely because they lie and twist things. I was dramatically red-pilled by certain events in 2020–2022 involving so-called government experts and media who proved themselves untrustworthy (which they are doubling down on, for some reason).

I read several definitions of ontology. How does the text not provide its own?

I believe it does. It isn't presented discursively in Genesis 1, but the ontology is embedded in the narrative and can be teased out (and supported with relevant scriptures elsewhere). I assume you would agree with that, which is why I have asked you to demonstrate it through historical-grammatical exegesis.

It states several meaningful relationships between things.

Relationships. Yes, exactly. You perceive almost intuitively what I'm driving at. We see hints of a particular ontology and it's not a Ken Ham-fisted material view. Light is said to exist when separated from darkness and named, the firmament when it divides waters, etc. Genesis 1 is replete with separating and naming, framing existence in terms of function and functionaries in covenantal relation to God. A thing exists not by virtue of its constituent physical material, as if anything could exist autonomously, but in terms of function and covenantal relation to God. All things are created through Christ and for him; the ontology of scripture is Christological: what exists does so through Christ and for him (Col. 1:16; Rom. 11:36; John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Rev 4:11; Acts 17:28; Heb. 1:3; 2:10).

Again, this is why the ontological question is of crucial importance to a responsible exegesis of Genesis 1.

But if it will help to read something that may speak to 19th-century questions, here is Dr. Schaeffer in He Is There And He Is Not Silent:

I love Francis Schaeffer. I have two of his books, including that one. Here is the quote in full (with the ellipses removed):

What we are talking about is the philosophic necessity, in the area of being and existence, of the fact that God is there. That is what it is all about: He is there.

There is no other sufficient philosophical answer than the one I have outlined. You can search through university philosophy, underground philosophy, filling station philosophy—it does not matter which—there is no other sufficient philosophical answer to existence, to being, than the one I have outlined. There is only one philosophy, one religion, that fills this need in all the world's thought, whether the East, the West, the ancient, the modern, the new, the old. Only one fills the philosophical need of existence, of being, and it is the Judaeo-Christian God—not just an abstract concept, but rather that this God is really there. He really exists. There is no other answer, and orthodox Christians ought to be ashamed of having been defensive for so long. It is not a time to be defensive. There is no other answer.

Francis Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Tyndale House, 1972), p. 13.

While I obviously agree with you and Schaeffer about the need for God in our ontology, that doesn't tease out the ontology of Genesis 1—other than suggesting it is necessarily theistic. It leaves the question unanswered: Does Genesis have a (theistic) material ontology?

 

[EarlyActs]

Ontology vs. cosmology

Ontology asks, "How is reality defined?" Cosmology asks, "How is reality structured?" My question for you concerns ontology, not cosmology: Did those to whom Genesis was written have a material ontology? In other words, did they believe a thing exists (a) by virtue of its constituent physical material, or (b) by virtue of its function in God’s covenantally ordered system?

The temple illustrates the point

According to a substance–material ontology—which is Hellenistic, by the way, long after Genesis was written—the temple exists by virtue of its physical form (stone, wood, marble, and gold). The building is there, standing before you. By way of contrast, in a functional–relational ontology (which is covenantal in nature), the temple exists by virtue of being God's dwelling place and focal point of worship. If abandoned by God, the temple no longer exists, even though its material form persists.

Biblical implications

According to scripture, something can have physical substance without existing—Genesis 1:2 speaks of creation as tohu va-bohu ("formless and void," cf. Jer. 4:23)—and something can exist without physical substance—angels exist despite not having any physical form (in the baryonic sense).

Here is the point

If ancient Israel had a functional–relational (covenantal) ontology, then Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins. What it's doing is narrating the assignment of functions and functionaries within God's covenantal order by his word. Therefore, the claim that God created in six days doesn't address the age of the earth. Genesis is literally true even if the earth is billions of years old. That is why the ontological question is crucial to responsible exegesis (and cannot be assumed without begging the question). I am willing to accept that the ancient Israelites had a material ontology but it would have to be demonstrated exegetically, not merely assumed without evidence.




