How is it that the evolutionists . . .

[Kdall]

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

Hermaphrodite, not eunuch. They have both sets of genitalia. For some one of the two sets can be internalized but still active.

Several years ago a 'female' Olympic sprinter had her medal taken up from her when testing discovered that she had internal testes, meaning that she wasn't actually a woman.

Kind of sucks for athletes at that level who are hermaphroditic. They have no way to compete because they can't fit into either category of male or female, and there aren't enough of them to have their own category

 

[Kdall]

Simply, how did plant life come into existence that it too, reveals no transitions in the zillions of species on display?

No doubt somebody pointed this out a while back for you, but there are countless transitional plant species and fossils (which is somewhat remarkable seeing as how delicate plant matter is).

Are you aware that much of what you consider plants aren't actually plants? Algae, kelp, and the like fall into the Kingdom Protista. They have no cell walls as plants do, but still look and behave similarly. The point of me telling you this is that green algae is the first stage of photosynthetic life. It's the ancestor of all plants.

Additionally the fossil record tells us exactly when different types of plants arose. For example, pines and conifers first show up in rock that is from the Jurassic Period, while flowering and fruit-bearing angiosperms show up only in the Cretaceous. The dinosaurs barely ever even saw a flower before they were wiped out

 

[Interplanner]

This material should have been in the first post about 2 Peter 3. I'll copy it to the other discussions of creation.

2 Peter 3's vocabulary on creation and time.

v5a The heavens existed. 'ekpalai' To have existed for a long time. The NEB is not reliable here when it puts heavens and earth together as the subject. The NIV is correct.

5b. The earth was formed out of water and through water by God's word. 'sunestosa' to be given structure, sense, consistency.

Like Gen 1, there is a universe in existence while the earth was not the form we now have. There is nothing about 'sunestosa' that indicates time like 'ekpalai' does. That comes next.

v6 that (ancient) world was destroyed by water. Notice again that the habitable part is the focus. It does not mean the entire planet was destroyed, just as 'sunestosa' does not mean it came into existence from nothing. Both mean the habitable zone was given livable structure or it was taken away.

Peter is saying there was a relatively short amount of time between creation and the flood because both are grouped as being part of 'that (old) world.'

By referring only to the habitable zone, he is also validating that there was a different atmosphere. That's the world that was formed then destroyed. We are now in a world with a different atmosphere. This is yet another reason why 'sunestosa' is not from nothing at all but rather the forming of material into a certain structure. It is from no structure, but it is not from no materials.

The intention of Peter was to show that the judgement of the world did not necessarily have to happen right after the Gospel events, nor even right after the destruction of Jerusalem. That it could still be delayed a long time. For the same reason, there is no hurry when dating the 6 days of creation. The heavens existed long before. (If you think that the coming of v4 is the Gospel event, that's a separate discussion).

We know that 'formless and void' is the result of an act of judgement from Jer 4:23. So Peter is saying here that God was patient about what was going on before his own 6 days of creative work, but finally destroyed--in displeasure-- what was there and made a world habitable for mankind who would have an imprint of God like no other.

Both the gospel writers and Paul refer to the judgement of Israel as settled (the house is left desolate; the wrath of God has come upon them completely) many years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Peter uses the examples of the primitive earth and the flood to show that the judgement will certainly come no matter how much they are doubted.

 

[6days]

That's fine for the 6 days;*

So you agree that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days? You agree that He created "male and female from the beginning of the creation"

it is not the background on 'formless and void' that is now known.

Background...before "the beginning"?*

Scripture says nothing about previous creations as you seem to wish to add into scripture.

In the beginning, God created. ...over the course of the next six days, He created and formed until He declared it "very good".*

 

[Kdall]

So you agree that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days? You agree that He created "male and female from the beginning of the creation

6days what are your feelings on people who are neither male nor female? They exist, yet Jesus left them out.

I can tell you exactly why he left them out, assuming of course he was even aware of their existence. But if you truly think that "male and female from the beginning of creation" is literal and inarguable the way that you believe "6 days" is, then you leave only one option: that Jesus was wrong

So what is it?

 

[6days]

v5a The heavens existed. 'ekpalai' To have existed for a long time. The NEB is not reliable here when it puts heavens and earth together as the subject. The NIV is correct.

All the versions describe the creation event in Genesis 1

New International Version
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

New Living Translation
They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth out from the water and surrounded it with water.

English Standard Version
For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,

Berean Study Bible
But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

Berean Literal Bible
For this is concealed from them willingly, that heavens existed long ago and*the*earth, having been composed out of water and through water, by the word of God,

New American Standard Bible*
For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

King James Bible
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
They willfully ignore this: Long ago the heavens and the earth were brought about from water and through water by the word of God.

 

[Interplanner]

So you agree that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days? You agree that He created "male and female from the beginning of the creation"



Background...before "the beginning"?*

Scripture says nothing about previous creations as you seem to wish to add into scripture.

In the beginning, God created. ...over the course of the next six days, He created and formed until He declared it "very good".*

You don't understand.
1, the verb tense of v2 is 'when God began creating...' It turns out this is forming. It is 'sunestosa' in 2 Pet 3. Material was already there.
2, you have not dealt with the section title matter. I listed about 10 in Moses and stopped. 1:1, 2:4, 5:1, etc.
3, 2 Peter 3 is clear that material (water) was there before 'sunestosa' The heavens were there 'ekpalai' for a long time.
4, in all parallel ancient near east cosmologies, there is a pre-existing condition when the victorious creator god creates. The victory is that he has defeated a sinister creature, usually a sea-monster. This is mentioned in some Psalms and in Job.

