Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Okay, now you're getting somewheres.

[b]wait wait, are you saying that creation doesn't start with genesis? No. The name of the book refers to the words of the same: "In beginning... "

that the supposed big bang didn't occure at the first verse of the bible?
No, I am saying that the beginning begins in verse one.

that the phrase "i ...[text shortened]... appy to share with you all of those fascinating details when the time is right.

yes, glad we sorted it out. about the begining.



"In-beginning he-created Elohim the-heavens and the-earth"

Nothing about nothing
what does the word beginning mean to you? beginning of the second quarter of the angel superbowl, edition 45? or the beginning.

so the world really began in Genesis verse 1/Big Bang and this is established.


now moving to how much time the adam spent in the garden.
you say that big bang and genesis events coincide, right?
you say that genesis actually took 6 days, right?
from the fall until current times the timespan is roughly 6000 years, right?
so any lost time from the bible has to come from the time of adams creation until the eating of the forbidden fruit, right?
big bang is set to have occured significantly earlier than 6000 years, right?

all the above point to adam and eve staying in the garden of eden for roughly 14 billion years.
are you telling me that it took them 14 billion years to disobey god?
it took the snake 14 years to plot and tempt eve?
they didn't go crazy for 14billion years doing nothing but sex and eating?
the authors of the bible said exactly how many years each patriarch lived until abraham, exactly how many days creation took place but they forgot to mention a little time slice of 14 billion because aparently nothing happened.


The entire lifetime of Adam was 930 years, and then he died.
Genesis 5.5
oops, there goes the "staying in eden for 14 billion years" theory

For a great description, look at the end of verse two forward.
you mean this one?
Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.

nope, can't see anything about recreation

Not that I am aware of it, but I'm certain He'll be more than happy to share with you all of those fascinating details when the time is right.
i am much better at sarcasm, you lack a certain je ne sais quoi

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, glad we sorted it out. about the begining.



[b]"In-beginning he-created Elohim the-heavens and the-earth"

Nothing about nothing
what does the word beginning mean to you? beginning of the second quarter of the angel superbowl, edition 45? or the beginning.

so the world really began in Genesis verse 1/Big Bang and this is established.
...[text shortened]... the time is right.[/b]
i am much better at sarcasm, you lack a certain je ne sais quoi[/b]

Sorry for the delay: I had previously replied to your post but (for some reason) the reply is not showing up here.

what does the word beginning mean to you?
When I said 'nothing about nothing,' I was merely being precise. Technically speaking, there is no mention of 'nothing' as a concept in the first verse. The concept is heavily inferred, of course, but it remains unnamed.

so the world really began in Genesis verse 1/Big Bang and this is established.
Sure.

you say that big bang and genesis events coincide, right?
If, by 'big bang' you mean to say that moment when physical matter began, and if, by 'genesis events' you mean the first verse, then yes, they appear to be speaking of the same moment.

you say that genesis actually took 6 days, right?
Only the re-creation.

from the fall until current times the timespan is roughly 6000 years, right?
Not sure: never did the math on it.

big bang is set to have occured significantly earlier than 6000 years, right?
I don't follow. Verse one describes God's creation of the universe, with earth as the focal point. Verse two talks about the earth becoming something it wasn't, namely, it was in a certain shape and condition and then something caused it to become chaos and vacancy, with darkness over the planet.

all the above point to adam and eve staying in the garden of eden for roughly 14 billion years.
Not at all. There is an undetermined amount of time which transpired between verse one and two. A more likely (albeit speculative, nonetheless) scenario is that the time you're looking for (if it really occurred) happened between those two verses. Although Adam and the woman could have been in the Garden for millions or even billions of years, such doesn't seem to be the case. Either way, the Bible doesn't tell us here in Genesis--- or anywhere else, for that matter--- how much time passed between certain events. Presumably, those passages of time are insignificant in God's eyes.

The entire lifetime of Adam was 930 years, and then he died.
Genesis 5.5
oops, there goes the "staying in eden for 14 billion years" theory
These are counted after the Fall. Oops.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Sorry for the delay: I had previously replied to your post but (for some reason) the reply is not showing up here.

[b]what does the word beginning mean to you?
When I said 'nothing about nothing,' I was merely being precise. Technically speaking, there is no mention of 'nothing' as a concept in the first verse. The concept is heavily inferred, of eden for 14 billion years" theory[/b]
These are counted after the Fall. Oops.[/b]

oh so adam didn't actually lived before the fall? or there was no time recorded?

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(not recreated not created for the 7th time, created) your recreation only stems from your imagination

4.God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night". And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

first day. one day. there was nothing. from the moment there was something till god finished creating, 6 days had passed. nothing more, nothing less. you don't have any "unknown" periods of time, any mystery. you have 6 days. and while you accepted the big bang happened at the same time as verse 1, god is finished with the whole creation in 6 days while the big bang theory hadn't even completed atoms.

don't expect you to understand with your clouded judgment. you even warp the bible, the book you're supposed to be good at.

let's get it clear. nowhere in the bible does it say that there were metaphorical days in the creation, that adam lived for x years from the time of the fall, not counting the time spent in the garden, nowhere does it say that the patriarchs lived metaphorical 800+ years.

and certainly it doesn't say anywhere that god recreated the world, as if there was another world before this. is it possible you read a SF book and you got confused?

