Old Earth/Young Earth

[kennethcadwell]

Re: When Did Death Begin?

When did death first occur?

Did satan & the fallen angels suffer spiritual death the moment they sinned?

When were they created? Could it be before Genesis 1:1?

When satan as the serpent tempted Eve in the Garden, was not satan already dead spiritually?

Physical death ( death in the flesh ) happens daily, and entered in the world from Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden.
Spiritual death does not happen tell after judgment.

And I believe the angels ( even though does not say ) was created when God created the heavens in Genesis.

 

[Atwood]

Re: When Did Death Begin?

Physical death ( death in the flesh ) happens daily, and entered in the world from Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden.
Spiritual death does not happen tell after judgment.

unscriptural nonsense. You are just saying things without scriptural proof.

It is appointed to man once to die, but after that the judgment.

That is physical death. It does not happen daily.

The body apart from the spirit is dead.
= physical death.

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

':1 Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear;
2 but your iniquities have made a separation
between you and your God,"

" And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden."

EPH 2


"And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, 2 wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; 3 among whom we also all once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:— 4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), 6 and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus:"

 

[Atwood]

Math is an applied concept. It's a concept that's applied to reality. A single object is given a name, one.

What is your proof of that?
What does it have to do with the questions I asked?

With two ones, we obtain a different one, we call it two.

Proof? How can there be different ones?

And if you're going to ask

There is no need to speculate as to what I am going to ask. I already asked, and here it is again.

You said, "That's not how science works."

So again I ask:

Science is human knowledge. Now how does human knowledge work???

Is it proper that men find it self-evident that 1 + 1 = 2?
Or does it need proof?
If so, what is the proof?

 

[nl]

Adherents of the "Gap Theory" see Genesis 1:1 as the original creation: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.".

The "Gap Theory" posits a long gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Towards the end of the gap period, creation became "without form and void".

Genesis 1:2 - 2:25 would then describe a process of re-creation as God prepared the earth for the arrival of mankind. The days of Creation in Genesis become re-creative days.

Genesis 1:28 (Like Genesis 9:1) has been translated in the KJV to describe "replenishing" the earth as if something had existed previously.

More information is available at: Gap creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gap Theory is an interesting way to reconcile the Genesis account with the findings of conventional geology and astronomy.

It's great to know what we can know but please be reminded that Hebrews 11:3 told us that "what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

 

[thecreationtutor]

If you don't have a Degree in Geology you should shut up

Now, i didn't say this to be rude but to illustrate a point

You guys question what the Bible says, but you wont' question what Godless men have said in order to get you out of your Bible, and away from the Lord

personally I have a Degree in Geology, and a Masters in Earth Science Education, I have also taught every Science subject there is, and have 4 years of Experience teaching, but you probably won't listen to me either

obviously not a factual issue, but a heart issue and a worldview issue

 

[Calminian]

Rotflol....!

Job speaks for itself regarding animal death BEFORE sin....as animals ATE animals LONG before mankind was even created....as clearly stated in the above passages.

Clearly stated where? Why do you suppose you are you the only person on earth that sees this passage as a proof for that? You keep saying over and over, that it's there but you're afraid (as far as I can see) to actually point it out. And I don't see any of your allies rushing to explain what you're talking about either.

But I'll just keep asking until you muster the courage.

 

[Calminian]

This, then, causes quite the conundrum for the YEC.

Which to use....the MT...or...the LXX....the difference in the age of the earth for the YEC that sums the generations is thousands of years!

Why would it be a conundrum for anyone? I use the MT, and your Bible uses the MT. Do you doubt the Bible you have today is the Word of God??

And how is thousands of years a problem for the YEC view? You need billions of years, no discrepancy in a few genealogies is going to give you that. All I need is creation of the universe in 6 days, man being created together with animals, and death of living creatures starting after Adam's sin. 6 thousand or 10 thousand years would work just fine for my view. But a beginning even 20,000 years ago, even 100,000 years ago completely destroys your view.

