I see that the "Moses got it from legend" option is missing from 2Tim 3:16 and 2Peter 1:19 and Numbers 12 --

Gen 1 says "God MADE two great lights" in vs 19

In Ex 20:11 "For in six days God MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that are in them".

If "make" is not really CREATE then we need a different Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

We also need a different Gospel of John 1:3 saying he created all things and nothing came to be without that -- and we need another Col 1:16 "By Him all things were Created".

in Christ,

Bob

And, one assumes that Moses related that information verbatim, yes?

But what does that say about its transliteration, translation, parsing or other forms of exposition?

Kinda dogmatic to simply posit this or that with a language that depended upon a verbal transmission until the times of Ezra. – what? eight centuries later? (should Biblical tradition obtain) Even that verbal transmission was subsequently lost with modern spoken Hebrew being of relatively recent manufacture. That said,

I believe Gd safeguarded His word throughout the many centuries; however, I do not believe He did so without permitting the loss of this Aramaic particle or that Hebraic article – the issue of faith on our part desired.

Incidentally, at rush4hire's 'it was passed down from Adam to Moses'... Adam wasn't there for all of it, just the last day, so how would he know? I think 'God told Moses' is much more plausible. But again, God was talking to a man of that time - smart, able to do great things through God's power, educated in the Egyptian court - but still with no understanding of science and orbits and planets and just how far away the stars are and...

If God's purposes are establishing that He is the creator, telling that to Moses in a simple and understandable form just makes sense. Moses would not have known about numbers greater than a few hundred, so how could God have even said to him "And then for 1.5 billion years the earth was without life, developing the appropriate conditions..." or whatever else?

This is the old "Bible can not be trusted" argument where you allow God to be the author of scripture -- but then He goes on vacation and does not notice that the text of scripture as given to the various nations is so corrupt that you can not "trust" a simple text like "SIX days you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE".

And the problem with that argument is that it applies to ALL of scripture and the logical result is as we see here.



If God is allowing the MEANING of the text to change -- then however it's original meaning is lost - the result is that the text itself is corrupt -- it's meaning is no longer trustworthy.

On the other hand - if your argument is that the original meaning IS preserved as long as we keep to strict rules of exegesis -- then I would agree. Being honest, detailed and diligent about the exegetical factors of content and established use - preserves the text so that we can believe it when IT says "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" just as Matthew Henry and John Gill affirm -- in spite of the fact that they themselves do not keep Sabbath.

in Christ,

Bob

True - but Moses COULD speak to 1000's of years and beyond (long lived pre-flood man) and also of short periods of time. He knew for example what a year was. And in the case of Ex 20:8-11 it is God writing and speaking -- not Moses "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE" and God did know a thing or two about the difference between a billion and the number 7.



Indeed - He can say "see all these things -- in some way I am responsible for them all". Simple and easy -- no false details added.

But God goes out of his way to tell us about the 6 "evenings and mornings" and then to summarize them this way "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE".

Pretty hard to ignore the fact that this is framed in language that has no possibility of being reformatted back into Darwinism.



Moses has PEOPLE living for "more than a few hundred years" -- you are making stuff up here -- unless you have proof that Egyptians had no numbering system that when beyond 200. You also have the problem of having to argue that God could not show Moses that just as people lived for over 900 years -- there is a simple way to "keep going" with the numbering system by "adding 1" --




Again - I find your argument too speculative to take seriously. I know of no studies that claim that either the Egyptians or the Hebrews could not count past 200.

Moses himself writes of the stars being as the "sands of the sea" and so if God wanted to teach Darwinism instead of creationism he could have added "as the sands of the sea so were the days to form dry land".

The argument that the language did not support the concept does not hold up. The problem is not language.

in Christ,

Bob

Here are those verses.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Num. 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

You are claiming that the whole account of Genesis was a vision that Moses had? You don't believe that Adam told his children about the creation and everything, they they continued to pass that knowledge down, building with each generation?