I hope that clears it up. If not, I might be able to simplify it even further.




Then I'm afraid your claim—that Schweitzer said dinosaur collagen is not more than 200 kya—is without a shred of evidence and cannot be believed. It will have to be set aside until you can prove it.




I cannot (and don't) trust major media at all, and precisely because they lie and twist things. I was dramatically red-pilled by certain events in 2020–2022 involving so-called government experts and media who proved themselves untrustworthy (which they are doubling down on, for some reason).




I believe it does. It isn't presented discursively in Genesis 1, but the ontology is embedded in the narrative and can be teased out (and supported with relevant scriptures elsewhere). I assume you would agree with that, which is why I have asked you to demonstrate it through historical-grammatical exegesis.




Relationships. Yes, exactly. You perceive almost intuitively what I'm driving at. We see hints of a particular ontology and it's not a Ken Ham-fisted material view. Light is said to exist when separated from darkness and named, the firmament when it divides waters, etc. Genesis 1 is replete with separating and naming, framing existence in terms of function and functionaries in covenantal relation to God. A thing exists not by virtue of its constituent physical material, as if anything could exist autonomously, but in terms of function and covenantal relation to God. All things are created through Christ and for him; the ontology of scripture is Christological: what exists does so through Christ and for him (Col. 1:16; Rom. 11:36; John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Rev 4:11; Acts 17:28; Heb. 1:3; 2:10).

Again, this is why the ontological question is of crucial importance to a responsible exegesis of Genesis 1.




I love Francis Schaeffer. I have two of his books, including that one. Here is the quote in full (with the ellipses removed):

What we are talking about is the philosophic necessity, in the area of being and existence, of the fact that God is there. That is what it is all about: He is there.

There is no other sufficient philosophical answer than the one I have outlined. You can search through university philosophy, underground philosophy, filling station philosophy—it does not matter which—there is no other sufficient philosophical answer to existence, to being, than the one I have outlined. There is only one philosophy, one religion, that fills this need in all the world's thought, whether the East, the West, the ancient, the modern, the new, the old. Only one fills the philosophical need of existence, of being, and it is the Judaeo-Christian God—not just an abstract concept, but rather that this God is really there. He really exists. There is no other answer, and orthodox Christians ought to be ashamed of having been defensive for so long. It is not a time to be defensive. There is no other answer.

Francis Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Tyndale House, 1972), p. 13.

While I obviously agree with you and Schaeffer about the need for God in our ontology, that doesn't tease out the ontology of Genesis 1—other than suggesting it is necessarily theistic. It leaves the question unanswered: Does Genesis have a (theistic) material ontology?

This is too much overthinking for me. Hebraic thought is very concrete. See the PRESENT TRUTH is from the 70s on “How to interpret the OT” or “Undersranding the OT” or similar. I’ll try to find a link.

As mentioned before , it holds the material world to be real. There is only the question of whether ‘raqia’ borrows neighbors conceptions of the blue surface above as “water”—whether that undermines anything . If the purpose of the whole is to say mankind is a representative of a King, then that purpose of ch 1 overrules this issue. I think so—that an image does that in comparative usage.

Anything that could be humanly proven is certainly real and material. They would have no way to prove or disprove that the blue was also water. But so what? It’s the only exception to substantial real and material.

 

[EarlyActs]

Ontology vs. cosmology

Ontology asks, "How is reality defined?" Cosmology asks, "How is reality structured?" My question for you concerns ontology, not cosmology: Did those to whom Genesis was written have a material ontology? In other words, did they believe a thing exists (a) by virtue of its constituent physical material, or (b) by virtue of its function in God’s covenantally ordered system?

The temple illustrates the point

According to a substance–material ontology—which is Hellenistic, by the way, long after Genesis was written—the temple exists by virtue of its physical form (stone, wood, marble, and gold). The building is there, standing before you. By way of contrast, in a functional–relational ontology (which is covenantal in nature), the temple exists by virtue of being God's dwelling place and focal point of worship. If abandoned by God, the temple no longer exists, even though its material form persists.

