Creation or AntiGenesis?

I'm adding on to this in yellow

Read this:

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/garden-of-eden/where-was-the-garden-of-eden-located/

Yes, I'm familiar with this article and others like it and that's exactly what I'm referring to. If you go by the Bible and believe the Bible "means what it says," then the Bible identifies the Tigris River of the Garden of Eden with post-flood Assur/Assyria (Gen 2.14) on the surface of the earth (not buried miles below) and there is nothing to suggest otherwise that Moses is referring to a different river by the same name (same goes for the Euphrates). If someone knows nothing about the fossil record and is just going by the Bible and believes the Bible "means what it says," then there is NO way that someone could come to the conclusion that the Euphrates River in Genesis 2.14 & 15.18 is referring to two different rivers by the same name.  Any Bible believer who reads through Genesis and believes the Bible "means what it says" would have to believe from reading the Bible that the Euphrates river in Gen 2.14 & the Euphrates river in Gen 15.18 are referring to the same Euphrates river (and the same Euphrates river in Duet. 1.7 & Duet. 1.24 & Josh 1.4 & 2 Sam. 8.3, etc., etc.). There is nothing in Scripture to indicate otherwise. If you disagree then you're going to have to explain to me how that's even possible to come up with those being two different rivers from Scripture and Scripture alone.

And that's my point. The ONLY reason YEC articles like the one you posted make this claim is when you try to factor in science and the fossil record. 

Like the article says:

"Not only this, but underneath the region where the present Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are located, there exists hundreds of feet of sedimentary strata—a significant amount of which is fossiliferous. Such fossil-bearing strata had to be laid down at the time of the Flood." ["had to be"---and yet NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that fossils are or 'have to be' the result of Noah's flood. That is an assumption].

Well, that is no different from the 'worldly reasoning'  and "oppositions of science" that Kjav complains about, when Kjav complains that Christians (falsely so-called in his opinion) who believe an "old earth" commit "damnable heresies" and are elevating science over the clear teaching of Scripture. And yet here YECs are doing the very thing they accuse others of doing: elevating science over the clear meaning of Scripture. Twisting Scripture to fit science, because there is no way that one can come up with Gen 2.14 & 15.18 refers to two different rivers by the same name from Scripture alone. There is no way to come to that conclusion by just reading the Bible and believing it "means what it says." It’s only by elevating science over the clear meaning of Scripture and by applying 'worldly wisdom' instead of trusting the Word of God that it is true in all it says and "means what it says."

*That is NOT believing the literal truth of the Bible. That is NOT believing the Bible literally "means what it says." That is NOT interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture. That is falsely misinterpreting Scripture and twisting it to say something it doesn't say in light of modern science (in light of modern scientific discoveries that there are miles of fossil record underlying the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers) instead of trusting and believing the truth of what the Bible says... what YECs accuse other Christians of not doing. 

*Like the diagram below shows: the location of the Garden of Eden according to YEC 'flood geology' (buried miles underground below the fossil record), stands in direct contradiction to Scripture---to the Word of God---which locates the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers of the Garden of Eden on the surface of the Earth and still present in the post-flood days of Abraham (see Gen. 15.18).

Really? That's your take away? I said nothing about the earth's diameter.

*Is the Euphrates River in Genesis 2.14 & the Euphrates River in Genesis 15.18 the same river, or two different rivers? 

Well, you said the old Tigris and Euphrates are under hundreds of feet of sediment for some reason, so .......

I said nothing of the sort. That’s where YEC flood geology says they have to be, but that is not what Scripture says. 

*But you didn't answer the question: Is the Euphrates River in Gen 2.14 and the Euphrates River in Gen 15.18 the same river, or two different rivers?

Different.

And how do you get that from a plain, straightforward, literal reading of Scripture?

   That the surface of the earth was obliterated by the opening of the fountains of the deep and the opening of the windows of Heaven.

   Also when the waters receded after the flood. It doesn't say they evaporated, it says they receded 
   It just seems to me that topographic features would be for the most part obliterated. Especially a 20' deep scratch on no the dirt like a river bed.

   But that's just my guess. It doesn't actually say that. If you think they're the same river ..... fine.

Well hold on now. If the plain meaning of "day" is "day," then surely the plain meaning of "Euphrates" is "Euphrates" and Gen 2.14 & 15.18 are referring to the same, and one and only known Euphrates River. And while your explanation makes a certain amount of sense from the standpoint of 'human wisdom' (yes, I agree, you would think everything would be obliterated), but doesn't the fact that Scripture tells us otherwise, and tells us the Euphrates was still identifiable in the days of Abraham---indentifiable enough that the Euphrates marked the Eastern border of the Land Promised to Abraham in Genesis 15.18---doesn't that fact of Scripture tell us that our 'human wisdom/reasoning' on the subject is wrong? 

