> that the first creation of God was a mess
Argumentum ad absurdum. The earth was an unfinished work on the first day. God’s creation was not completed on Day one or Day 2, but at the end of Day 6. It was on that 6th Day that God looked at all He had created and said that it was “very good”.
And it’s better than believing that Death came before Adam sinned. If that were true, why would we need Christ to defeat the Death that God’s Word says was introduced by Adam’s sin?
> and that dinosaurs were on the ark.
Why is that difficult to believe? They didn’t have to be full grown, hundreds of years old dinos. They were most likely much younger and much smaller.
> that Mastodons were so quickly frozen in an ice age
Also not at all hard to believe, perfectly congruent with what happened during and after the flood.
You must do yourself a favor and read “The Genesis Flood”, by Whitcomb and Morris.
So you’re saying that in each of the following verses He meant only partly good?
Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good:
Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1: 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
>>If that were true, why would we need Christ to defeat the Death that God’s Word says was introduced by Adam’s sin?<<
It’s rather simple really. Because the creation after destruction of the earth prior to Genesis 1:2 was a new start just as there will be after the world that we know is destroyed by fire.
>>They were most likely much younger and much smaller.<<
And all of paleontology, geology, and anthropology are completely wrong. Is that your contention?
>>Also not at all hard to believe, perfectly congruent with what happened during and after the flood.<<
There was an ice age during or after the flood? I’m sure we will soon unearth the writing about that event. Right? Of course we are told exactly how long the flood lasted and the account of that event was rather complete. Maybe they forgot about the ice age part. Right?
Is it any wonder why unbelievers see Christians as totally naïve and so many who grew up in the church begin to doubt after they realize that there is no way this earth is only 6-7000 years old?