Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?

ICANT responds to bluescat48:

quote:

---

Then what would it be referring to if it was the first verse in the Bible.

---

Nothing other than itself, just as Gen 1:1 isn't referring to anything other than itself.Hint: Gen 2 wasn't written by the same person as Gen 1. As you tried to claim as your point but was really mine, the text was an oral history: No books, no verses. Don't you find it odd that Gen 1 ends but the narrative continues on to Gen 2? That's because if someone were being intelligent about the editing, Gen 1 would end with the verse of Gen 2:3 and start Gen 2 with the verse of Gen 2:4.Gen 2 is a completely different story, unconnected to Gen 1.What? A book that was cobbled together over centuries, written by countless anonymous authors, and then edited and redacted by other anonymous people has produced a throughline that is not internally consistent? Madness!

quote:

---

This verse declares it is the history of the earth and heavens in the day that the Lord God created them.

---

Which is in direct contradiction to Genesis 1 which directly states that heaven and the earth were created on different days: Heaven doesn't get created until the second day. The earth doesn't get created until the third day. So no matter how you define a day, be it a literal, 24-hour day or some nebulous, much-longer-than-24-hour period of time, heaven and the earth were not created on the same day.But since you admit that you have abandoned the text, then that explains quite a lot.You aren't reading the same thing the rest of us are. No wonder you aren't making any sense.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to bluescat48:

quote:

---

Then what would it be referring to if it was the first verse in the Bible.

---

Nothing other than itself, just as Gen 1:1 isn't referring to anything other than itself.Hint: Gen 2 wasn't written by the same person as Gen 1. As you tried to claim as your point but was really mine, the text was an oral history: No books, no verses. Don't you find it odd that Gen 1 ends but the narrative continues on to Gen 2? That's because if someone were being intelligent about the editing, Gen 1 would end with the verse of Gen 2:3 and start Gen 2 with the verse of Gen 2:4.Gen 2 is a completely different story, unconnected to Gen 1.What? A book that was cobbled together over centuries, written by countless anonymous authors, and then edited and redacted by other anonymous people has produced a throughline that is not internally consistent? Madness!

quote:

---

This verse declares it is the history of the earth and heavens in the day that the Lord God created them.

---

Which is in direct contradiction to Genesis 1 which directly states that heaven and the earth were created on different days: Heaven doesn't get created until the second day. The earth doesn't get created until the third day. So no matter how you define a day, be it a literal, 24-hour day or some nebulous, much-longer-than-24-hour period of time, heaven and the earth were not created on the same day.But since you admit that you have abandoned the text, then that explains quite a lot.You aren't reading the same thing the rest of us are. No wonder you aren't making any sense.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

he would be dead within 24 literal hours.

---

​

I can't find who told the man that.

---

Well, since you admit you aren't actually reading the text, I'm not surprised. And since you need me to quote it to you, I'm not surprised: "Thou shalt surely die." In a more literal translation, "dying, you shall die." That is an indication that god is talking about being physically dead: No pulse, no breath, rather quickly coming to thermal equilibrium with one's surroundings. There is no such thing as a "spiritual death.""In the day" is an indication that god is talking about an immediate death. Not some 800+ years from then but by the time the literal sun literally sets.But Adam does eat from the tree and he doesn't die. Instead, he survives to be kicked out of Eden, have two kids, have them live long enough to become somewhat self-sufficient (at least one is capable of shepherding and one is capable of agriculture), have one kill the other, father a third child to replace the slain one, and then continue on for another 800 years.Ergo, god lied.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

It would add to the debate if you had some idea about what you are quoting.Anybody can quote a scripture.And you can do that.But you have no understanding of what it says.Actually your knowledge of the scriptures rival my understanding of what they said when I entered Bible College in 1964.I knew everything it said and had a perfect understanding of it just like you do today.It didn't take long to find out I was not as smart as I thought I was. Since you are incorrigible and have no intention of honest debate.You can take this one up with God when you meet Him face to face on judgement day.Now prove me wrong and give me an exegesis of: Also an exegesis of: No assertions requested.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

But you have no understanding of what it says.

---

Said the man who thinks that a passage dozens of sentences away is the logical next point in a narrative text, as if Genesis were a story told by a four-year-old that starts off with a point and immediately wanders off into an unrelated tangent.Said the man who continues to apply Christian theology to a Jewish text.

quote:

---

You can take this one up with God when you meet Him face to face on judgement day.