Originally posted by buckky
Why are we suppose to believe that this book is something more than another religious book ? What about it is different from the pack of other Holy Books ? I don't get it. Why has this book been labeled the Word of God ?

"I don't get it. Why has this book been labeled the Word of God?"

For many reasons, but there is one reason that completely overshadows all other so-called "holy books".

In the Bible you will read about a saviour, and not just any savior, but one that died and was raised from the dead.

No other can make that claim.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
oh so adam didn't actually lived before the fall? or there was no time recorded?

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(not recreated not created for the 7th time, created) your recreation only stems from your imagination

4.God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night". And there was evening, and there was morni ...[text shortened]... another world before this. is it possible you read a SF book and you got confused?

oh so adam didn't actually lived before the fall? or there was no time recorded?
No. The time of Adam's age is given as those years which occurred after the Fall.

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(not recreated not created for the 7th time, created) your recreation only stems from your imagination
God doesn't create something that could be construed to be chaotic or vacant, void.

don't expect you to understand with your clouded judgment. you even warp the bible, the book you're supposed to be good at.
News flash: we're all supposed to be good at it. The fact that you miss its finer points isn't surprising: you give it no authority in your life in the first place.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]oh so adam didn't actually lived before the fall? or there was no time recorded?
No. The time of Adam's age is given as those years which occurred after the Fall.

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(not recreated not created for the 7th time, created) your recreation only stems from your imagination
God doesn't ...[text shortened]... finer points isn't surprising: you give it no authority in your life in the first place.[/b]

No. The time of Adam's age is given as those years which occurred after the Fall.

Based upon what source(s)?

God doesn't create something that could be construed to be chaotic or vacant, void.

Why not? Is a differentiation being made between what is being created and what occurs de facto in the process of creation?

News flash: we're all supposed to be good at it. The fact that you miss its finer points isn't surprising: you give it no authority in your life in the first place.

This strikes me as unabated emoting. Am I wrong, do you possess a degree in theology? Have you attended any seminary study at all? Or is merely the divine grace of your holy opinion?

Originally posted by Badwater
No. The time of Adam's age is given as those years which occurred after the Fall.

Based upon what source(s)?

God doesn't create something that could be construed to be chaotic or vacant, void.

Why not? Is a differentiation being made between what is being created and what occurs de facto in the process of creation?

News flas ...[text shortened]... you attended any seminary study at all? Or is merely the divine grace of your holy opinion?

Why not? Is a differentiation being made between what is being created and what occurs de facto in the process of creation?
What comes from God is perfect. Your second sentence doesn't make sense.

This strikes me as unabated emoting.
"Unabated?" Really? What: you flipped open a thesaurus and it landed on the 'un' section?

Am I wrong, do you possess a degree in theology?
To what degree is it relevant, exactly?

Have you attended any seminary study at all?
Every day. You?

Or is merely the divine grace of your holy opinion?
Nah, I just crib mine from the best. What informs yours?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Why not? Is a differentiation being made between what is being created and what occurs de facto in the process of creation?
What comes from God is perfect. Your second sentence doesn't make sense.

This strikes me as unabated emoting.
"Unabated?" Really? What: you flipped open a thesaurus and it landed on the 'un' section?

...[text shortened]... grace of your holy opinion?
Nah, I just crib mine from the best. What informs yours?[/b]

the best what? you haven't given any biblical reference whatsoever.

but then again, i don't know why am i surprised. its standard fundamentalist behaviour.
make a claim, offer no argument supporting it, and when asked for it change the subject or claim we simpletons cannot grasp your superior knowledge.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Why not? Is a differentiation being made between what is being created and what occurs de facto in the process of creation?
What comes from God is perfect. Your second sentence doesn't make sense.

This strikes me as unabated emoting.
"Unabated?" Really? What: you flipped open a thesaurus and it landed on the 'un' section?

...[text shortened]... grace of your holy opinion?
Nah, I just crib mine from the best. What informs yours?[/b]

You go to a seminary? Really? Which one? Or are you merely speaking from a lower orifice?

My second sentence does make sense. It only does not to you, and therein lies the distinction.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the best what? you haven't given any biblical reference whatsoever.

but then again, i don't know why am i surprised. its standard fundamentalist behaviour.
make a claim, offer no argument supporting it, and when asked for it change the subject or claim we simpletons cannot grasp your superior knowledge.

you haven't given any biblical reference whatsoever.
Did you miss that we were talking about Genesis 1 and onward?

... change the subject or claim we simpletons cannot grasp your superior knowledge.
Ha! I wasn't going to change the subject. Simpleton.

Originally posted by Badwater
You go to a seminary? Really? Which one? Or are you merely speaking from a lower orifice?

