and you think that denying our eyes, ears and senses and thousands of years of learning makes you trustworthy and real?
If Scripture was written by one person in one go then your view would be valid. Claiming God is that one person does not work bceause God does not take over people to the exclusion of their own mind and control or senses.
You think that humans are imperfect? Who scribed Scripture? Who wrote down what theythought God wanted.
Who translated the text. Why is there no standard text. Why has there always been discussion and debate over hat Scripture means. What makes your view the definitive one (if there is such a thing)
God knows I am not the authority to change your mind, but I know someone who is.
None of those say both “a full month” and “thirty days”, so you’re misrepresenting what the Bible actually says.
Not that it matters. Even if they did say people mourned for a month and it took 30 days, it wouldn’t mean that all months were 30 days, just some of them. Like some were in 2025.
The period between 17th Feb 2025 and 17th Jul 2025 was 150 days. This would hold true only if the months were 30 days long.
We know that from the 17th of the 2nd month of 2025 to the 17th of the 7th month of 2025 was 150 days. From the second month to the seventh month we have a total of five months; then if we divide the 150 days by those five months we find that a month in 2025 had 30 days: 150 ÷ 5 = 30
You could have answered the first time, but chose instead to quote some-one else’s version of the same argument, with the same massive flaw as your version, without any apparent thought.
I doubt this time will be any different. No , no , just a swallowing .
What would you say the ‘first month’ was? Not February for starters.
Then, are you using a calendar based on a 365 day year? Not sure why you think your repeating something gives it some value?
Then we have Dan and Rev which pinpoint the 360 day year/30 day month as well. Also Deut 21:13 She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month
So how long is a full month? Deut 34:8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.
A year in Scripture is 365 days. In the past and in the future. Even after the flood year in Deut it is counted as such (despite the fact that the calandar may have changed by then)
If by concordism we mean an attempt to turn Genesis into an ancient version of modern science, then that is not what I am trying to do.
But if the term is being used more broadly for the question of whether the structure of an ancient text can bear a real and substantive correspondence to the structure of created history, then yes — that is precisely the possibility I am trying to test within the EPT model.
I would also like to clarify my own attitude toward the model.
If you ask me, “Is EPT true?”, my answer is: I do not know.
At this stage I consider it internally coherent, and I have not yet encountered a reason strong enough to make me abandon it. But that is not the same as claiming that it is the final truth. The model could fail if someone showed an internal contradiction, an unjustified transition, a correspondence that the text does not actually support, or a conflict with scientific knowledge that the model itself commits to taking seriously.
That is one of the main reasons I brought it here.
I am not looking for supporters of EPT, and I do not expect to persuade people who already belong to particular scientific or theological camps to move into another camp. What would be much more useful to me is criticism of roughly this kind:
“Here is your starting claim; here is the next transition; and here is why that transition does not follow.”
Or:
“Here are two commitments of your model that cannot both be maintained.”
If you are interested in what exactly I was trying to test, the best place to start is probably the opening post itself. EPT begins by accepting the modern scientific reconstruction of the cosmic, geological, and evolutionary history of the world as the real history of the created world itself.
I do not see a need to choose between the Creator and evolution. If the evolutionary history of life really occurred, then for me it is itself part of the history of Creation, not something alien to the Creator from which the Creator needs to be defended.
I would not necessarily agree with every detail of this description of the two schools. But the problem you are identifying here seems to me very well put.
Unfortunately, this thread has indeed become, to a considerable extent, a debate between young-earth creationism and almost everyone else. But that was not what I originally opened it for.
I do not accept young-earth creationism. It requires rejecting or radically reinterpreting a large body of well-supported scientific conclusions about the age of the world and the evolutionary history of life. That conflicts with one of the starting commitments of the model.
I understand why so much of the energy in this thread has gone into debating young-earth creationism.
Young-earth creationism makes many concrete empirical claims about the age of the Earth, astronomy, geology, and evolutionary history. Those claims can immediately become subjects of disagreement without anyone first having to understand EPT.