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, ICANT. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!Well, Bob, ICANT has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, ICANT gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni®, the San Francisco Treat.You didn't really think that the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?

quote:

---

Now prove me wrong and give me an exegesis of: [Gen 1:1]

---

Already done (Message 242). What do you think you're trying to rationalize away?

quote:

---

Also an exegesis of: [Gen 2:4]

---

Already done (Message 242). What do you think you're trying to rationalize away?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I've found another inconsistency of your's, ICANT How do you know that he didn't? Because it doesn't mention it?There's also no mention of anything happening between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.On one hand you use the lack of mention to say that something could have happened and on the other hand you are (presumably*) saying that the lack of mention means that something could not have happened.This inconsistancy is in addition to both Adams in Gen 4 and Gen 5 having sons named Seth who had sons named Enos.*that is unless there's something else that says that he didn't have sons Cain and Abel

Hi Rrhain, Huh!You call this an exegises.

quote:

---

Nothing other than itself, just as Gen 1:1 isn't referring to anything other than itself.

​

Hint: Gen 2 wasn't written by the same person as Gen 1. As you tried to claim as your point but was really mine, the text was an oral history: No books, no verses. Don't you find it odd that Gen 1 ends but the narrative continues on to Gen 2? That's because if someone were being intelligent about the editing, Gen 1 would end with the verse of Gen 2:3 and start Gen 2 with the verse of Gen 2:4.

​

Gen 2 is a completely different story, unconnected to Gen 1.

---

If that is the best you can do no wonder you have so much trouble with what the Bible says.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi CS, The first born son is the one the linage is always given through.That linage is: Cain had a son named Enoch whose son was Irad whose son was Mehujael whose son was Methusael whose son was Lamech whose son was Jabal by Adah and Jubal by Zillah also Tubalcain and his sister Naamah by Zillah.There is no mention of age for any of these people.Why is that?Why are they not mentioned in chapter 5 with their ages if the man formed in Genesis 2:7 and the man who was spoke into existence in Genesis 1:27 are the same man?Not a third born son. Sure there is.It is explained in Genesis 1:2.The earth become formless and empty.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Rrhain responds, Genesis 1:1 does not say IT IS THE BEGINNING.Genesis 1:1 says: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.So whenever the beginning was.God created, not that He was going to create but already had.The heaven and the earth.They were in existence before Genesis 1:2 and the earth had become formless and empty.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Because God gave them a new lineage:Gen 4:25

quote:

---

25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

---

For the same reason. Adam’s lineage goes through Seth, the new seed that god appointed to them. No, what? That IS Gen 1:2. Something happening in Gen 1:2 is not something happening before Gen 1:2

Hi CS, Then what happened to the people who descended from Cain? Genesis 1:1 says the earth was created.Genesis 1:2 says it became formless and empty.That says it had changed from what it was in Genesis 1:1.So something took place.Then verse 2 tells us it was covered in darkness.The only things that happens in verse 2 is the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

It doesn't matter.Also, I don't see where the Bible really says anything about what happened to them other than what is covered in Gen 4:

quote:

---

16And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

​

17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

​

18And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

​

19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

​

20And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

​

21And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

​

22And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

​

23And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

​

24If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

---

It looks like they were in the land of Nod in the city of Enoch.But again, it doesn't really matter to my position and doesn't challenge my refutation of your interpretation.Was that just a Gish Gallop? the KJV version says this:

quote:

---

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

​

2And 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.

---

There's no implication that anything happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.If you want to claim some mistranslation and that it should be that the earth became without form, then why not accept the same mistranslation that the first verse should really say "In the beginning while god was creating the heavens and the earth..."?And really, if you're claiming the text is flawed, you're not reading it literally anymore and then you can just make up whatever interpretation you want.

Hi CS, If it was you took it.I stated the only things about those people was recorded in Genesis 4.Then you quote Genesis 4:16-24. I know very well what the KJV says as I quote it all the time.It is the best English version we have today.But it is not perfect as the translators were under specific orders from the King.Genesis 1:1 Hebrew text.1:1 ‘ ‘ — There are no words here that can be translated while ... was creatingGenesis 2:2 Hebrew text.1:2 ‘ —- — —-
There is no word in the text with the meaning of was.The Hebrew word that was translated was means 1) to be, become, come to pass, The text is not flawed the misapplication of words in translating is what is flawed.There are books called Hebrew Lexicons that give the definition of Hebrew words, just like we have English dictionaries. You don't like the definition from my Anlytical Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon give me a different one and source.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Then you are a dishonest man. (but I knew that already) Is there a typo in there or something. What kind of reply is that? Of course we're talking about Gen 4.Let me recap for you... So.... you're interpretation is refuted. Care to defend it?Adam's lineage goes through Seth, who is the new seed given to him by god after Cain killed Abel, and it is recorded in Gen 5. Gotcha, the KJV is not literal and inerrant.

Hi CS, I don't know what you got.The KJV is the best English translation we have.But I have never said it was inerrant.I have said the original text was inerrant.I have always argued that the Hebrew word should have been translated became or came to be.I remember having several arguments with arachnophilia about the Hebrew concerning this very word. He held that God created the mess we find in Genesis 1:2 just as you do.So whatever it is you got you can keep.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."