 

[dcontroversal]

Re: When Did Death Begin?

Physical death ( death in the flesh ) happens daily, and entered in the world from Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden.
Spiritual death does not happen tell after judgment.

And I believe the angels ( even though does not say ) was created when God created the heavens in Genesis.

For by ONE man sin entered into the world.....Eve was deceived and ADAM is the one WHO brought SIN into the world as Adam was the head of the human race.....

 

[Calminian]

...he would walk heavy and slam doors shut. I always told him he sounded like an elephant stomping and rummaging around. He was quite thin and tall.

But sounded and moved to 2 different things. Why did you say he sounded like an elephant rather than moved? Are you saying elephants tails sound like trees?

I think you just undermined your own argument. Again, how does an elephant's twig tail "move" like a tree, if it's not also appearing like a tree?

My boss also has a small dog who occasionally runs around the room when she's excited. According to the people downstairs, she is referred to as sounding like a herd of elephants. ….

Again sounding, not moving. My suggestions is, reevaluate your faith. Maybe your faith is keeping you from simple sound reasoning.

Why would you say someone's legs moved like tree trunks? Tree trunks don't move!…

Ah, but wait a minute. The Job author said the behemoth's tail moved like a Cedar, the giants trees of the old testament. Those trees actually don't move like a elephants tail at all, do they? Elephants swish their tails from side to side. Do trees do that? Ah, then maybe, just maybe, the text means what everyone else obviously reads it to mean. The tail on that creature moved as if it were swinging a giant tree. What animal could fit that description?

Bro, you're getting in way too deep on this. Every point you make supports mine.

You're alluding to the idea that all forms of communication are a form of hearsay.

Sorry, I did no such thing.

I already addressed this: "It's always possible that sources are wrong. I can look at a scientific paper and understand that it's technically possible for that paper to be entirely fabricated….

Or that the one who wrote it was biased and just plain wrong. Scientists make mistakes all the time. We even have entire paradigm shifts in which an entire community of scientists will completely abandon a theory.

But I trust the scientific community due to the mass number of scientists….

You know it's interesting, back in Galileo's day, the vast majority of scientists were geocentrists. These were the aristotelian philosophers who dominated astronomy in that day. They tortured Galileo to no end in their criticisms, and even drove him into hiding. Plus he had a pope on his case too, but the pope was really just following the science of his day.

I think it's very fair to say, that based on your stated views, you would have been a geocentrist in Galileo's day also, blindly trusting modern science. Right? It's all about the majority, right?

"An invisible elephant with magical powers created the universe from a peanut. The universe obviously exists, therefore the invisible elephant must exist! And look, peanuts exist too! How can you explain that?!" Creationist logic assumes God exists before they make their arguments so that the arguments fit.

But this story/analogy is missing the main component of creation science, and that's testimonial evidence. We have a collection of corroborating books that span 3 continents, 2,000 years (more if you count source material), and 40 different authors. I don't see that in your analogy.

And what about your starting premise, that once upon a time, nothing became everything for no reason uncaused? Does that sound any less silly the the elephant peanut theory?

The word religious is hard to define, but your use of the word is so vague in which any criticism of an idea can be referred to as "religious". You're using words incorrectly to make it sound like I'm religious when I'm not. You try to make it sound like I have faith when you know bloody well that I don't rely on faith.

Percepi, you're practically screaming that you're a man of faith. You use the word trust over and over. "I trust the scientific majority." That is your life mantra. I'm not even criticizing it, I'm merely observing it.

You have to check out this video by Ray Comfort. It is about your faith. He goes into college campuses (I believe UCLA and USC) and interviews several science majors and professors. He gets all of them to admit their basing their views on faith. They all go back to what you keep saying. "I generally trust the scientific community."

