Old Earth/Young Earth

[just-me]

Post 2

*The age of the earth is curiously researched by scientific means without end. **Days could be years, years could be thousands. When the sun was created, I would say that the earth was spinning by then. ***So at least from that point on there were nights and days real close to what we have today. With that said, God can do anything as fast or as slow as He desires. Anything He says happens. The chronology that matters to us is that of salvation which was engineered before creation. Jesus prayed "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17:5

This seems an odd thing to say. *What point are you making? **This sounds really odd. How familiar are you with science? ***According to scripture the sun was made three days after the creation of the earth. You cannot have night and day without the sun, so something is wrong with scripture.

"How familiar are you with science?"you ask click this post Yes, the sun and moon were created on the 4th day. As the world should revolve around Christ Jesus, we should reflect that light as we revolve around the world. John 12:46 and Matthew 5:16 * The point I was making was at the end of what you failed to quote. I'll repeat; “With that said, God can do anything as fast or as slow as He desires. Anything He says happens. The chronology that matters to us is that of salvation which was engineered before creation.”

 

[Bookends]

Even before the fall, if a tree, plant etc (tomato) where to grow anew, first the seed of that plant must die. God designed it that way, death of plants and animals were designed to die physically where as God left it open for mankind until Adam and Eve sinned.

 

[Bookends]

my above post was in response to:

I would just ask my old earth brothers (and even Ross directly, though I know his response), if the earth is truly millions of years old, and man is just a recent blip in the billions of years since the Big Bang, where did death comes from? Where did suffering come from?

Now biblical creationists believe that God created a "very good" world initially (Gen. 1:31). Animals were designed to eat plants (Gen. 1:29-30) and death and suffering didn't come on the scene until Adam sinned.

But what say you? Where does all the suffering in the world, particularly among animals, come from?

Even before the fall, if a tree, plant etc (tomato) where to grow anew, first the seed of that plant must die. God designed it that way, death of plants and animals were designed to die physically where as God left it open for mankind until Adam and Eve sinned.

Sorry for the redundant post.

 

[Cycel]

Even before the fall, if a tree, plant etc (tomato) where to grow anew, first the seed of that plant must die. God designed it that way...

Seeds don't die, if they did they could not propagate. What is it you are trying to say?

... death of plants and animals were designed to die physically where as God left it open for mankind until Adam and Eve sinned.

You are arguing, I think, that God built death into the lives of all the plants and animals, with the exception of Adam and Eve. Are you saying that for them he granted eternal life – as a default state – so long as they did not sin (which of course we know they did, thus he remade them into mortals?)?

 

[Cycel]

I personally believe that the material creation was wrecked when Lucifer was cast out of heaven and what we have in Genesis is a re-construction and or renovation by God.....

Why must you look for clues? Why doesn't scripture simply tell us this is what happened? It seems to me that the Bible doesn't actually say this anywhere. Did you arrive at this conclusion in order to get around other difficulties? If so, what difficulties did you see?

 

[just-me]

Seeds don't die, if they did they could not propagate. What is it you are trying to say?

It's science.
Botanically, scientists know quite a bit about seeds and how they germinate. We know that a seed consists of a protective seed coat, some kind of storage tissue with nutrient reserves, and a dormant plant embryo. We further know that under the correct conditions the dormant embryo can be "awakened" to germinate and grow into a mature plant. We know botanically that the embryo in the seed is not dead and does not die before it germinates and grows into a mature plant. For germination to occur, the seed itself must die to awaken the dormant embryo. The germ will get its material for birth from the body of the seed. All seeds will die in their environment in order to become a seedling! This is a fundamental law of nature. First comes a falling onto the ground. When that seed is on the ground, it will die and then rot. That rotting process is necessary for the factors needed for the germ to be triggered to life.

 

[JackH]

Now it's interesting that you would look for remains of pre-fallen animals, but why? If they didn't die until after the curse, why would you expect to find their remains? The fossil record contains only animals in the postlapsarian world.

T. rex ate meat and T. rex became extinct around 65 million years ago, if you believe the preponderance of evidence.

What date do you associate with the beginning of the postlapsarian world?

 

[JackH]

Neanderthals, BTW, most certainly ate meat, and existed after the flood. And we know that neanderthals hung out with humans and intermarried with them. That means they were human.

