Jump to content


Photo

Universe Created In 6 Days?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
63 replies to this topic

#1 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:20 AM

When I read the bible I tend towards a literal reading if possible. I definitely take Genesis 1 literally concerning the 6 days of creation. Even so I just do not see anything there that points towards a young earth. Genesis 1 is referring to TWO creations of earth and TWO creations of the heavens:

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And t
he 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.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 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.
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.


Do you see the TWO creations of earth , in verse 1 and in verse 10, and the two creations of the heavens in verse 1 and in verse 8?
Its the dual meaning of these words that seems to confuse people, but the actual context of Genesis 1 is not confusing. The context makes it all very clear, the word "earth" is referring to both the planet and the land, the word "heavens" is referring to both the universe and the visible sky.

Some may say that the creation of the earth and heavens in verse 1 occurred on day 1, yet the verse just does not say this. The most obvious reading of the verse is that the universe was created before light was created, ie before day 1.

Of course this is all open to interpretation but as a literal reader of the bible I do not see a problem with an old earth. Applying this to the geologic layers, I would say that the granite base is earlier than six thousand years old, yet all layers with signs of life are six thousand years old or younger.

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 July 2012 - 03:14 AM

When I read the bible I tend towards a literal reading if possible. I definitely take Genesis 1 literally concerning the 6 days of creation. Even so I just do not see anything there that points towards a young earth.


The biblical account is corroborated by numerous empirical measures. As far as your idea of older granites is concerned, that idea has been tested as well.



http://mrctv.org/vid...nce-young-world



Posted Image


There has even been empirical predictions made for a 6,000 year old age of all the other planets in our solar system.

NOTE: In this paper Dr. Humphreys made predictions about the magnetic fields of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, well before those magnetic fields were measured by spacecraft. Here we have printed predictions for all five in red font. As of June, 2012, the first four have turned out to be "right on," whereas the expectations of evolutionists were not fulfilled. The last prediction concerns Pluto, which won't be visited by the NASA New Horizons spacecraft until July, 2015. Both evolutionists and creationists expect Pluto to consist mainly of ice (a poorelectrical conductor), in which case neither theory would predict Pluto to have a magnetic field today.


The Creation Of Planetary Magnetic Fields



#3 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 03 July 2012 - 04:27 AM

The biblical account is corroborated by numerous empirical measures. As far as your idea of older granites is concerned, that idea has been tested as well.



http://mrctv.org/vid...nce-young-world



Posted Image


There has even been empirical predictions made for a 6,000 year old age of all the other planets in our solar system.

NOTE: In this paper Dr. Humphreys made predictions about the magnetic fields of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, well before those magnetic fields were measured by spacecraft. Here we have printed predictions for all five in red font. As of June, 2012, the first four have turned out to be "right on," whereas the expectations of evolutionists were not fulfilled. The last prediction concerns Pluto, which won't be visited by the NASA New Horizons spacecraft until July, 2015. Both evolutionists and creationists expect Pluto to consist mainly of ice (a poorelectrical conductor), in which case neither theory would predict Pluto to have a magnetic field today.


The Creation Of Planetary Magnetic Fields


Interesting stuff, I don't know enough about the subject of magnetic fields to discuss it.

I'm referring more to biblical support for a young earth. I believe Genesis 1 can be interpreted as the earth being older than the 6 days of creation and see nothing wrong with an old earth from a biblical perspective. A literal interpretation requires the land and the sky and animals to be created about 6500 years ago, but not necessarily the planet and the universe.

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 July 2012 - 05:44 AM

There are two problems with it.

1) It isn't scriptural. The bible clearly states six 24 hour days.

2) It isn't supported by any hypothesis that makes accurate predictions.

#5 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 03 July 2012 - 09:58 AM

The whole "Heaven" "Earth" malleability thing makes for very interesting study. Both terms can and do refer to different things throughout the bible and even Genesis 1. But I see no compelling reason to propose anything other than six days of creation.

#6 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 993 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 03 July 2012 - 05:41 PM

Do you see the TWO creations of earth , in verse 1 and in verse 10, and the two creations of the heavens in verse 1 and in verse 8?


That sounds suspiciously like a watered down version of the "Gap Theory", where verse 1 is supposed to have been an original creation of the heavens and earth, there is a long age between v.1 and 2, and then the rest of the chapter is a recreation of the earth after some pre-Adamic deluge (usually attributed to the fall of Lucifer). As a former Gap Theorist (long, long ago Posted Image ), I am well aware of the inherent problems in trying to insert anything in between v.1 and 2.

