Young Earth creationism

[wincam]

well how could the world think these things, if their scientists did not preach them..

You just proved my point for me,, thank you.

who is to say, if the lord tarries for another 1000 years the scientists of today will not look like quacks who did not know what they were talking about. and had things only partially right?

so here we are - with all sorts of ideas, conjectures, interpretations and conclusions - how could it be otherwise but whatever else we do or say lets not claim inspiration by the HS for our many and various and varied imaginations, contradictions, divisions, disillusionments and confusion - for me the explanation is simple that without form and void simply means the earth was flat, smooth, level with no mountains and gorges, lakes, rivers - even the land had not been roughed up by being tilled or ploughed and a mist watered the whole earth = no form= just a dull and monotonous same ness and void = void of life of any sort and even void of adornments such as sun and stars and grass and trees and birds and bees and clouds and breeze - wincam

 

[eternally-gratefull]

so here we are - with all sorts of ideas, conjectures, interpretations and conclusions - how could it be otherwise but whatever else we do or say lets not claim inspiration by the HS for our many and various and varied imaginations, contradictions, divisions, disillusionments and confusion - for me the explanation is simple that without form and void simply means the earth was flat, smooth, level with no mountains and gorges, lakes, rivers - even the land had not been roughed up by being tilled or ploughed and a mist watered the whole earth = no form= just a dull and monotonous same ness and void = void of life of any sort and even void of adornments such as sun and stars and grass and trees and birds and bees and clouds and breeze - wincam

ie,, on day 1.. I agree with you.

 

[wincam]

ie,, on day 1.. I agree with you.

btw regarding an old earth and millions of years = in a stretched out expanding universe in the beginning everything would have been cluttered and close together including the sun and earth = a shrinking drifting away sun would have been larger, hotter and much closer = scalding steam and red hot ashes = no life possible millions of years ago - wincam

 

[Tintin]

Well, get your popcorn ready, and be careful of well intended man-made traditions on Genesis.

The KJV phrase "without form, and void" does not mean a formless nothingness in the Hebrew of that Scripture. That's an assumption from men's traditions, something the KJV translators thought also.

"without form" is Hebrew tohuw, which means something gone into desolation, and a ruin. In other words, it's a word used to show something once of value having gone into a worthless condition.

"and void" is Hebrew bohuw, which alternately means 'an undistinguishable ruin' (Strong's 922).

Gen 1:2
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
KJV

Those phrases in bold are the same kind of ideas used to describe the later event of the flood of Noah's day. It's about a world-wide flood upon the existing earth there. That "face of the waters" are the same waters being described in the next 6 through 9 verses in Gen.1.

Follow those Gen.1:6-9 verses about those "waters" of Gen.1:2...

Gen 1:6
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
KJV

What waters? Those "waters" of Gen.1:2. They are overspread upon the whole earth at Gen.1:2. Here, God is dividing those waters upon the earth underneath. That "firmament" means the sky, an atmosphere above the waters. God is forming today's sky above the earth with that.

Gen 1:7
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
KJV




Part of those waters went up above the waters left on the earth and formed today's sky, for that is what clouds are, full of water moisture in a vapor state. The remaining waters He left beneath, upon the earth, those waters still covering all the earth (lot of water being talked about here).

Gen 1:9-10
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
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.
KJV





By God moving the waters left upon the earth to one place, the dry land underneath appeared. That is not a creation of the land of the earth. It is God moving the waters left so the earth actually can re-appear.

At Gen.1:1 is when God originally created the heavens (plural) and earth, in a Perfect condition.

At Gen.1:2 the earth is shown in a ruined condition from a flood of waters upon all of it.

The ruined condition of the earth is the event Apostle Peter was really talking about in 2 Pet.3 when he said some are willingly ignorant that "... by The Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." (2 Peter 3:5-6).

Many have thought Peter was talking about the time of Noah's flood with that. He wasn't. He was talking about a more ancient flood that God brought upon the earth to destroy the time of Satan's original rebellion against Him. The time prior to Noah's flood belongs to this same present earth age we are in today, which is why Noah and his family left the ark to walk upon the same earth condition before the flood of Noah's day. The white dove bringing back an olive branch to the ark reveals this.