Shem lived 500 years after the flood, for instance, and would have outlived several of his descendants. I think he likely looked like the superior Neanderthal, with a much larger brain, and superior physique.

What date do you associate with the Flood?

There is more evidence that Neandertal did not coexist with modern humans, so your statement that Neandertal hung out and intermarried with humans is dubious in my opinion.

 

[Bookends]

Seeds don't die, if they did they could not propagate. What is it you are trying to say?

I think Jesus disagrees with you.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." John 12:24

You are arguing, I think, that God built death into the lives of all the plants and animals, with the exception of Adam and Eve. Are you saying that for them he granted eternal life – as a default state – so long as they did not sin (which of course we know they did, thus he remade them into mortals?)?

Yes, I believe God did build death into all plants and animals, for various reasons. Humankind was the only created being made in God's image, part of God's image is being immortal. IMO, if Adam and Eve did not sin, and ate from the tree of life continually they would have lived forever, until unless of coarse someone sinned. However, I also believe even if one dies, their Spirit lives on, either in eternal separation from God or in union with Him. Also at Christ second coming I think everyone's body will be resurrected with a new body, but the wicked will live separated from Christians and God.

 

[dcontroversal]

Why must you look for clues? Why doesn't scripture simply tell us this is what happened? It seems to me that the Bible doesn't actually say this anywhere. Did you arrive at this conclusion in order to get around other difficulties? If so, what difficulties did you see?

I didn't have any difficulties to get around and based upon 25 years of intensive study 20 to 60 hours a week and 18 semester hours for three years straight I have seen numerous clues to deeper truths that get overlooked by the majority...MEAT belongeth to them who are of a full age and the bible if full of clues to the depth of the word....

The use of particular words and or words left out of particular contexts when used in context in the same set of passages speaks volumes.....God said...Let there be light (1st act of creation) while BROODING over DARKNESS, Waters and the FACE of the deep.....

Having said the above....

1. Does it effect salvation and a relationship with God....NO
2. Does my faith rest upon belief of the possibility of more than what is obvious....NO
3. Am I willing to change my mind......Yes
4. Are there ASSUMPTIONS made BY ALL concerning creation...YES
5. Could I, YOU, WE ALL be wrong...YES
6. Is HUMANITY limited in it's understanding of many things....YES
7. DO I set out looking for clues.....NO
8. If something out of the ordinary stands out am I going to investigate to the "enth" degree....YES
9. Do I want to know.....YES
10. Am I impressed when someone argues by COMMENTARY.....NO

And on and ON and ON....................!

 

[ELECT]

I personally believe that the material creation was wrecked when Lucifer was cast out of heaven and what we have in Genesis is a re-construction and or renovation by God.....

God's Spirit is Brooding over exactly what in Genesis?... it is interesting to note that what he was brooding (hovering over) was already here.....Darkness, the face of the deep and waters......He (moved) upon the face of the waters.....<--became brooding

It is also interesting to note what comes out of the mouth of the Beast in Revelation that attempts to annihilate Israel and the EARTH opens up and swallows the (flood) that the Dragon is attempting to use to destroy Israel.......

The word WAS in verse 2 is BECAME.........

Another clue is in what God calls Good.....Everything he makes he calls Good in the same set of verses except when he creates the heaven......<-----Maybe he didn't apply the word Good in VERSE 8 like he did in verse 4, 10, 12, 18, 25

Note He doesn't apply the word good to the heaven and to man......He does generalize about all of creation with the word good in verse 31....

None GOOD no not one and maybe the heaven because the Prince of the POWER of the AIR was already here!

Just a few points to ponder.....

Please explain why God would recreate a beautiful earth with the devil and sin on it

Dont you think He would have destroyed the devil and then recreate the earth

 

[ELECT]

I didn't have any difficulties to get around and based upon 25 years of intensive study 20 to 60 hours a week and 18 semester hours for three years straight I have seen numerous clues to deeper truths that get overlooked by the majority...MEAT belongeth to them who are of a full age and the bible if full of clues to the depth of the word....

The use of particular words and or words left out of particular contexts when used in context in the same set of passages speaks volumes.....God said...Let there be light (1st act of creation) while BROODING over DARKNESS, Waters and the FACE of the deep.....

Having said the above....