What do you see happening on this pre-verse 2 earth other than it being without form and void, and covered with water? And on what scriptural basis do you see anything happening then, for any length of time?

#7 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 04 July 2012 - 01:26 AM

There are two problems with it.

1) It isn't scriptural. The bible clearly states six 24 hour days.


I agree there are 6 clear 24 hour days. The expanse of the sky was created on day 2, the land was created on day 3. The bible calls this land that was created on day 3 "earth", this comes from the Hebrew word that means "land". But the "formless" watery earth was already there by day 1. There is nothing in Genesis 1 that is clear that the watery formless earth was created WITHIN the 6 days even though some say that the earth was created on day 1 and the land on day 3 , Genesis 1 describes the earth already created before light and the first day was created.

#8 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 04 July 2012 - 01:35 AM

That sounds suspiciously like a watered down version of the "Gap Theory", where verse 1 is supposed to have been an original creation of the heavens and earth, there is a long age between v.1 and 2, and then the rest of the chapter is a recreation of the earth after some pre-Adamic deluge (usually attributed to the fall of Lucifer). As a former Gap Theorist (long, long ago Posted Image ), I am well aware of the inherent problems in trying to insert anything in between v.1 and 2.

What do you see happening on this pre-verse 2 earth other than it being without form and void, and covered with water? And on what scriptural basis do you see anything happening then, for any length of time?


I'm not a gap theorist , I believe all complex life was created in the six days exactly how the bible describes it.

It doesn't really matter what God did with the earth before, if the bible says there was a dark watery world, and then in six days He created light and sky and land and life, then that is what I believe. Maybe it existed for 1 day or billions of years, time means nothing to God. I believe YEC's are not necessarily doctrinally correct when they insist Genesis 1 is referring to a young earth. The verse is definitely open to interpretation for a committed literalist like myself, I refuse to water down the literalness of the bible, and yet just do not see the YEC position in Genesis 1.

#9 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 04 July 2012 - 01:41 AM

The whole "Heaven" "Earth" malleability thing makes for very interesting study. Both terms can and do refer to different things throughout the bible and even Genesis 1. But I see no compelling reason to propose anything other than six days of creation.


I guess the only compelling reason is to have openness to science when it does not contradict the bible. With a more scriptural literal approach to Genesis 1 we can be more open-minded when there is evidence for an old universe, and be less biased when examining the evidence because YEC or not, either view on an old universe will not contradict the bible.

#10 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 05 July 2012 - 07:50 AM


I guess the only compelling reason is to have openness to science when it does not contradict the bible.

That's not a compelling reason at all, for me. I prefer to use the scientific process as a means to challenge the biblical account.

With a more scriptural literal approach to Genesis 1 we can be more open-minded when there is evidence for an old universe, and be less biased when examining the evidence because YEC or not, either view on an old universe will not contradict the bible.

And you're left with the compromise of abandoning the simple reading of Genesis and placing assumption ahead of evidence when it comes to science.

#11 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 05 July 2012 - 01:34 PM

That's not a compelling reason at all, for me. I prefer to use the scientific process as a means to challenge the biblical account.

I like that approach. I honestly see bias from some creationists and evolutionists, but I agree with you, we should be able to challenge the bible and science and the bible should agree. However we do get those who conjure up the facts in science (fake skulls, bad interpretation of evidence) so sometimes science does not seem to confirm the bible.


And you're left with the compromise of abandoning the simple reading of Genesis and placing assumption ahead of evidence when it comes to science.


Actually I'm the one taking the simple reading at face value. It's only with a preconceived 6 day view that you would see the earth and universe only created during the six days, Genesis 1 says nothing like that, it indicates that the earth was created before day 1 if you want to read it at apparent face value:

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.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


The earth already existed... then God created light and we had the first day, this is the simple reading of Genesis, its YEC's that complicate a simple verse.

#12 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 06 July 2012 - 05:30 AM


I like that approach. I honestly see bias from some creationists and evolutionists, but I agree with you, we should be able to challenge the bible and science and the bible should agree. However we do get those who conjure up the facts in science (fake skulls, bad interpretation of evidence) so sometimes science does not seem to confirm the bible.