[video=youtube;U0u3-2CGOMQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ[/video]

 

[Bowman]

If you don't have a Degree in Geology you should shut up

Now, i didn't say this to be rude but to illustrate a point

You guys question what the Bible says, but you wont' question what Godless men have said in order to get you out of your Bible, and away from the Lord

personally I have a Degree in Geology, and a Masters in Earth Science Education, I have also taught every Science subject there is, and have 4 years of Experience teaching, but you probably won't listen to me either

obviously not a factual issue, but a heart issue and a worldview issue

If you are still a YEC after your degree....then either you didn't learn anything in school....or you are checking your brain at the door...

 

[Bowman]

Clearly stated where? Why do you suppose you are you the only person on earth that sees this passage as a proof for that? You keep saying over and over, that it's there but you're afraid (as far as I can see) to actually point it out. And I don't see any of your allies rushing to explain what you're talking about either.

But I'll just keep asking until you muster the courage.

You can't even talk to the verses.

 

[Bowman]

Why would it be a conundrum for anyone? I use the MT, and your Bible uses the MT. Do you doubt the Bible you have today is the Word of God??

The MT is a rescension....which means it was altered by the Jews.

Jesus quoted from the LXX.

And how is thousands of years a problem for the YEC view? You need billions of years, no discrepancy in a few genealogies is going to give you that. All I need is creation of the universe in 6 days, man being created together with animals, and death of living creatures starting after Adam's sin. 6 thousand or 10 thousand years would work just fine for my view. But a beginning even 20,000 years ago, even 100,000 years ago completely destroys your view.

Mankind on the order of circa 100K years fits with an OEC....and with the science record.

The same cannot be said for your YEC...

 

[Calminian]

The MT is a rescension....which means it was altered by the Jews.

Okay, fine you admit you do not trust the Bible. Yet you quote Job from the Bible to supposedly show that the Bible teaches that animals existed millions of years before man.

And you still haven't explained why you think job teaches this. You're very confused, now obviously regretting posting that Job argument. But I'm going to keep pressing for you to explain your logic in that post, though I'm learning very quickly you have very poor logic.

Sorry, dude your bluff has been called. Explain the Job passage or shut up.

 

[Calminian]

Adherents of the "Gap Theory" see Genesis 1:1 as the original creation: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.".

The "Gap Theory" posits a long gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Towards the end of the gap period, creation became "without form and void".

Genesis 1:2 - 2:25 would then describe a process of re-creation as God prepared the earth for the arrival of mankind. The days of Creation in Genesis become re-creative days.

Genesis 1:28 (Like Genesis 9:1) has been translated in the KJV to describe "replenishing" the earth as if something had existed previously.

More information is available at: Gap creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gap Theory is an interesting way to reconcile the Genesis account with the findings of conventional geology and astronomy.

It's great to know what we can know but please be reminded that Hebrews 11:3 told us that "what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

Hi nl. Just a quick word about the gap theory. I was a gapper for many years, and know my way around it pretty well. The word replenish is not in the original hebrew which is why you won't see that rendering in any other translations, even the NKJV. The word there is male' (maw-lay) and just means to fill. I think in old english that's what replenish used to mean and was how the readers of that day would have understood it. But as it took on the aspect of refilling, the modern translations had to change the word to just "fill" in order to accurately translate the text.

Regarding the gap, there is no gap implied at all between verses 1 and 2, and when you look at Moses' summary statement of the creation, you can see it's no longer a possible translation.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,... (ex. 20:11)​

The gap theory implies that the heavens and their hosts existed a long time prior to the creation of the earth, but as you can see, that's not how Moses interpreted that. Everything that exists in the world today, was made in those 6 days.

Also, the term beginning is interesting in the hebrew. reshiyth (beginning) can speak of a beginning period rather than just a beginning point in time. When referring to the beginning of king's reigns, resiyth will be used and then the text will speak of a span of time within that beginning. At the beginning of his reign, king so and so did such and such. It would appear to me that the "beginning" described in Genesis was the creation week itself. Thus when Jesus said,

But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female. (Mark 10:6)​

Since Adam and Eve were made during the 6 days, that beginning must be referring to those 6 days.