1. Does it effect salvation and a relationship with God....NO
2. Does my faith rest upon belief of the possibility of more than what is obvious....NO
3. Am I willing to change my mind......Yes
4. Are there ASSUMPTIONS made BY ALL concerning creation...YES
5. Could I, YOU, WE ALL be wrong...YES
6. Is HUMANITY limited in it's understanding of many things....YES
7. DO I set out looking for clues.....NO
8. If something out of the ordinary stands out am I going to investigate to the "enth" degree....YES
9. Do I want to know.....YES
10. Am I impressed when someone argues by COMMENTARY.....NO

And on and ON and ON....................!

If light was created first where did God get the water from

Did darkness exist all by itself or did God create darkness just as created light

light is something so darknesds has to be something

 

[Calminian]

It's been suggested that the Bible is actually referring to the cedar branch, which would make much more sense than a dinosaur since there's zero evidence of dinosaurs and humans co-existing. In fact, a cedar branch describes an elephant's tail decently enough.

Hebrew has several nice words for branch, and the author could have easily stated the animal moves its tail like a cedar branch (which would be a very strange statement to make considering the point God was making). But your real argument is not the text. The text is clear. Your real hang up is you believe modern scientists more than the Bible. I believe the Bible more than modern scientists. That's really the essence of our disagreement.

You believe the evidence presented through a naturalistic filter, and I believe the clearly written historical evidence of the Bible, which is proven to be accurate by archeologists all the time.

There is all other historical evidence that dinosaurs and man lived together, in the numerous dragon legends we find all over the world. These are usually in the form of dragon vs. hero or dragon slayer. Yet more evidence that leads me to believe the deep time assumptions of scientists are wrong.

But the Bible is my main line of evidence, mainly because its shown itself to be reliable.

Unless you're wrong and the scientific theories are correct, in which case you're rejecting reality. Of course, the same could be said for me as well. But if we consider the possibility that God may or may not have created the Earth only a few thousand years ago, then the best we can do is follow the evidence. You aren't questioning whether or not God created the earth a few thousand years ago, you accept it as fact already, which means you would never be able to correct yourself if you're wrong and if you're proven wrong.

Well my correction would come either from showing me that my interpretation of the Bible is wrong (which old earthers try to do all the time) or by showing me the Bible is inerrant. Many old earth creationists don't believe what the Bible says, but are reluctant to admit they don't believe the Bible is the infallible word of God. They seem to want it both ways. But if you think about it, if scripture is god breathed and perfectly reliable, then why would you discourage me from using it as evidence? It's the most well preserved ancient historical document in the world.

The problem is, if you accept the gospel as the ultimate truth no matter what…

Well you're assuming that men just latch onto the gospel blindly, but this historically has not been the case. Many hardened skeptics have come to believe the gospel. Simon Greenleaf for instance, was an atheistic jew who was very influential in our country and putting together a system in evaluating evidence for our courts of law. In essence, he was an evidence expert. His textbooks were used for several decades. As an atheists he applied his expertise to the gospels, and concluded they were reliable witnesses and should be believed.

The stereotypes you have in your head about christians are wrong and I think other skeptics are putting them in your head.

You and your friends COULD be right. But if they won't even consider changing their views….

Well I've told you what my criteria is. You merely have to show me that the Bible is not a reliable witness. You have to show why an expert in evidences like Simon Greenleaf is less knowledgeable about evaluating testimonies than you are.

Essentially, I don't want to debate a bunch of creationists just to find out I wasted my time…..

Sorry, this sounds like a copout. You spend tons of time on this stuff. Now all of the sudden you're too busy?

 

[Calminian]

Even before the fall, if a tree, plant etc (tomato) where to grow anew, first the seed of that plant must die. God designed it that way, death of plants and animals were designed to die physically where as God left it open for mankind until Adam and Eve sinned.

I believe Hugh Ross was the first to give this line of argumentation, but plants are not described in scripture as living creatures, nephesh chayyah, and thus do not die in the same sense. What you're doing is applying modern biology nomenclature to Scripture, and this type of error always causes confusion in interpretation.

You can read further about this here: Do Leaves Die?

 

[dcontroversal]

If light was created first where did God get the water from

Did darkness exist all by itself or did God create darkness just as created light

light is something so darknesds has to be something

That is what the whole thread is about.......

a. Earth created and destroyed by the fall of Lucifer and then renovated by God in the creation account of Genesis
b. Earth created in Genesis account without A above

The word was in verse 2 is became...The earth BECAME without form and VOID

Light verse three 1st thing created and division of DARKNESS and LIGHT into day and NIGHT
DIVISION of the waters by a firmament
LAND appears

SO...it seems the waters, darkness and face of the deep were already here....and if so why?