You're muddying the waters. What you're talking about isn't science.

Actually I'm the one taking the simple reading at face value. It's only with a preconceived 6 day view that you would see the earth and universe only created during the six days, Genesis 1 says nothing like that, it indicates that the earth was created before day 1 if you want to read it at apparent face value

Try Exodus 20...

#13 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 06 July 2012 - 06:15 PM

When I read the bible I tend towards a literal reading if possible.

I think the "literal" "non-literal" discussion is a waste of time. I have never had any difficulty discerning what scritpure is saying. History reads like history. Psalms read like psalms. Genealogies read like genealogies. Scientific accounts read like scientific accounts. Prophecy reads like prophecy. Teaching like teaching. Proverbs like proverbs.
The only reason I can think of for confusion is someone wanting to insert a private interpretation into the understanding of scritpure instead of reading it exactly as it is written.

I definitely take Genesis 1 literally concerning the 6 days of creation.

Again, it is not open to conjecture, since, every day of my life has consisted of, an evening, and a morning.

Even so I just do not see anything there that points towards a young earth.

The text says that the earth sat in the darkness for an unspecified span of time, in a place referred to as, the deep, without form, void of life, under many waters.

Genesis 1 is referring to TWO creations of earth and TWO creations of the heavens:

There is no such statement made in scripture.

Genesis 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.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 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.
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.



Do you see the TWO creations of earth , in verse 1 and in verse 10....

No. The earth created in verse one was created to sit as described in verse two, and was not, therefore, dry, for that unspecified span of time.
The earth was made to appear as dry land in verse nine. Which, means it was formerly not dry, as verse two stated precisely.
The dry earth is given a proper name in verse ten.


...and the two creations of the heavens in verse 1 and in verse 8?

The first verse says that the creation of the heaven was singular, as in, not plural.

Verses six and seven, describe what God created to seperate the waters that were previously described in verse two, as the waters of the deep, which had a face (surface).
That seperator of waters is termed "firmament".
It is termed that because, it sets firm against and mixing of the waters aboe it from the waters below it.

Verse eight is where God gives this created thing termed "firmament" a proper name, which is, Heaven.

Its the dual meaning of these words that seems to confuse people, but the actual context of Genesis 1 is not confusing.

God is not the author of confusion, therfore, I am not confused by his literature.

The context makes it all very clear, the word "earth" is referring to both the planet and the land, the word "heavens" is referring to both the universe and the visible sky.

The statements made are precisely made and leave no room for conjecture.
There is spiritual meaning in all that God does, but, that spiritual meaning in no way stands in conflict with and true scientific knowledge.

Some may say that the creation of the earth and heavens in verse 1 occurred on day 1, yet the verse just does not say this.

Therefore, disregard.

The most obvious reading of the verse is that the universe was created before light was created, ie before day 1.

No. Verse one stated that two singular things were created, 1) the heaven, and 2) the earth.

Of course this is all open to interpretation but as a literal reader of the bible I do not see a problem with an old earth.

The scripture states that it is not subject to any private interpretation.
As for the age of the earth, I see no precise defining of its age in any of the verses. It is implied however, in that, the fall of the angels occurred previous to the creation of man. For, the scripture says, Thou hast made man a little lower than the angels.
And, the scripture tells the narrative of the fall of Satan, the Devil, that Old Serpent, which fall occurs after Jesus Christ ascended to the throne of God from the Mt. of Olives, just before Pentecost.

Applying this to the geologic layers, I would say that the granite base is earlier than six thousand years old, yet all layers with signs of life are six thousand years old or younger.

The verse said the earth was without form. Therefore, it was no structured yet, even as by granite. In Genesis chapter one it clear that the making of the continents was not a simple, natural occurence, but a creative action by God. The continents had to rise above the waters of the earth, and the seas had to be formed as well. Which is what we observe in ocean basins, and uplifted continental masses.

Please note, however, that the water, and the earth is all the same age. Mankind is easily thrown of track by appearances. So, if I dress a thing up to look old, then men suppose it is. But, all determinations of age are provably assumptive. Many simply ask questions no one can answer and then, reach conclusions regardless of there being no actual way to answer the questions.

#14 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 July 2012 - 05:28 AM

When I read the bible I tend towards a literal reading if possible. I definitely take Genesis 1 literally concerning the 6 days of creation. Even so I just do not see anything there that points towards a young earth. Genesis 1 is referring to TWO creations of earth and TWO creations of the heavens:

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And t
he 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.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 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.
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.


