That’s not fair. Some of us are really new to these theories and are fighting a lifetime of indoctrination against them. I love reading through these comments… I learn and I struggle with my beliefs. I have always believed in evolution because I’m not afraid of science, but never found a community who shared these beliefs before this. Show some grace. Your response taught me nothing except that you are willing to belittle someone who is at a different place in seeking than you are.
@pevaquark You too. And you both are moderators. Maybe reread the community guidelines.
2 Likes
While you are throwing moderators under the bus, I guess you’ll probably add me to the heap here too…
If you have a thin skin, then a public forum (even this one) will probably not be a safe place for you. We do our best, but sharp edged comments towards many that we directly address whom we feel should really know better about something … that is pretty normal forum discourse. We speak the same language that everyone else speaks around here, which can include sarcasm. It’s going to have rough edges at times. Feel free to point at any specific posts (including those from us moderators) that you feel clearly violate guidelines and we will at least pay attention.
[And all that said, if anybody feels inexperienced here or like they have ‘newbie’ status, I think they’ll find that most of us do really want to accommodate and help - not condescend to, or belittle. It’s when people come with all guns-blazing, and thinking to knock everyone else about here, that they tend to get replied to with the same level that they themselves choose to converse at. If you’re struggling with something and earnestly want to learn - then please flag any posts that belittle you, and you can be pretty sure we’ll make those posts (or those parts of posts) go away.]
3 Likes
I’m not throwing moderators under the bus. I’m suggesting they show some grace to people who are new at this. I did address 2 responses directly, neither of which engaged the question but said dude, go read something. He was reading something. He was reading these forums. “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6 – This is at the top of the page. If you’re okay to being dismissive to people who are seeking truth… like, what is the point of this even? I don’t care if your responses are “seasoned with salt” as it were. But work on the full of grace thing. Why is sarcasm necessary in this context? I didn’t read anything “guns-ablazing” in his question. I was also interested in the answer. And, I wasn’t the one belittled, so I’m not doing this because I have thin skin. You all were really quick to judge the guy’s motives- maybe it was a gotcha question… and maybe it wasn’t. I’m just saying… err on the side of grace.
2 Likes
That’s a good reminder that responses are not just to the person who asked, but also to the many other interested readers. Point taken - and we moderators are very aware of that. You also may not be aware of what all may have transpired leading up to various posts. There are people here who have been responded to with grace and expertise many times and with much labor, but who persist in willfully repeating wrong-headed things that we know they should know better. Sometimes a sharp answer may be the only appropriate grace left to show someone. I’m not saying this applies to the specific case you mention. Just that we’ve been around the block a few times around here - and so generally know what we’re doing most of the time.
And yes - we sometimes get too comfortable too, probably. We will no doubt be inconsistent in trying to fairly apply and use grace where all it’s needed. Thanks for holding us accountable, and being as patient as you can be with us too.
1 Like
Thank you for your kind response. We are all growing in grace together, are we not?!
3 Likes
@Rohan The only view that would take it as a “gap” (BTW, I didn’t read you as supporting the gap theory but a creative act that preceded Day 1) is the one that (a) sees Day 1 beginning in v. 3 and (b) sees v.2 as the result of v.1 (then vv.3-31 are the forming of the stuff created in v.1 and described in v.2). I myself think it’s the most unlikely view, though possible. Even here, one would read later statements of six days as referring to the forming in vv.3-31.
The other main views are that (a) v.1 is an independent clause serving as as a title/summary of vv.3-31; and (b) v.1 is a dependent clause (e.g., “In the beginning when God created,…”) with the main clause beginning in v.3 (e.g., NJPS, NAB) or v.2 (e.g., NRSV). In these views, “heaven and earth” is still a summary of vv.3-31, but v.2 is simply the state of affairs before God’s act of creation. IOW, it sees Gen 1 as not teaching creation out of nothing (but doesn’t deny it either; one would just need to go to other Scripture for this teaching). To the point, the later references to six days has no conflict whatsoever with this cluster of views.
There are other readings. E.g., Sailhamer takes v.1 as the creation of the universe, with the six days (beginning in v.2) as God’s preparation of the Promised Land (= Eden).
So, there’s really no problem with the later six days references. Any of these views could reasonably justify them. (I think some are more likely than others, but I don’t see an insurmountable hurdle with any of them.)
2 Likes
Maybe so. I think Rohan has gotten a ton of grace from me and a ton of personal attention as I have repeatedly investigated answers to questions for him. But comments like the one I responded to, perhaps not as nicely as was called for, make we wonder if he even reads the stuff we have put time into digging up for him. He’s been kind of demanding and repetitive in the past and the moderators are human and there are limits to our patience with people who seem like they might just be wasting our time.
2 Likes
Sorry for being dismissive @Rohan. I’ll try and be more patient. But please stop reading about what ECs think on creationist websites and start paying more attention to what we keep telling you here. 
3 Likes
I have no knowledge of your history with Rohan but I was interested in the responses to his question. I really appreciated those who followed up and I gained insight because he asked that question. So maybe keep in mind, that even if he isn’t reading or following up, others might be be gleaning something from your time and effort.
3 Likes
And of course it’s purely a literary expression, bound by the limitations of our humanity: there is no end, no beginning of beginnings. The greatest single fact is immovable in the weakness of our finity: eternity.
What is? I haven’t been keeping up with the conversation.
The thread title. Like Once upon a time.
1 Like
The problem with this is that it appears that the editor of the Torah used the six days motif to justify the Sabbath, rather than the exodus motif found in an earlier verson of the Covenant found in Deuteronomy.
Jesus said that the Sabbath is not a part of Creation, and it is not a part of the Christian covenant. Therefore the 6-day motif is not valid.
where did he say it’s not part of the sabbath?
Where did Jesus say the sabbath doesn’t have to do with creation? What verse?
- Mark 2:
- 27 Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
That doesn’t exclude creation.
God rested from his creation on the Sabbath so that does exclude creation from the Sabbath. At least on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. On Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday He continued to create. And on Sunday we don’t know what He is doing. 
I meant in terms of the analogous days. Of course it is ‘connected’ to creation, or ‘has to do with’ creation – just count to seven. 
It is not ‘excluded’ from creation any more than Sunday is excluded from a week. Creation, as a verb, though, is excluded on the Sabbath. (Maybe read The Lord’s Day of Rest.)
Take it up with Roger; he’s the one who said:
- I didn’t say that, did I?
- Because @Relates said that, Rohan–with perfectly good reason–asked:
and again: