How is it that the evolutionists . . .

[Stripe]

I'm saying that what people today call evolution could have been going on before the 6 days of our earth's creation and resulted in 'tohu wa-bohu.' And we don't know how long, which is why the OE is an explanation. Tw-b is an indication that something was amiss and was destroyed with displeasure. But the features of our earth we now have are 'domesticated'--for lack of better word--and would not have resulted from evolution or survival of fittest, etc. They are 'orderly.'

So it's your evolutionism that you want to find room for.

 

[Jose Fly]

Creatures that bore into the ground were found below the Cambrian layer, but they still belong to the Cambrian layer. Carbon dating methods are contested as being correct.

Wow. Poe's Law in full display.

This is why creationists are laughed at. :rotfl:

 

[CherubRam]

Wow. Poe's Law in full display.

This is why creationists are laughed at. :rotfl:

I am surprised that you are still here, considering your constant Anti-God view. Show us that you are not a babbling fool by posting some proof of error?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Not sure if it would be metaphorical. I think it would be actual at that point.

If 'formless and void' has as much to do with a huge sinister creature as it does in other ancient near east cosmology, then there maybe a metaphor.

But I go with actual description for now because of Peter in 2 Peter 3's "through water and with water." V5 is saying things that I think are how we are supposed to read Genesis:
1, the heavens existed long ago (this time frame is distinct vocabulary chosen to be further back than when 'earth was formed.')
2, the earth was formed. Note the language that answers 'unformed' or 'formless.' This occurs later than the existence of the heavens
3, the forming was out of water and with water. Very interesting match to Gen 1:2.
4, the amount of time between 'forming' and the flood is relatively short. They are put together as 'the world of that time' whereas the existence of the heavens is much older.

Which was first?

Secondly, the water and water is not the same as wind and water.

Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

I conclude that it is both in that existence is of one varied substance, malleable by God.

Water could be in wind technically, so you are correct, yet void is negative as in the dualistic nature of the one existence.

Thanks.

 

[Interplanner]

So it's your evolutionism that you want to find room for.

Mine? it either happened or did not. It may have taken place in a limited way. I don't know. My task is to say what the text says.

When you are guided by what 2 Pet 3 says about the distance in time between the heavens existing and the earth being formed, you have a fair amount of time to work with.

There are not just 3 alternatives. It may be much more involved than those 3.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Genesis 1:9 KJ
And God said, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

Yes the earth has been in more that one ice age. Initial land mass through water would have been most likely localized. The formed earth was struck into motion or wobbled spinning that made for the separation, and creation of tectonic activity and land production or mass adjustment and balancing giving the working ecosystem similar to what we see today.

All this was of course preordained, and wholly orchestrated by God the Creator.

Thanks.

Some points could be off, as I am uncertain on some particulars.

 

[6days]

If you think a billion years or so is "sudden." The first observable living things appeared....

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds: And it was so *And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your new interpretation of Genesis fails in light of God's world itself. Why not set your pride and will aside, and reconcile yourself to the way He created things?

 

[The Barbarian]

Creatures that bore into the ground were found below the Cambrian layer, but they still belong to the Cambrian layer.

By the Cambrian, the Ediacaran biota was gone. Those early forms of life went extinct, most likely from predation by arthopods in full exoskeletons.

No point in making up stories. You just let yourself be snockered by another dishonest creationist.

Carbon dating methods are contested as being correct.

Carbon dating has nothing whatever to do with it. You were fooled on that one, too.

 

[Interplanner]

Your new interpretation of Genesis fails in light of God's world itself. Why not set your pride and will aside, and reconcile yourself to the way He created things?

Use the quote button. Who is you? Myself, 6days, Cherubram?

 

[6days]

Your new interpretation of Genesis fails in light of God's world itself. Why not set your pride and will aside, and reconcile yourself to the way He created things?

Interpretation?
No...
Its a quote from scripture.
Genesis 1: 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.

 

[Interplanner]

Sorry to all, its Jer 4:23 for the other usage of 'tohu wa-bohu.'

 

[Kdall]

Not sure what is going on here with the colors and quotes CherubRam, but I did hear a counterargument from someone here about the Cambrian explosion. Lee Stroebel's documentary CASE FOR A CREATOR makes the claim that the Cambrian explosion is to be positively linked to this verse in Genesis. I don't know enough about the method of the fossil record to evaluate the TOL members comments. Maybe you do.

Hopefully they will see this an restate a summary.

Just my personal interpretation, but I always thought it sounded like a reference to the Big Bang

 

[The Barbarian]

Interpretation?

Yep. From the beginning, Christian knew that the "yom" in Genesis did not refer to literal days.

Genesis 1: 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.

The only difference between you and those Christians is that they were willing to accept it the way God did it.

 

[6days]

Yep. From the beginning, Christian knew that the "yom" in Genesis did not refer to literal days.

"Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.' Matt. 19:4

Josephus AD37-101
"God... separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was night, and the other he called day: and he named the beginning of light, and the time of rest, the 'evening' and the 'morning', and this was indeed the first day."

Basil the Great AD329-379
Discussing the creation days..."It is as though it said: 24 hours measures the space of a day.*

Many of the other early Christians that have been recorded also argued against the evolutionists of their day. Perhaps God knew people would try pervert *his Word...so he repeated and repeated..."evening and morning, one day...evening and morning...second day..." etc

 

[Stripe]

My task is to say what the text says.

Really? Because it says everything was created "in six days."

When you are guided by what 2 Pet 3 says about the distance in time between the heavens existing and the earth being formed, you have a fair amount of time to work with.

Evolutionists love a short snippet from that passage. They ignore the fact that it is talking about God's patience, or that it makes no sense when they interpret it the way they do, or that it mocks people who deny the creation and flood account.

 

[Interplanner]

Really? Because it says everything was created "in six days."

Evolutionists love a short snippet from that passage. They ignore the fact that it is talking about God's patience, or that it makes no sense when they interpret it the way they do, or that it mocks people who deny the creation and flood account.

You think I'm combining or overlapping them. I'm saying they are one after the other.

Don't generalize unless you are willing to make proper exceptions.

 

[Interplanner]

"Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.' Matt. 19:4

Josephus AD37-101
"God... separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was night, and the other he called day: and he named the beginning of light, and the time of rest, the 'evening' and the 'morning', and this was indeed the first day."

Basil the Great AD329-379
Discussing the creation days..."It is as though it said: 24 hours measures the space of a day.*

Many of the other early Christians that have been recorded also argued against the evolutionists of their day. Perhaps God knew people would try pervert *his Word...so he repeated and repeated..."evening and morning, one day...evening and morning...second day..." etc

That's fine for the 6 days; it is not the background on 'formless and void' that is now known. If you don't have complete background on that, you don't have a complete interpretation.

 

[Kdall]

"Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.' Matt. 19:4

Well 6days if that is truly word for word what Jesus himself said and meant literally, then we know that this certain tidbit of information is incorrect. There are a minimum of three human sexes that one can be born as. It's not just male and female, though obviously the vast majority of people are either male or female.

If you want the Jesus in the Bible to be so black and white and literal about everything, then you prove him wrong

 

[Interplanner]

To be born eunuch is not a gender. There is only male and female.