My second sentence does make sense. It only does not to you, and therein lies the distinction.

My second sentence does make sense. It only does not to you, and therein lies the distinction.
Let's examine it together, then:

Is a differentiation being made between what is being created and what occurs de facto in the process of creation?

According to one definition of the term, de facto is described as thus:

De facto is a Latin expression that means "by [the] fact". In law, it is meant to mean "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established."

If you were using the term in its normative use, it would look like this:

Is a differentiation being made between what is being created and what occurs by the fact in the process of creation?

or

Is a differentiation being made between what is being created and what occurs in actuality without being officially established in the process of creation?

Therefore--- as stated--- your sentence makes no sense.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]you haven't given any biblical reference whatsoever.
Did you miss that we were talking about Genesis 1 and onward?

... change the subject or claim we simpletons cannot grasp your superior knowledge.
Ha! I wasn't going to change the subject. Simpleton.[/b]

no, i didn't miss that. nowhere in there does it say about recreation. nowhere does it say that adam only god birthday cakes after the fall.

not to mention that saying "my proof is in that book, from verse 1 to end" doesn't count as giving proof. it is like me giving you a shuffled not alphabetised phonebook and saying "my phone number is there. somewhere, find it".

"God doesn't create something that could be construed to be chaotic or vacant, void."
does this not count as a subject change? what does it even mean? i pointed out that there was nothingness before verse 1 and the whole creation was done in 6 days. you ignored that and blurted out that nonsense. you changed the subject

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no, i didn't miss that. nowhere in there does it say about recreation. nowhere does it say that adam only god birthday cakes after the fall.

not to mention that saying "my proof is in that book, from verse 1 to end" doesn't count as giving proof. it is like me giving you a shuffled not alphabetised phonebook and saying "my phone number is there. somewhe ...[text shortened]... done in 6 days. you ignored that and blurted out that nonsense. you changed the subject

In beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth became chaos and vacant. He didn't create it that way, it became that way. Then, in the middle of verse two, we see the Spirit of God hovering over the waters which are surrounding the earth--- the initiation of God's re-creation of the earth.

That God doesn't create anything other than perfection is not a change in subject; it merely helps us sort out that something other than His creative works occurred and is talked about in verse one. Does verse one tell us what caused the chaos, the vacancy or the darkness? No. For that, we have to go elsewhere in the Bible.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth became chaos and vacant. He didn't create it that way, it became that way. Then, in the middle of verse two, we see the Spirit of God hovering over the waters which are surrounding the earth--- the initiation of God's re-creation of the earth.

That God doesn't create anything [i]ot ...[text shortened]... the chaos, the vacancy or the darkness? No. For that, we have to go elsewhere in the Bible.

who hammered this nonsense into your head?

a work in progress is called imperfect? it is stated clearly that god created things in a certain order and that he "saw that it was good", not that he said "o fudge, i made a mistake let's recreate stuff".

it merely helps us sort out that something other than His creative works
occurred and is talked about in verse one
no it doesn't.

Does verse one tell us what caused the chaos, the vacancy or the darkness?
yes it does. there was nothing. then there was something. that something wasn't finished because there are still days to go to be done creating that something. so it wasn't the "non-chaotic, non empty" universe we see today. (because supernovas or black holes totally aren't chaotic , also there aren't vast expanses of basicly nothingness). god separated light from darkness. darkness is also explained

For that, we have to go elsewhere in the Bible
do you believe your wisdom is so valuable that you share only bits and pieces of it? is this a manner of annoying someone i haven't heard of?

go where in the bible? you ramble on how god recreated the world but in conclusion when you are about to give the winning argument of a magic passage in the bible, you simply end with a "To be continued at some time in the future".

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
who hammered this nonsense into your head?

a work in progress is called imperfect? it is stated clearly that god created things in a certain order and that he "saw that it was good", not that he said "o fudge, i made a mistake let's recreate stuff".

it merely helps us sort out that something other than His creative works
occurred and is ta in the bible, you simply end with a "To be continued at some time in the future".

a work in progress is called imperfect?
There is no "work in progress" in verse one. It is simply stated that He created the heavens and the earth, without reference to anything other... until, in the next verse, wherein the earth--- note: not the universe, just the earth--- becomes chaos, vacancy and darkness. You do go on about quite a bit without the benefit of support. That we are not told in these verses about what causes the chaos, vacancy and darkness is really not an issue, since we are told in other parts of Scripture what caused the same.

no it doesn't.
Great response.

yes it does. there was nothing. then there was something. that something wasn't finished because there are still days to go to be done creating that something. so it wasn't the "non-chaotic, non empty" universe we see today. (because supernovas or black holes totally aren't chaotic , also there aren't vast expanses of basicly nothingness). god separated light from darkness. darkness is also explained
Unfortunately, your interpretation lacks both inner and outer support. The second verse of Scripture doesn't refer to anything but the earth. Moreover, you use nothing but your English translation by which to come to your conclusions, themselves speculative and wholly unsupported by the rest of Scripture.