But in the time of old between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2, God shook this ancient earth along with that flood of old, ending Satan's rebellion. That was the event described at the end of Hebrews 12, where it states 'once more', God will not only shake the earth only, but also heaven (Heb.12:25-27).

Nowhere in God's Word are we told specifically WHEN Satan originally rebelled against Him, and fell to the earth. But the when can... be understood once all of God's Word and the parables He gave about it in the OT are understood. In Jer.4:23-28, this shaking of old that had to have happened before this present world is about the original fall of Satan to the earth.

In Rev.12:3-4, we are shown how Satan (as that "red dragon") drew one third of the stars (angels) into rebellion with him. That did not happen after the days of Adam and Eve. It happened before. And we are shown Satan then had a beast kingdom setup when he did that which had only "seven crowns" compared to the final one in our days of Rev.13, which is to have "ten crowns". That is why that original beast kingdom in Rev.12 is linked with the time of his drawing a third of the angels into rebellion with him.

In the parable of Ezek.28 with God pointing to Satan as the anointed cherub that was in His Garden of Eden, that was about Satan's original rebellion and fall. What location does Gen.2 point to where God's Garden of Eden was? On earth, before He removed it off this earth to Heaven where it is now with Him. Thus Satan's original rebellion involved the ancient earth that God shook and brought a flood of waters upon at Gen.1:2.

God's original Perfect creation of the earth at Gen.1:1 is what Apostle Paul's subject of Romans 8:18-25 is about. Paul says there the creation was made subject to vanity, and in hope as we, to be delivered from the bondage of corruption. That begs the question of just when God put His creation into the state of vanity it's in today. Some will say at Adam's fall, but that is not when He did that. At Satan's overthrow is when God did it, shaking the earth, the hills and mountains being moved, and for this reason the earth mourns per Jer.4:23-28 and the sky above is in blackness (storm clouds, an imperfect weather system of today).

Truly, what Paul said that the sufferings of this present time cannot be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us when the future new heavens and earth is established by God. Per Revelation, that means no more sea, no more death, no more pain, no more hot and cold, God's River established once again on earth that will heal the waters left on the earth, and the tree of life bearing its fruits that will never be quit producing. Those are not conditions upon today's earth that we see, and they are hard to even be understood compared to today's imperfect state of His creation.

This is why tropical fossil remains of tropical animal and plant life have been found at both poles on the earth, the Woolly Mammoth found in the Arctic region frozen solid still with vegetation in its mouth, and undigested in its stomach, showing it was grazing in a green field when it was suddenly buried in water that was instantly frozen. Scientists have tried to come up with theories of earth plates shifting the land masses to account for that, but those ancient fossils are also found in lands closer to the equator.

Even geologists recently have discovered that the Sphinx on the Giza Plateau has signs of water erosion at its base, pointing to that area once having tropical rains, while throughout known history by man that area has been a desert. They have also come up with theories of super-cooling storms that brought ice ages upon the earth to account for the frozen Woolly Mammoths, yet they haven't accounted for all the waters the Mammoth was instantly frozen in.

Something scientists don't let out, is that the fossil record of the earth reveals a time of ancient animal and plant life having ended at one point in the fossil record with a layer of nothing, and then a creation of new life shown in a layer above that. The dinosaurs were part of that lower fossil record.

Imagine then, an original Perfect creation by God, when the creation was not in a bondage state like today, no storms, a literal Paradise upon the whole earth, and God's River healing all the waters upon earth it comes into contact with, and that will be close to how this earth was when Satan was created perfect in his ways before he rebelled against God. In Ezekiel 47 you can read about some of that being re-established here on this ancient earth in the future.

Nope. I've heard it all before. There was no Satanic Flood blah, blah, blah. That's unfounded speculation to account for the billions of years scientists believe and perpetuate.

 

[Tintin]

Well said DP. We must study bible with the same people.
It is so hard to discuss bible with people that make a basis from one sentence in the bible.