I didn't say that none of it was written down. If so, then Moses compiled it, probably with the help of his relatives. I also know that Job was written before Moses.



It says very clearly, that the planet was already here and covered with water.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 1:1 is a summary of the whole chapter.

Heaven and earth where not created in Gen 1:2. These terms are defined later in the chapter:

Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen. 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

The chapter tells how God created a living planet from a desolate planet.

Of course God must have created the planet too, at some time, but not in Gen 1. God never said "let there be planet", or "let there be water". The planet was here with the water. That's what it says. God created heavens and earth from the planet.

God created man from the dirt. He did not create the dirt at that time. Something doesn't have to come from absolutely nothing to be created by God.




God probably told him and Adam didn't have any reason to think God might be lying. If God tells you something, don't you know that what He's telling you is fact and not a lie?



Why would God tell Moses, and not Adam? You don't think anyone before Moses would have asked questions about such things if the information had not been provided? Was there some evolution that took place between Adam and Moses that made Moses smart enough to grasp the concept of God's work in Creation?

I really believe man was created perfect, sinless, and immortal, but since sin, man has been degenerating, and not evolving. Life span shortens, not lengthens. Eyesight becoming poorer and poorer. More genetic diseases. Less intelligence.

Why can't they breed a race horse that's as fast as they had in the 1950s? Because horses are degenerating. No amount of breeding will ever be able to fix that. It's a process of deterioration. It is a fact that the fastest race horses are getting slower and slower with every generation no matter how you breed them.

They will never evolve.

Give man another billion years and he will not evolve, but will degenerate into nothing. Man will destroy himself in another hundred years or so, if Jesus doesn't come.

Matt. 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.



Why would God need billions of years to create a living planet? Doesn't He have other living planets to copy from? Can God not create life from dirt in a matter of minutes?

How many billions of years is it going to take God to resurrect the 6 billion people at the 2nd resurrection? If those people have to evolve from the dirt, that's going to be a boring thing to watch.

What about the new heavens and new earth? How many billions of years is that going to take?

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Rev. 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Rev. 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.

I'd rather be consumed with the wicked than to have to sit there and watch simple organisms dominate each other and slowly evolve little advantages over each other and become more and more efficient at murdering each other for billions of years until finally the stuff evolves into human beings?

That's a pretty inefficient way to create a world.

Pointing to the fact that during each of the evenings and mornings when it says "God made" we are talking about "creation" as Gen 1:1 sets the context for that.



I agree that the language leaves us possibly with an earth that is in some form of existence and probably has geothermal heat warming the planet.

I would argue that 1:1 is talking about the creation of all of the universe (prior to the 7 days of Genesis) -- but is not placing that statement inside the 7 days of the chapter.

The heavens of day 2, 4 and 5 -- is the one where the birds fly and may include the solar system "where he placed" the sun and moon.

in Christ,

Bob

And how could you have a 'solar ststem' with no sun? Prior to day four what was holding the earth in orbit? mel

I've heard that idea. I don't think it's very strong, though. Here's the point:

Exo. 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth

And:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [ -- in six days -- ]

During the six days in Gen 1, Heaven and Earth are defined, as being created during those six days, and not being there before those six days.

If God called the dry land "Earth" on the 2nd day, it would not have been called "Earth" before that. In fact there was no dry land. Same for "Heaven" and "Seas".

Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven

1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas

But then you have this argument:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void

So it looks like the statement "and the earth" is talking about the earth that was created in Gen 1:1, which would have happened before the 6 days.

And that's why even a scholar, like yourself, would be convinced of such a theory.

And that's why we could spend our whole lives debating the issue, and it would turn out to be a complete waste of time. So we could just set it aside and work on something else, for now.

Answer as was given before: No sun, no solar system. No need.

All you "need" for day 1 through 3 is a rotating planet -- not an orbiting one.

in Christ,

Bob