Biblical implications

According to scripture, something can have physical substance without existing—Genesis 1:2 speaks of creation as tohu va-bohu ("formless and void," cf. Jer. 4:23)—and something can exist without physical substance—angels exist despite not having any physical form (in the baryonic sense).

Here is the point

If ancient Israel had a functional–relational (covenantal) ontology, then Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins. What it's doing is narrating the assignment of functions and functionaries within God's covenantal order by his word. Therefore, the claim that God created in six days doesn't address the age of the earth. Genesis is literally true even if the earth is billions of years old. That is why the ontological question is crucial to responsible exegesis (and cannot be assumed without begging the question). I am willing to accept that the ancient Israelites had a material ontology but it would have to be demonstrated exegetically, not merely assumed without evidence.




I hope that clears it up. If not, I might be able to simplify it even further.




Then I'm afraid your claim—that Schweitzer said dinosaur collagen is not more than 200 kya—is without a shred of evidence and cannot be believed. It will have to be set aside until you can prove it.




I cannot (and don't) trust major media at all, and precisely because they lie and twist things. I was dramatically red-pilled by certain events in 2020–2022 involving so-called government experts and media who proved themselves untrustworthy (which they are doubling down on, for some reason).




I believe it does. It isn't presented discursively in Genesis 1, but the ontology is embedded in the narrative and can be teased out (and supported with relevant scriptures elsewhere). I assume you would agree with that, which is why I have asked you to demonstrate it through historical-grammatical exegesis.




Relationships. Yes, exactly. You perceive almost intuitively what I'm driving at. We see hints of a particular ontology and it's not a Ken Ham-fisted material view. Light is said to exist when separated from darkness and named, the firmament when it divides waters, etc. Genesis 1 is replete with separating and naming, framing existence in terms of function and functionaries in covenantal relation to God. A thing exists not by virtue of its constituent physical material, as if anything could exist autonomously, but in terms of function and covenantal relation to God. All things are created through Christ and for him; the ontology of scripture is Christological: what exists does so through Christ and for him (Col. 1:16; Rom. 11:36; John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Rev 4:11; Acts 17:28; Heb. 1:3; 2:10).

Again, this is why the ontological question is of crucial importance to a responsible exegesis of Genesis 1.




I love Francis Schaeffer. I have two of his books, including that one. Here is the quote in full (with the ellipses removed):

What we are talking about is the philosophic necessity, in the area of being and existence, of the fact that God is there. That is what it is all about: He is there.

There is no other sufficient philosophical answer than the one I have outlined. You can search through university philosophy, underground philosophy, filling station philosophy—it does not matter which—there is no other sufficient philosophical answer to existence, to being, than the one I have outlined. There is only one philosophy, one religion, that fills this need in all the world's thought, whether the East, the West, the ancient, the modern, the new, the old. Only one fills the philosophical need of existence, of being, and it is the Judaeo-Christian God—not just an abstract concept, but rather that this God is really there. He really exists. There is no other answer, and orthodox Christians ought to be ashamed of having been defensive for so long. It is not a time to be defensive. There is no other answer.

Francis Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Tyndale House, 1972), p. 13.

While I obviously agree with you and Schaeffer about the need for God in our ontology, that doesn't tease out the ontology of Genesis 1—other than suggesting it is necessarily theistic. It leaves the question unanswered: Does Genesis have a (theistic) material ontology?

Actually I think the essay on Hebraic thought is in this: “Pointers on how to read…”
Present Truth Magazine - The Archive, Vol. XII

 

[EarlyActs]

I recall you weren't inclined to pursue anything about the Nephilim, but for the sake of bibilography (references!) if nothing else, do you know these three:

R Skiba, Archon Invasion; the return of the Nephilim
D Hamp, Corrupting The Image
T&N Horn, Forbidden Gates; the dawn of techno-dimensional spiritual warfare

Considerable reference to the genetic experiments, and an interesting insight on dinosaurs, as to why there would be placid herbivores and then violent carnivores as the experiments continued, and the reference to violence increases.