The gap theory states that in the beginning God created the initial heavens and earth, and then later came man (millions of years later in fact). In the Gap Theory, man is actually made at the very end of creation, if we infer a gap after verse 1.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Percepi]

But sounded and moved to 2 different things. Why did you say he sounded like an elephant rather than moved? Are you saying elephants tails sound like trees?

I could have just as easily said he moved like an elephant to suggest he's heavy footed - which means he stomps his feet around.
(This is how we generally imagine elephants, but elephants are actually quite careful when they walk considering their size).

Again, how does an elephant's twig tail "move" like a tree, if it's not also appearing like a tree?

The tree itself hardly moves at all, so even if the tail looked like a tree - it surely doesn't move like the tree... unless you're referring to the branches which more closely resemble the tails of elephants or other similar large mammals.

Again sounding, not moving. My suggestions is, reevaluate your faith. Maybe your faith is keeping you from simple sound reasoning.

Saying I rely on faith would be like me claiming you rely on faith not to believe in Vishnu, Ra, Odin, etc.

Stop being a liar and claiming I rely on faith. You're being presumptuous and it's completely dishonest.

You know it's interesting, back in Galileo's day, the vast majority of scientists were geocentrists. These were the aristotelian philosophers who dominated astronomy in that day. They tortured Galileo to no end in their criticisms, and even drove him into hiding. Plus he had a pope on his case too, but the pope was really just following the science of his day.

It wasn't science that lead to the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was religion!

Percepi, you're practically screaming that you're a man of faith.Percepi, you're practically screaming that you're a man of faith.

No, you're the one practically screaming I'm a man of faith. Such a claim would be like me claiming "Calminian, you're practically screaming that you don't actually believe in God." You can't fathom how I could possibly disagree with you, so you jump to solutions. Please, stop it.

You use the word trust over and over. "I trust the scientific majority." That is your life mantra. I'm not even criticizing it, I'm merely observing it.

Trust and faith are not the same thing. Trust is something that is often built upon. For example, you might trust your friends more than strangers because you already have an idea of what to expect from them. That trust is built on past relationships. Trust is also something that is honest - it describes something in which a person claims they could be wrong. I trust scientists, but I know they could be wrong. To have faith in something is to absolutely believe something without questioning it. And I have questioned creationism... which is why I absolutely cringed when you said...

You have to check out this video by Ray Comfort.

Ray Comfort is a lying nitwit who has been exposed time and time and time and time and time again.

They all go back to what you keep saying. "I generally trust the scientific community."

That's because the scientific method is created to weed out as much bias as possible, and it allows us to correct past mistakes. And before you go on about how science has been wrong before, understand that wrong is relative. Do a Google search for the essay "Relativity of Wrong". It's possible for one thing to be more wrong than another, not everything is equally wrong. In science, everything becomes more and more correct over time.

Ray Comfort is trying to make a point that we "trust" science, as to undermine it's validity. But there's a huge difference in trusting in a system developed around discovering facts through a strict method and peer reviewed to weed out biased reports and trusting a statement written thousands of years ago by barely civilized man.

And please, before you respond, just watch this video:

[video=youtube;zcavPAFiG14]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14[/video]

In fact, there's an entire series that you should watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok&list=PL82yk73N8eoX8RpvQfjdupAKFWKjtMhTe

Also, when I called Ray Comfort a lying nitwit, this is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW05npbQHVs&list=UUljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ

On top of that, he constantly spews common misconceptions about evolution despite the fact he's been corrected to the point where you know he's being dishonest.

Your source of information on evolution is wrong, not only does it not disprove evolution, but the people who claim to disprove evolution almost never show any understanding of what evolution actually is!

