Featured genesis 1:1 and creation ex nihilo

I did, based on an issue many scholars (Sailhamer, Walton, Sarfati) have brought up. And clearly, your answers are not removing the issue for many here.

If you want to know who, read! They are directly responding to you.

 

robycop3, #35 for instance. That was a direct response. And myself (if I count). And Sarfati even believes you've fallen into a trap, if you're willing to listen to him.

In previous discussions you've admitted the earth could be billions of years old. You said it wasn't likely, but once you admit to that gap, the door is open.

 

Indeed, and he uses the same merism he began with (heavens and the earth), indicating the 6 days were the creation of the heavens and the earth.

 

No, I'm not wrong. Your argument is the same as Sailhamer's. He claims the Bible does not say how old the earth is. He says it could be young could be old. You're saying that same thing. I contend both you and Sailhamer are dead wrong on Genesis 1.

 

Hmmmm. Interesting. So you believe the phrase "heavens and the earth" in Gen. 1:1 prior to the 6 days is a merism conveying the idea of the entire universe. But that same phrase that appears immediately after the 6 days is not connected to the 6 days?

Gen. 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.​

These two phrases act like bookends around the 6 days. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth > 6 days > the heavens and earth were completed.

But you say this is nonsense? You say this last merism is not connected to the 6 days, even though it's actually said immediately after the 6th day right before the 7th day? Here's the entire passage in context.

Gen. 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Gen. 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.​

But you say the last merism is about day 8? Very interesting how you put all this together. I humbly disagree.

 

It's amazing how little inclined I am to insult you back. I think its because I'm much more confident of my arguments.

You stated that the Genesis 2:1 merism (heaven and earth) was talking about day 8. Even though it appears in the narrative at the end of day 6. And then, when I point it out, you have a fit. Very typical. But I'm merely responding to what you're saying. Do you really believe Genesis 2:1 is speaking about day 8? If so, why is it mentioned before day 7?

But the careful reader knows the narrative of the creation account is 1:1-2:4 (or 3 depending how you view the toledoth statement).

 

You've stated very clearly you believed it's possible the earth was very old, even billions of years, but unlikely. I called it out at the time. You never recanted. Now you're saying you never said that?

 

You keep running from your own words. You said God was speaking about the 8th day. I corrected you.

Look at your own words. The merism of Gen. 2:1 is after the 6th day, before the 7th day just as i said. It was not the 8th day.

I said the completion of the heavens and earth was speaking of the creation process over 6 days. You said it was nonsense. But you don't think that's nonsense you agree with it. You're so busy arguing, you're losing sight of what your arguing about.

Just admit you misspoke and move on. This is getting silly.

 

Fine. We'll both just pretend you didn't say 8th. Let's move on.