Criticizing EPT itself requires more preliminary work: first establishing what exactly the model claims, and then showing where a particular transition, correspondence, or distinction fails. So it is quite natural that the debate over young-earth creationism has occupied considerably more space than the question for which I originally opened the thread.
In that sense, your point about a false dilemma is very close to my own concern. Perhaps the initial question can be framed differently:
Are we really forced to choose between reading Genesis as a competing scientific cosmology and reading it in such a way that its substantive relation to the real history of the world almost disappears?
EPT arose precisely as an attempt to test a third possibility: can an ancient, imagistic, theological text refer substantively to the same created reality that science describes in a very different conceptual language, without turning Genesis into either a scientific textbook or a “God of the gaps”?
And here I return to something I recently wrote in another discussion about the “silent reader.”
In one sense, this model was developed precisely for that kind of person — someone who does not yet belong to any of our theological camps and asks:
“How can you believe this if it contradicts science?”
My answer to that person is not that science is wrong or that Genesis says nothing substantive about reality.
My answer is much more modest:
I am not yet convinced that the contradiction itself is necessary. I want to test whether that apparent contradiction can be resolved coherently.
So your concluding thought — that perhaps the dilemma itself is preventing us from seeing Genesis 1–11 as something other than a battleground — seems very close to one of the main reasons this thread exists in the first place.
I do believe God is powerful enough to raise us from the dead. He can also make a world with a real history, not a fake one built to deceive.
You named what’s at stake (the resurrection, God dwelling in us, the reign to come) and it turns out I believe all three of those.
I also think your reading assumes the Genesis cosmogony shows a mechanistic world, one God had to shape by hand and tinker with to keep things on track while the text declares something bigger. God speaks His word from the beginning and His creation carries it out. He declares the end from the start while He sustains His laws at every instant. A God who made everything and then left it running alone would be a small demiurge, a less powerful God than the one Genesis shows.
God purposed His creation and that revelation does not require Genesis to be a scientific demonstration. A world unfolding by His word still has a real history because a real history can truly testify to its Maker that never lies.
So you asked what follows if God basically lied, that’s what I’m asking to YECs claiming the universe is unintelligible (or God was inept, confused, or kidding). A God who speaks truly in the picture His audience lives in is none of those four categories but it also require to understand what is the principle of accommodation to begin with.
Your last question was the real one, the ‘who decides what stays and what goes’. To be honest, I don’t think it’s a who if we have a sound principle that gets the job done and also, stays open enough for anyone to check it against the text.
So here is my offer. If I can show how Jesus Himself used accommodation in the NT to teach theological truths, would you accept that view as a Bible-believing way to be at peace with modern science?
Both the schools you list share a common error: that scientific accuracy is the measure of truth. The YEC view holds that everything the Bible says literally is scientifically accurate, the other holds that the Bible gets science wrong and tries to adjust the text to fit.
Then there’s the third school which recognizes that Genesis is ancient literature that has no interest in science and must be read as the kind of literature that is is, and doesn’t worry about the science.
The oops should tell you I didn’t mean it seriously. But now that you bring it up, it is a typo because your brain says a year is 365 days.
And another comment about your “prophetic” year. Genesis doesn’t define an entire year as 360 days. Daniel was tying his prophecy of the coming troubles to Israel back to the period of their failure to honour the sabbeth year. He is not defining the length of a solar year. And actually he was predicting the future and not defining the current length of the solar year so it doesn’t really work to argue science (and Egypt and Israel) is wrong.
What anyone here is “toss[ing] out as baloney” is not scripture but your refusal to treat it as the ancient literature it is. By doing so you toss out most of the actual message.
Yes. The word is not spoken then drops silent, the word goes forth and carries out its work. When God commanded the land to “Bring forth!” it was not a one-time event but an ongoing ‘wave’ that continues to this day!
, no 
, just a 
swallowing 
.