*A plain, straightforward, literal reading of Genesis where we take the Bible as God's Word and believe it means precisely what it literally says, has to mean that the Euphrates River of Gen 2.14 is the same Euphrates River in Gen 15.18, and the same Euphrates River in Duetoronmy, and Joshua, and 2 Samuel, etc., etc. Shouldn't we trust God's Word over human wisdom & science?

***(And what Scripture says about the Tigris River is even more direct. The location of the  Tigris River of the Garden of Eden is directly identified in relation to a Post-Flood name (i.e., "East of Ashur") in Genesis 2.14)***

No, this is not some junior high debate tactic. This is the plain, straightforward, literal meaning of the Word of God. Yes, there are different Joseph's and James's and Johns's, but these are usually distinguished by telling us who they are "the son of." But there is only ONE known Euphrates River in all of human history that is also referred to in the Bible as the Great River, and that wasn't some obscure creek, but that together with the Tigris defined the whole land of Mesopotamia, the famous Fertile Crescent of human civilization, and the Eastern border of Israel. And that throughout all of Judaism and Christianity has been accepted to mean the same rivers that we know today as the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. It is only in the past 50-100 years that this twisted misinterpretation of God's Word has surfaced in deference to the 'science of the world' because only recently in modern times has the scientific discovery been made by oil industry drilling that several miles of fossil record underly the Tigris & Euphrates and that doesn't fit with YEC preconceptions and flood geology assumptions. 

But we don't even have to argue about it when it comes to the Tigris River. Because Scripture is crystal clear and identifies the Tigris River of the Garden of Eden as the same Tigris River that is East of the Post-Flood Ashur (famous capital city of Assyria whose ruins you can still see today just west of the Tigris River) in the same verse in Genesis 2.14, which would be impossible if the Flood obliterated the Tigris. But Scripture clearly indicates in the same verse that it was not and that the Tigris River of the Garden of Eden is the same river that is east of the Post-Flood Ashur. So no, this is not some junior high debate tactic, but a serious issue about believing the Bible means what it literally says down to the most minute detail.... which you claim you do

It is indeed Junior High debate tactics, as you are trying to slowly change the subject without us noticing. You are trying to prove that we do not believe the Bible completely (which we do), when the original discussion I believe was whether or not you believe the Bible. And if you do not believe the Bible (which you obviously don't), then what reason would you have in believing it at all? Why even discuss the Bible? Why not just read some other book which agrees with your standpoint completely? Or why not just stick with the New Testament? What I have been getting from this "discussion" (more of a fight in my opinion), is that you do not believe that the Old Testament should be considered part of the Bible. BUT... This leaves several theological holes if you try to take the New Testament without the old. The Old Testament is everything leading up to the New, and explains a lot of stuff which is in the New. And in fact, the New Testament itself makes several references to the Old Testament. Don't deny it. Taking the New without the Old takes a lot of air out of it. Think about it this way: As you are going through a time in your life, you are just taking the things as they come at you, not realizing the larger impact they are having on stuff. But then, looking back on it, everything clicks into place. You realize that A and B were related, when at the time you didn't think they were correlated at all. Only looking back at the old stuff in your life do you realize. I might not of worded that too well, but I think you can get the general gist of what I meant.

@ItsTimeForTim 

Wow, it's amazing how well you think you know me from just a handful of posts. The reality is you're wrong about me on all counts. And of course I believe the Old Testament should be part of the Bible. I'm also not trying to prove you don't believe in the Bible (unlike the insinuations & eternal judgments made so readily against me). I'm merely drawing attention to an inconsistent hermeneutic. But why don't we avoid making things personal and focus on the subject at hand which I have NOT been slowly changing, but have been talking about the same thing since post #38 (And I already stated that I believe the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative for the life of the believer). To the contrary, you seem to be the one who is evasive and not addressing the issue at hand.

*We are talking about the clear, literal meaning of Scripture. Genesis 2.14 *literally* says that the Tigris River coming from the Garden of Eden is east of Ashur (a very well-known Post-Flood city that was capital of Assyria during the same time of the Exodus & Wildnerness Wanderings, when it's believed Moses was given Genesis by divine revelation on Mt Sinai). 

*I believe the Bible means what it literally says in Genesis 2.14 that the Tigris River of the Garden of Eden still existed in Post-Flood times, because the Bible literally identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris with the Post-Flood Tigris east of the Assyrian capital of Ashur in the SAME verse. 

*Tellingly, you and @Kjav are resistant to accepting the plain, literal truth of Scripture as taught in this verse (Genesis 2.14), NOT on the basis of Scripture, but on the basis of what you know about modern science and the scientific discovery that miles of fossil record underlie the Tigris & Euphrates, and the implications of this, which don't jive with YEC flood geology assumptions. So to solve this, you have to do some mental gymnastics to get around the plain, literal teaching of Scripture. Am I judging you? No, I'm pointing out the inconsistency in interpretation, and the fact that by avoiding the literal meaning of Scripture you/Kjav are doing the same type of thing you (or perhaps it's just Kjav) accuse other Christians of doing.