Let me know when you have a good enough grasp of NT Greek lexically to say how much difference there is between 'ekpalai' and 'sunestosa' in 2 Pet 3. I take Peter's interp over mine or yours anyday.

 

[Interplanner]

All the versions describe the creation event in Genesis 1

New International Version
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

New Living Translation
They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth out from the water and surrounded it with water.

English Standard Version
For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,

Berean Study Bible
But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

Berean Literal Bible
For this is concealed from them willingly, that heavens existed long ago and*the*earth, having been composed out of water and through water, by the word of God,

New American Standard Bible*
For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

King James Bible
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
They willfully ignore this: Long ago the heavens and the earth were brought about from water and through water by the word of God.

Right, most of them have the time offset between the existence of the heavens and the forming of earth. Forming is not new material; it is a new structure. The material was there. So Peter says 'out of water and through water.'

The NEB has a fault when it groups heavens and earth together as 'ekpalai' The Greek only refers to heavens on that.

I can see where you might think the 1:1 title is referring to a very old act of creation--so long as you include that time frame. But in no other case in Moses does a section title 'move the action' forward. They are just titles used by those students who were memorizing. They had to know the material from one title to another when prompted to recite it.

 

[6days]

6days what are your feelings on people who are neither male nor female? They exist, yet Jesus left them out.

I can tell you exactly why he left them out, assuming of course he was even aware of their existence. But if you truly think that "male and female from the beginning of creation" is literal and inarguable the way that you believe "6 days" is, then you leave only one option: that Jesus was wrong

So what is it?

You left out one option.... that you are wrong....your argument is silly.
Jesus was correct . Adam was formed from the dust...Eve was formed from Adams rib.

 

[Kdall]

You left out one option.... that you are wrong....your argument is silly.
Jesus was correct . Adam was formed from the dust...Eve was formed from Adams rib.

"Man and woman from the beginning of creation" doesn't leave room for any other sex. If you think that "six days" is obviously straightforward and literal, then you are being inconsistent with the other statement. You are picking and choosing what you want to believe

 

[6days]

You don't understand.

What I understand is that I can post scripture .... and then you feel the need to try give it a new meaning.

, the verb tense of v2 is 'when God began creating...' It turns out this is forming. It is 'sunestosa' in 2 Pet 3. Material was already there.

It's really difficult for you to accept how all the various translation teams translated, isn't it?

Also as was pointed out to you previously bara and asah (created and formed) are words used interchangeably in Hebrew as they are in English. For example scripture tells us God 'bara' the stars...and describing that we are also told He 'asah' the stars.*

 

[6days]

"Man and woman from the beginning of creation" doesn't leave room for any other sex.

Correct... That is what Genesis tells us... That is what Jesus tells us. He created male and female at the beginning.

 

[Kdall]

Correct... That is what Genesis tells us... That is what Jesus tells us. He created male and female at the beginning.

"From the beginning" is not the same as "at the beginning." When I tell you I have been running my business cleanly from the start, that doesn't mean that I only ran it cleanly initially. It means that I ran my business cleanly at the start and all the way up to the present

 

[6days]

"From the beginning" is not the same as "at the beginning." When I tell you I have been running my business cleanly from the start, that doesn't mean that I only ran it cleanly initially. It means that I ran my business cleanly at the start and all the way up to the present

Congrats at running your business cleanly from the start... but too bad you didn't operate it cleanly from the beginning.
I think it would make your customers uneasy if they knew the way you split hairs

 

[Kdall]

Congrats at running your business cleanly from the start... but too bad you didn't operate it cleanly from the beginning.
I think it would make your customers uneasy if they knew the way you split hairs

It's hard to run a meth lab cleanly. I'm proud of my efforts

 

[Interplanner]

What I understand is that I can post scripture .... and then you feel the need to try give it a new meaning.



It's really difficult for you to accept how all the various translation teams translated, isn't it?

Also as was pointed out to you previously bara and asah (created and formed) are words used interchangeably in Hebrew as they are in English. For example scripture tells us God 'bara' the stars...and describing that we are also told He 'asah' the stars.*

And you don't accept what 2 Pet 3 is saying. Why is that? Why would you have it better (reading English translations) than Peter did? He pit 'ekpalai' vs 'sunestosa' for a reason.

 

[Interplanner]

I numbered my points so you would deal with each. Shall I conclude that you won't deal with section titles?

 

[Stripe]

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about. :idunno:

The Bible says everything was made in six days. If you want to stay in line with scripture, you need to reject your evolutionism.

 

[Kdall]

The Bible says everything was made in six days. If you want to stay in line with scripture, you need to reject your evolutionism.

You need to learn how to reconcile faith with fact. It can easily be done, but you have to actually understand the science

 

[Interplanner]

I have no idea what you're talking about. :idunno:

The Bible says everything was made in six days. If you want to stay in line with scripture, you need to reject your evolutionism.

What you're doing Stripe is assuming that there is something evil about time before day 1 of creating/forming the earth. There is not. There were other things going on.

I supposed to simplify things "Bible teachers" have just avoided the subject of before the forming of earth (which really means forming the potentially habitable zone, not producing the material as though nothing was there).

But we can't. If you've been reading the material here on 'formless and void', on other ancient near east cosmology, on 2 Pet 3, you'll know that there is a lot suggested going on before the forming of earth/our solar system.