The corruption of the image theme is about the Kingship of God and rebellion against it.

 

[John Bauer]

Do you know these three?

I do not.

 

[makesends]

A thing exists not by virtue of its constituent physical material, as if anything could exist autonomously, but in terms of function and covenantal relation to God. All things are created through Christ and for him; the ontology of scripture is Christological: what exists does so through Christ and for him (Col. 1:16; Rom. 11:36; John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Rev 4:11; Acts 17:28; Heb. 1:3; 2:10).

Again, this is why the ontological question is of crucial importance to a responsible exegesis of Genesis 1.

I should think God's purpose for a thing is the very basis for its material existence. Adding words to that feels like claiming that it actually does have some existence in and of itself.

While I obviously agree with you and Schaeffer about the need for God in our ontology, that doesn't tease out the ontology of Genesis 1—other than suggesting it is necessarily theistic. It leaves the question unanswered: Does Genesis have a (theistic) material ontology?

This is too much overthinking for me. Hebraic thought is very concrete. See the PRESENT TRUTH is from the 70s on “How to interpret the OT” or “Undersranding the OT” or similar. I’ll try to find a link.

As mentioned before , it holds the material world to be real. There is only the question of whether ‘raqia’ borrows neighbors conceptions of the blue surface above as “water”—whether that undermines anything . If the purpose of the whole is to say mankind is a representative of a King, then that purpose of ch 1 overrules this issue. I think so—that an image does that in comparative usage.

Anything that could be humanly proven is certainly real and material. They would have no way to prove or disprove that the blue was also water. But so what? It’s the only exception to substantial real and material.

What do you mean by "humanly proven", there. Proven to humans? I don't see how humans proving something to themselves makes it certainly real and material.

But, as far as human ability to hold valid concepts goes, the two notions —the two different ontologies— are not mutually exclusive.

Can you see how it may be valid to say that for God to think is to do, and to speak is to cause/create? Is it invalid to suppose that God's language is not representations of things, but the things themselves? God's economy isn't very much like our way of doing things.

 

[EarlyActs]

I should think God's purpose for a thing is the very basis for its material existence. Adding words to that feels like claiming that it actually does have some existence in and of itself.



What do you mean by "humanly proven", there. Proven to humans? I don't see how humans proving something to themselves makes it certainly real and material.

But, as far as human ability to hold valid concepts goes, the two notions —the two different ontologies— are not mutually exclusive.

Can you see how it may be valid to say that for God to think is to do, and to speak is to cause/create? Is it invalid to suppose that God's language is not representations of things, but the things themselves? God's economy isn't very much like our way of doing things.

On human proof:
Hit your face with a brick and see if it is real! (I’m being facetious). They could touch the earth they were speaking of in Gen 1 and also believe God spoke it into form.

They could not touch the ‘raqia ’ but described it like water, being almost the same blue color. They could only say the sun rises until later.

 

[EarlyActs]

On human proof:
Hit your face with a brick and see if it is real! (I’m being facetious). They could touch the earth they were speaking of in Gen 1 and also believe God spoke it into form.

They could not touch the ‘raqia ’ but described it like water, being almost the same blue color. They could only say the sun rises until later.

…until later on when in contact with Greek mathematics

 

[EarlyActs]

Ontology vs. cosmology

Ontology asks, "How is reality defined?" Cosmology asks, "How is reality structured?" My question for you concerns ontology, not cosmology: Did those to whom Genesis was written have a material ontology? In other words, did they believe a thing exists (a) by virtue of its constituent physical material, or (b) by virtue of its function in God’s covenantally ordered system?