*I agree with you and Kjav that the plain teaching of Genesis 1 is that "day" means a literal 24 hour day and I agree that OECs (Old Earth Creationists) who try to make "day" mean long periods of time are not interpreting Scripture correctly, but changing Scripture to concord with science. However, it is wrong to sit in judgment of such brothers and sisters in Christ, when here YECs do the same and avoid the literal teaching of Scripture, so that it accords with modern science & YEC flood geology assumptions. 

*OEC Christians are just trying to do the same that we all are as Bible believing Christians. They see the modern scientific evidence for old ages as undeniable, yet they are committed Bible believers who believe in its truth, so they believe "day" must be long ages, because otherwise this would make the Bible wrong, but they don’t believe the Bible is wrong. Now again, I agree with you and Kjav that they are wrong in their interpretation. "Day" in Genesis 1 clearly means a literal 24 hour day. But the point is they're just trying to figure it out like we all are. They're not some evil, nefarious, blasphemers who are committing "damnable heresies." Again, I think their interpretation is in error, but they still confess and believe Jesus as Lord, so they are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

*However, the tendency of YECs is to self-righteously judge other Christians as "damnable heretics" who are compromising Scripture by not accepting the clear literal truth of God's Word like they supposedly consistently do without fail. And yet YECs do the same type of mental gymnastics they accuse other Christians of doing when they don't accept the clear literal teaching of a simple, straightforward factual statement in Scripture like Genesis 2.14 that the Pre-Flood Tigris River is the same Tigris River that exists in Post-Flood times "East of Ashur." 

*I would have less of a problem with YECs doing this and extend grace to them, if only they would extend more grace to fellow believers with whom they disagree. But if YECs are going to keep insisting that OEC "believers" are not true believers but "damnable heretics" who reject the plain, literal truth of God's Word, then I will keep pointing out their hypocrisy that they don't accept the literal truth of God's Word either, when the implications don't suit them.  

....OR maybe we can all try to extend each other a little more grace, and recognize that we're all just trying to do the best we can at understanding Scripture

   Well said Tim. If you are as young as your profile indicates, you are ahead of your years. May God guide your steps as you grow in his grace and knowledge.

We have genealogies in Genesis and the Chronicles and Matthew and Luke and others that absolutely force the issue of a young Earth as detailed in Genesis 1. 
   You act as if the Bible is three chapters and we are left wondering what it could possibly mean.

   And as far as your concern for me judging you, we are commanded in Scripture to judge and be wise. In the book of Jude we are commanded to recognize unbelievers and that some are obstinate heretics and some genuine seekers and to treat the groups differently (and on some have compassion, making a difference [distinction]). You've felt the need to tell me I'm not God twice. That is exactly what open unbelievers tell me when I warn them of the law and judgement to come.

   When you get in public arguments like this with Bible believers, who comes to your rescue? Is it TruthMuse? No, it isn't. Is it InLoveWithJesus? No it isn't. It is the avowed atheists in the group who rush to your aid. Stephen recently. The world knows its own.
   What topics get you upset? I don't see you posting anywhere unless you are attacking normal Biblical doctrine or Orthodox Christianity. In other words you bark at all the same passers by that Satan's dogs bark at.

   Of course I'm not God and of course I can't see the entirety of your heart and of course I don't know for absolute certainty if you've been redeemed or if you haven't. But ......

   1) If it's covered in hair, that doesn't prove it's a dog.

   2) If it has big teeth that doesn't prove it's a dog.

   3) If it has a collar that says "My name is Fido, if lost please return to "XXX XX XXXX" that doesn't prove it's a dog.

   And on and on I could go, but all these things are evidences, and you do an awful lot of barking.

"Well said'"!! LOL!! Yes, you've both proven that you're exceptional at being evasive and avoiding answering tough questions by whining that the opposition's using unfair tactics. Talk about "junior high debate tactics"! LOL 😆 

....And you even reject olive branches, and attempts to be conciliatory and find common ground (like how I just acknowledged in post #55 that we all agree that "day" in Genesis means a literal 24 hour day, and that OECs who try to make "day" mean long ages are wrong and interpreting the Bible incorrectly). Fine, if you don't want to extend grace to each other like I recommend, then I'll keep pointing out your hypocrisy; and the fact that you don't interpret the Bible as literally as you think you do and claim; and the fact that I'm actually interpreting Scripture more in line with it's actual, true, original "literal" meaning, and without letting modern science affect my interpretation in any way (and I dont "attack" "normal Biblical doctrine/Orthodox Christianity, but am actually one of its staunchest defenders). You use an inconsistent hermeneutic. Sometimes you interpret the Bible according to its "literal" meaning. And sometimes you don't, but change the original, "literal" meaning to fit with modern science, and you don't even realize you're doing it (And Genesis 2.14 & 15.18 are not the only examples of you doing this)

*OECs & YECs both do the same thing: when they think the science is questionable for a given topic, then they reject the science and accept the "literal" meaning of Scripture. But when they think the science is indisputable, then they change the "literal" meaning of Scripture to fit with science.