indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before
the first Genesis day".

Ted Holden <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:<Q_WdnVaR5esjjdeiXTWJkw@fcc.net>...

Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] wrote:

one of the most contreversial biblical books in the endless debate on the
origin of life and evolution is Genesis however many do not understand it
in the porper way, including creationist (6dayquikie guys and gals
) the Genesis account was not written to show the how of creation.
Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way.

Gensis is writen from the standpoint of people on earth. it describes
events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been
present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth
Genesis day. There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries
in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun,
and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an
earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a
greater light that rules the day and the moon a lesser light that
dominates the night.Genesis 1:14-18. The first part of Genesis
indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before
the first Genesis day".

Very good. There are any number of things in the OT which indicate that it
was written by humans, to the best of their understandings at the time.

Wow, Ted, THIS is profound!

It is a dogma of establishment science that the tale of the biblical flood
is a fairytale or, at most, an aggrandized tale of some local or regional
flood.

Well, no, Ted, it's not the "dogma of established science" so much as
the CONCLUSION of established science.

Watch carefully, Ted, and you'll see why.

That, however, does not jive with the facts of the historical
record.

The word is "jiBe," Ted, and the fact is that it is the Flood that
does not jibe with any evidence, be it historical, geological or even
scientific in a general sense.

The flood turns out to have been part and parcel of some larger,
solar-system-wide calamity.

Oh, my!

I'm sure you will waste no time in providing some evidence for this?

Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?

In particular, the seven days just prior to the flood are mentioned twice
within a short space:

Gen. 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth
forty days and forty nights;...

Gen. 7:10 "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the
flood were upon the earth."

These were seven days of intense light, generated by some major cosmic event
within our system. The Old Testament contains one other reference to these
seven days, i.e. Isaiah 30:26:

"...Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and
the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days..."

Most interpret this as meaning cramming seven days worth of light into one
day.

No, Ted, most interpret this as LEGEND and nothing more.

Only those who cling to anything but actual science would presume
"interpret" it any other way.

That is wrong; the reference is to the seven days prior to the flood.
The reference apparently got translated out of a language which doesn't use
articles. It should read "as the light of THE seven days".

And why is that, Ted?

< snip more bizarre exegesis and the silly little .sig >

Ted, here's the deal: All of the nonsensical "speculation" that you
bore us with fails to deal with one very basic issue: The Flood, as
described in Genesis, never happened. You see, that's the problem
with the "explanation" that you provide. It ASSUMES THE CONCLUSION
and then tries to find a reason for it, despite the fact that the
conclusion is known by the best evidence to be false.

Now I realize, Ted, that this is way over your head; but there's
always the chance that you understand it.

So, if you want, we can debate it - right here.

Care to give it a go?

Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?