The temple illustrates the point

According to a substance–material ontology—which is Hellenistic, by the way, long after Genesis was written—the temple exists by virtue of its physical form (stone, wood, marble, and gold). The building is there, standing before you. By way of contrast, in a functional–relational ontology (which is covenantal in nature), the temple exists by virtue of being God's dwelling place and focal point of worship. If abandoned by God, the temple no longer exists, even though its material form persists.

Biblical implications

According to scripture, something can have physical substance without existing—Genesis 1:2 speaks of creation as tohu va-bohu ("formless and void," cf. Jer. 4:23)—and something can exist without physical substance—angels exist despite not having any physical form (in the baryonic sense).

Here is the point

If ancient Israel had a functional–relational (covenantal) ontology, then Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins. What it's doing is narrating the assignment of functions and functionaries within God's covenantal order by his word. Therefore, the claim that God created in six days doesn't address the age of the earth. Genesis is literally true even if the earth is billions of years old. That is why the ontological question is crucial to responsible exegesis (and cannot be assumed without begging the question). I am willing to accept that the ancient Israelites had a material ontology but it would have to be demonstrated exegetically, not merely assumed without evidence.




I hope that clears it up. If not, I might be able to simplify it even further.




Then I'm afraid your claim—that Schweitzer said dinosaur collagen is not more than 200 kya—is without a shred of evidence and cannot be believed. It will have to be set aside until you can prove it.




I cannot (and don't) trust major media at all, and precisely because they lie and twist things. I was dramatically red-pilled by certain events in 2020–2022 involving so-called government experts and media who proved themselves untrustworthy (which they are doubling down on, for some reason).




I believe it does. It isn't presented discursively in Genesis 1, but the ontology is embedded in the narrative and can be teased out (and supported with relevant scriptures elsewhere). I assume you would agree with that, which is why I have asked you to demonstrate it through historical-grammatical exegesis.




Relationships. Yes, exactly. You perceive almost intuitively what I'm driving at. We see hints of a particular ontology and it's not a Ken Ham-fisted material view. Light is said to exist when separated from darkness and named, the firmament when it divides waters, etc. Genesis 1 is replete with separating and naming, framing existence in terms of function and functionaries in covenantal relation to God. A thing exists not by virtue of its constituent physical material, as if anything could exist autonomously, but in terms of function and covenantal relation to God. All things are created through Christ and for him; the ontology of scripture is Christological: what exists does so through Christ and for him (Col. 1:16; Rom. 11:36; John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Rev 4:11; Acts 17:28; Heb. 1:3; 2:10).

Again, this is why the ontological question is of crucial importance to a responsible exegesis of Genesis 1.




I love Francis Schaeffer. I have two of his books, including that one. Here is the quote in full (with the ellipses removed):

What we are talking about is the philosophic necessity, in the area of being and existence, of the fact that God is there. That is what it is all about: He is there.

There is no other sufficient philosophical answer than the one I have outlined. You can search through university philosophy, underground philosophy, filling station philosophy—it does not matter which—there is no other sufficient philosophical answer to existence, to being, than the one I have outlined. There is only one philosophy, one religion, that fills this need in all the world's thought, whether the East, the West, the ancient, the modern, the new, the old. Only one fills the philosophical need of existence, of being, and it is the Judaeo-Christian God—not just an abstract concept, but rather that this God is really there. He really exists. There is no other answer, and orthodox Christians ought to be ashamed of having been defensive for so long. It is not a time to be defensive. There is no other answer.

Francis Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Tyndale House, 1972), p. 13.

While I obviously agree with you and Schaeffer about the need for God in our ontology, that doesn't tease out the ontology of Genesis 1—other than suggesting it is necessarily theistic. It leaves the question unanswered: Does Genesis have a (theistic) material ontology?

“Cosmology asks ‘how is reality structured?’”

I think not. It asks of a specific structure: how did it come about?

One day when discussing the cataclysm , I thought it was the subject of geomorphology, but that’s the micro level, said Dr Nurre, and that I was talking about geologic structure.

I think your question is off by a few categories.