 

[Bowman]

Okay, fine you admit you do not trust the Bible.

That is YOUR position...not mine.

Don't blame me for YOU not knowing that Jesus quoted the LXX.

Yet you quote Job from the Bible to supposedly show that the Bible teaches that animals existed millions of years before man.

Quoting Job plainly shows that animals ATE animals BEFORE mankind arrived onto the scene.

Science shows that animals ATE animals millions of years ago.

See the harmony going on here...?

And you still haven't explained why you think job teaches this.

Its a plain reading of the text.

Simple.

You're very confused, now obviously regretting posting that Job argument.

I will never tire of watching you run from Job.

But I'm going to keep pressing for you to explain your logic in that post, though I'm learning very quickly you have very poor logic.

Sorry, dude your bluff has been called. Explain the Job passage or shut up.

When can we expect your exegesis on Job?

What's the matter, can't google a response....?

 

[JackH]

And how is thousands of years a problem for the YEC view? You need billions of years, no discrepancy in a few genealogies is going to give you that. All I need is creation of the universe in 6 days, man being created together with animals, and death of living creatures starting after Adam's sin. 6 thousand or 10 thousand years would work just fine for my view. But a beginning even 20,000 years ago, even 100,000 years ago completely destroys your view.

Say what?

I'm not speaking for the person you addressed (Bowman), but the your last sentence in particular makes no sense to me.

You are the one with the time constraints. Specifically, you are stuck with the universe, earth, dinosaurs, and humans all being created 6,000 (which you stretch to 10000) years ago.

Personally, I don't care much if the earth is billions or millions or hundreds of thousands years old. I don't care much if humans first appeared on the earth 10000 or 20000 or 100000 years ago. I'll go with what the preponderance of credible scientific evidence indicates.

Genesis 1 does not tell us specifically when the creation events occurred, in my opinion, and that of many others.

Why do you suppose the date 4004 BC next to the events of Genesis 1 was taken out of the KJV? After a couple hundred years?

Lack of credibility.

But some still refuse to let go of that date, or close to it, despite the lack of credibility.

 

[JackH]

If you don't have a Degree in Geology you should shut up

Now, i didn't say this to be rude but to illustrate a point

You guys question what the Bible says, but you wont' question what Godless men have said in order to get you out of your Bible, and away from the Lord

personally I have a Degree in Geology, and a Masters in Earth Science Education, I have also taught every Science subject there is, and have 4 years of Experience teaching, but you probably won't listen to me either

obviously not a factual issue, but a heart issue and a worldview issue

If you are not a French model, you should shut up.

I'm a French model. If it says so on the internet, it must be true.

The credential I am interested in is thread cred. So enlighten us all in this thread with your expertise on matters pertaining to old earth/young earth that have been discussed. I mean, you are "thecreationtutor" right?

Bon jour.

 

[Bowman]

Say what?

I'm not speaking for the person you addressed (Bowman), but the your last sentence in particular makes no sense to me.

You are the one with the time constraints. Specifically, you are stuck with the universe, earth, dinosaurs, and humans all being created 6,000 (which you stretch to 10000) years ago.

Personally, I don't care much if the earth is billions or millions or hundreds of thousands years old. I don't care much if humans first appeared on the earth 10000 or 20000 or 100000 years ago. I'll go with what the preponderance of credible scientific evidence indicates.

Genesis 1 does not tell us specifically when the creation events occurred, in my opinion, and that of many others.

Why do you suppose the date 4004 BC next to the events of Genesis 1 was taken out of the KJV? After a couple hundred years?

Lack of credibility.

But some still refuse to let go of that date, or close to it, despite the lack of credibility.

It makes no sense to anyone...its just another in a string of tardly responses...

 

[Calminian]

...Quoting Job plainly shows that animals ATE animals BEFORE mankind arrived onto the scene.....

Where does Job say animals ate animals before mankind arrived on the scene? Still patiently waiting....