"a" above answers this anomaly IF it is indeed and anomaly!

Jeremiah 4:23

I beheld the earth, and LO, it was without form, void; and the heavens, and they HAD NO LIGHT!

So what does this say....

TO BEHOLD something is to VIEW it and when VIEWING IT the following were seen...

1. It was without form
2. Is was EMPTY (VOID)
3. THE HEAVENS were without light

So, what can we LOGICALLY CONCLUDE about the above and what is said....

This seems to be tied in with the destruction of the end of the age, only problem with this view is...

a. The remnant of Israel will still be here
b. The remnant of the Gentiles that go thru will be here
c. The Earth will remain until a NEW EARTH after 1000 years reign of Christ
d. God will make a man more valuable than precious Gold so it will NOT BE EMPTY

So...anyway......just seeking the truth as opposed to opinion, men's views and guesses at the end of the day!

 

[dcontroversal]

Please explain why God would recreate a beautiful earth with the devil and sin on it

Dont you think He would have destroyed the devil and then recreate the earth

God had a plan...why would he bring Lucifer into existence when HE knew that Lucifer would fall?

Why would He allow Judas to come into existence since he knew that Judas would betray him?

Why would he make humanity knowing full well the majority would reject and end up in hell?

We could carry this out to the (tenth) degree if we wanted too....

At the end of the day it is all according to the plans of God, before the casting down of the WORLD....

God's ways are so much higher than our ways and to try and guess why God did anything is going to be guesses at best.....other than what we can know for sure from the word......!

 

[Calminian]

If light was created first where did God get the water from

Did darkness exist all by itself or did God create darkness just as created light

light is something so darknesds has to be something

The primordial waters that were used to create the land and sea were created on day 1. re'shiyth in the hebrew normally speaks of a beginning period, and when it is used, it's often followed by descriptions within that period. You'll see this when it's describing the beginning of a king's reign.

In Genesis we have b-re'shiyth followed by 6 days which go into detail in describing that re'shiyth. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The next verse, "the earth was formless and empty…", tells us that the formation of the land was not instantaneous or pre-existent, but took place within the six days, as did the filling of the land. God created the waters (the formless land) and then proceeded to form the dray land and sea.

Day 1 consists of the creation of the unformed and unfilled land—the waters, and light. This was the first day of the 6 day beginning.

This is why Christ statement that Adam and Eve were made at the beginning of creation makes sense. They were at the beginning because they were made within the 6 days. The six-day creation week is the beginning.

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

 

[dcontroversal]

I believe Hugh Ross was the first to give this line of argumentation, but plants are not described in scripture as living creatures, nephesh chayyah, and thus do not die in the same sense. What you're doing is applying modern biology nomenclature to Scripture, and this type of error always causes confusion in interpretation.

You can read further about this here: Do Leaves Die?

Was Jesus mistaken when he said....except a seed FALL TO THE GROUND AND DIE it cannot bear fruit? John 12:24??? As applied unto wheat!

 

[Calminian]

Was Jesus mistaken when he said....except a seed FALL TO THE GROUND AND DIE it cannot bear fruit? John 12:24??? As applied unto wheat!

No. He's using death in various ways just as we do in english. We will sometimes say that certain fads die out, and things of that nature. But Jesus knew that seeds were not living in the sense of nephesh. They did not have the breath of life.

dc, do you believe that a radio can die? Or that a battery can die? Do you believe these are then alive before the die?

Here's another good article on the subject of biblical life:

Nephesh chayyāh
A matter of life … and non-life

 

[dcontroversal]

No. He's using death in various ways just as we do in english. We will sometimes say that certain fads die out, and things of that nature. But Jesus knew that seeds were not living in the sense of nephesh. They did not have the breath of life.

dc, do you believe that a radio can die? Or that a battery can die? Do you believe these are then alive before the die?

Here's another good article on the subject of biblical life:

Nephesh chayyāh
A matter of life … and non-life

A double emphasis on DIE is not a figure of speech in English.....Greek...to die off, to be dead, to lie dying, to be slain.........so.........! APOTHNESKO<----GREEK not HEBREW..........!