Do you see the TWO creations of earth , in verse 1 and in verse 10, and the two creations of the heavens in verse 1 and in verse 8?
Its the dual meaning of these words that seems to confuse people, but the actual context of Genesis 1 is not confusing. The context makes it all very clear, the word "earth" is referring to both the planet and the land, the word "heavens" is referring to both the universe and the visible sky.

Some may say that the creation of the earth and heavens in verse 1 occurred on day 1, yet the verse just does not say this. The most obvious reading of the verse is that the universe was created before light was created, ie before day 1.

Of course this is all open to interpretation but as a literal reader of the bible I do not see a problem with an old earth. Applying this to the geologic layers, I would say that the granite base is earlier than six thousand years old, yet all layers with signs of life are six thousand years old or younger.


I agree.

Psalm 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

I don't believe in a 'big bang' but I do believe in a big (instantaneous) creation. So it didn't take Almighty God millions of years to accomplish.

#15 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 09 July 2012 - 06:15 AM

Try Exodus 20...


Exodus 20 is referring to the 6 days of creation, it could likely be referring to the sky/heavens created on day 2 (expanse between the waters) or the land/earth created on day 3. It is not necessarily referring to the heavens/earth on day one. Like I said in the opening post, there is a dual meaning to the Hebrew word for earth, and Genesis 1 makes it obvious that BOTH meanings are in use. Exodus 20 could easily be referring to the creation of land.

#16 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:12 AM

Or it could just be talking about creation as it is plainly understood.

You're going to need something a bit more compelling than "it could be this" to overthrow six days of creation.

#17 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 09 July 2012 - 09:59 AM

Interesting stuff, I don't know enough about the subject of magnetic fields to discuss it.

I'm referring more to biblical support for a young earth. I believe Genesis 1 can be interpreted as the earth being older than the 6 days of creation and see nothing wrong with an old earth from a biblical perspective. A literal interpretation requires the land and the sky and animals to be created about 6500 years ago, but not necessarily the planet and the universe.


I do. The chronology of Moses in Genesis 5 plus the other times mentioned in scripture that can be calculated with it are not wrong. One cannot force a number out of them that is more than approx. 6,000 yrs.

#18 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:00 AM

I do. The chronology of Moses in Genesis 5 plus the other times mentioned in scripture that can be calculated with it are not wrong. One cannot force a number out of them that is more than approx. 6,000 yrs.


I agree, but those other verse are referring to mankind and geneologies. Exodus does refer to the earth and the heaven within 6 days, yet Genesis describes earth as the land rising out the water (day 3) and the heaven as the expanse between the waters ( day 2) and so there is nothing in the bible that literally states that the planet itself was made in those 6 days. Have you got a specific verse for me? Genesis 1:1 seems to indicate they were there before the first day was created.

The point is clear, I am a bible literalist and agree with a 6 day creation and 6500 years of genetic life. From a biblical perspective we cannot insist on a young earth too unless we have a bible verse for it.

#19 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:20 AM

Or it could just be talking about creation as it is plainly understood.

You're going to need something a bit more compelling than "it could be this" to overthrow six days of creation.


what I'm saying is that YEC's need something more compelling. A simple bible verse will do. Genesis 1:1 seems to refer to the earth existing before day 1.

Exodus 20 could easily be referring to the land and sky of day 2 and 3, because the words earth/heaven are used for the creation of land and sky.

So I don't see how YEC's can insist that their interpretation is correct when its all very open and the context of Genesis 1 actually favors the creation of earth before day 1.

#20 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:42 AM

what I'm saying is that YEC's need something more compelling.

No, they don't.

You can either accept what the plain meaning says or you can reject it.

A simple bible verse will do. Genesis 1:1 seems to refer to the earth existing before day 1.

And yet the universe and all in it was created in six days. It is you that needs compelling evidence.

Exodus 20 could easily be referring to the land and sky of day 2 and 3, because the words earth/heaven are used for the creation of land and sky.

Or it could be referring to the universe and all in it. There is no scriptural reason to suspect otherwise.

So I don't see how YEC's can insist that their interpretation is correct when its all very open and the context of Genesis 1 actually favors the creation of earth before day 1.

Context? The words and meaning all say "six days". What is this "context" you refer to?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users