YECs are the believers who don’t let modern science influence their interpretations of the text. They read what’s there, while you read what you want to be there. In that I am indeed similar to a YEC. We just disagree on whether what’s there is true.
Something, yes. But that something doesn’t have to be creation. Based on that clue, it could as easily be a prior state of chaos with which God works. You may have reasons for believing otherwise, but “Then” can’t be one of them.
You seemed to have neglected to notice that this particular part of the forum is in a conversation labeled Theology.
Not a creative act, is it? “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is, but I’d say it’s clearly an abstract of what happens during the 6 days, as the heavens are not created until day 2.
Let’s recap:
Day 1: Light and its separation from darkness into day and night.
Day 2: Separation of waters above from waters below by a firmament, which is heaven.
Day 3: Gathering of waters into a sea and emergence of dry land. Plants (specifically angiosperms, though perhaps other plants are implied also).
Day 4: Sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Fish (perhaps including aquatic invertebrates, perhaps whales) and birds.
Day 6: Land animals and humans.
Now of course this is a scientifically ridiculous sequence that can’t be reconciled with what we know, so Dale and his friends jump through linguistic hoops to turn it into something else. But I’m supposing nobody else here thinks he has a case. Most would say that the sequence is not the point and shouldn’t be taken as an actual sequence of creation, just God’s claim over everything. How about you?
Still doesn’t make you sound less crazy if you label it “theology”. Would anyone else care to agree that your “co-instants” do indeed demonstrate the finger of God at work?
Whoo boy. What is the context. How many verses precede it. What does verse 1 say. How is the word used for the next 5 ‘days’. What might that suggest, or rather demand, that it means.
I didn’t say that it did, in fact I explicitly said that anyone who would claim that a man rose from the dead sounds crazy anywhere someone with your incredulity fallacy was within figurative earshot. What you missed was the non sequitor and incongruity of your complaint in this this conversation.
How many of those verses show an act of creation? Possibly one, but I’d call that an intro. Note that heaven is created on Day 2. Of course your idiosyncratic translation appears to turn “firmament” into “expanse”, which somehow means “weather cycle”. Am I right about that?
What might question marks contribute to sentences? “Then” refers to sequence, but not necessarily to a sequence of creative acts. That’s grammar.
Agreed, and I’m still missing it. I’m going to doubt that anyone else will accept your interpretation of all these coincidences, but I’m prepared to be surprised.
Why should it matter in this day and age whether some poor man 2000 years ago was killed and magically rose to heaven forty days later? Don’t we all have better things to do with our lives like making this life as meaningful and purposeful or just better.
You’ve failed in your attempt to be a grammar nazi, not recognizing that the questions without question marks denoted rhetorical questions. 
Again, your incredulity falacy is tripping you up. A fabricated purpose for a temporary life here does not compare to an eternity. Do the math.
“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” Jim Elliot
Good movie: //“End of the Spear” is the remarkable journey of a savage Amazon tribesman who becomes family to the son of a North American man he kills. Mincayani (Louie Leonardo) is a Waodani warrior who leads the raid that kills Steve Saint’s father and four other missionaries. Through a suspenseful series of events Steve Saint (Chase Ellison) is able to visit Mincayani’s tribe. Steve tries to learn which warriors killed his father, but has to leave with his question unanswered. Steve returns to the Waodani as an adult (Chad Allen). Together Mincayani and Steve confront the true meaning of the life and death of Steve’s father, and the other men who were killed.//
“Then God said…” refers to a sequence of interventions by God of one sort or another, not necessarily creation ex nihilo. That is grammar being read correctly. The atmosphere becoming translucent and then transparent do not require acts of creation ex nihilo.
And I’m not sure about ex nihilo, anyway. I think it’s cool rhat quantum mechanics is hinting that the fundamental reality of the universe is information. That’s not nothing.
Again, that’s not necessarily nothing.
Is it okay if I asked the manufacturer’s literature online instead? You are correct, at least about the current formulation of Endura. As I recall, an ophthalmologist told me that back in the early 2000s, I think. Restasis came on the market and Endura was taken off the market in the U.S. at essentially the same time. Endura was still sold in Canada, I discovered, because I was trying to find it online.
I was glad to discover it back on the market at Amazon recently, since it is not your typical OTC drop. It has a milky appearance when it is fresh, unlike any other I know of, and it has essentially the same refractive index as natural tears, also unlike any other that I am aware of.
But all of that is irrelevant to Timely RVs, since only its name was concerned, so I should probably edit the eye drop digression out of it.
//…since both co-instants involved RVs, the connotation of transience and dwellings is obvious and brings to mind the passages about earth not being our home//
That was merely an obvious correlation and metaphor, and nothing at all about cause and effect, so why is it such a stretch?
“When God began to create the heaven and the earth – the earth being unformed and void…”
(Jewish Publication Society).
Sorry, but that isn’t true. Rhetorical questions look just like regular questions. Someone has misled you.
I agree completely. Often, in Genesis 1, God creates by manipulating what’s already there. But there’s nothing at all about the atmosphere in the story. It’s not clear whether the sun, moon, and stars are created ex nihilo or from existing materials, but what is clear is that he does create them on day 4. All your weaseling over the text doesn’t change that at all.
I think it’s woo.
All your deprecatory verbiage doesn’t make your arguments any more compelling, either.
No weaseling involved, just reasonable inference. What is clear about the sequence of the language about day 4 has already been explained. “And it was so” is after ‘let’ and before ‘made’. Clearly. As in ‘transparent’.
You have to. You have no choice, given your worldview’s presuppositions.