[Safrguns]

Oh how easy it is to argue in the negative.
I personally don't think that any civilization that MIGHT have existed before Adam is that important, otherwise there would be far more scriptures on the subject. The issue at hand concerns the 6000 vs ??? billion year old earth argument. My point was that the bible does NOT limit the age of the earth itself to 6000 years... That point does NOT depend upon anything CB said. It's right there in Genesis.

You seem to be the one speaking in circles.

[Hajman]

Oh how easy it is to argue in the negative.

What negative? I haven't made any claims that something does not exist, nor have I asked you to back any such claims. I'm simply wishing to see what evidence you have for your positive claim (that something existed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2) since the context of the said passage doesn't offer any assistance.

The issue at hand concerns the 6000 vs ??? billion year old earth argument. My point was that the bible does NOT limit the age of the earth itself to 6000 years... That point does NOT depend upon anything CB said. It's right there in Genesis.

No, it's not. Not without going beyond the passage itself. There's no context that gives the claim that it's anything but a direct creation story. The first event is Genesis 1:1. The first discription is Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:2 contextually follows Genesis 1:1 without pause or interruption. Event, description. Now there may be external references to this event, and a more detailed description may present itself, but within Genesis 1 itself, there's nothing to suggest anything but a 6 day creation. What does that have to do with CB? He's the one (as are you and any who make the positive claim that there's something extra there) who needs to provide evidence for such, either by explaining in the context of Genesis 1, or by bringing up a external passage that validates the argument (though to do so, the external passage would need to do such in it's own context).

You seem to be the one speaking in circles.

If you mean going over some of the same arguments, then that doesn't hurt my argument, for doing so doesn't invalidate such. However, if you mean circular reasoning, then please point it out, and I shall mend it to the best of my ability.

-The Hajman-