A perfect example is the assumption it is ok to eat pork today. They quote God sent this down on a carpet and told paul to eat it. 90% of christians say yep the bible says its ok. God NEVER said it was ok but a million ppl here will disagree.

Judging by many of your posts on this forum, I would say it's actually you who doesn't have much of a clue.

 

[Tintin]

so here we are - with all sorts of ideas, conjectures, interpretations and conclusions - how could it be otherwise but whatever else we do or say lets not claim inspiration by the HS for our many and various and varied imaginations, contradictions, divisions, disillusionments and confusion - for me the explanation is simple that without form and void simply means the earth was flat, smooth, level with no mountains and gorges, lakes, rivers - even the land had not been roughed up by being tilled or ploughed and a mist watered the whole earth = no form= just a dull and monotonous same ness and void = void of life of any sort and even void of adornments such as sun and stars and grass and trees and birds and bees and clouds and breeze - wincam

Yes, but just for Day One.

 

[ATH1]

Judging by many of your posts on this forum, I would say it's actually you who doesn't have much of a clue.

Please don't tell me you think the bible says its ok now to eat pork and other unclean food.

 

[ATH1]

Well, get your popcorn ready, and be careful of well intended man-made traditions on Genesis.

The KJV phrase "without form, and void" does not mean a formless nothingness in the Hebrew of that Scripture. That's an assumption from men's traditions, something the KJV translators thought also.

"without form" is Hebrew tohuw, which means something gone into desolation, and a ruin. In other words, it's a word used to show something once of value having gone into a worthless condition.

"and void" is Hebrew bohuw, which alternately means 'an undistinguishable ruin' (Strong's 922).

Gen 1:2
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
KJV

Those phrases in bold are the same kind of ideas used to describe the later event of the flood of Noah's day. It's about a world-wide flood upon the existing earth there. That "face of the waters" are the same waters being described in the next 6 through 9 verses in Gen.1.

Follow those Gen.1:6-9 verses about those "waters" of Gen.1:2...

Gen 1:6
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
KJV

What waters? Those "waters" of Gen.1:2. They are overspread upon the whole earth at Gen.1:2. Here, God is dividing those waters upon the earth underneath. That "firmament" means the sky, an atmosphere above the waters. God is forming today's sky above the earth with that.

Gen 1:7
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
KJV




Part of those waters went up above the waters left on the earth and formed today's sky, for that is what clouds are, full of water moisture in a vapor state. The remaining waters He left beneath, upon the earth, those waters still covering all the earth (lot of water being talked about here).

Gen 1:9-10
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
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.
KJV





By God moving the waters left upon the earth to one place, the dry land underneath appeared. That is not a creation of the land of the earth. It is God moving the waters left so the earth actually can re-appear.

At Gen.1:1 is when God originally created the heavens (plural) and earth, in a Perfect condition.

At Gen.1:2 the earth is shown in a ruined condition from a flood of waters upon all of it.

The ruined condition of the earth is the event Apostle Peter was really talking about in 2 Pet.3 when he said some are willingly ignorant that "... by The Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." (2 Peter 3:5-6).

Many have thought Peter was talking about the time of Noah's flood with that. He wasn't. He was talking about a more ancient flood that God brought upon the earth to destroy the time of Satan's original rebellion against Him. The time prior to Noah's flood belongs to this same present earth age we are in today, which is why Noah and his family left the ark to walk upon the same earth condition before the flood of Noah's day. The white dove bringing back an olive branch to the ark reveals this.

But in the time of old between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2, God shook this ancient earth along with that flood of old, ending Satan's rebellion. That was the event described at the end of Hebrews 12, where it states 'once more', God will not only shake the earth only, but also heaven (Heb.12:25-27).

Nowhere in God's Word are we told specifically WHEN Satan originally rebelled against Him, and fell to the earth. But the when can... be understood once all of God's Word and the parables He gave about it in the OT are understood. In Jer.4:23-28, this shaking of old that had to have happened before this present world is about the original fall of Satan to the earth.

In Rev.12:3-4, we are shown how Satan (as that "red dragon") drew one third of the stars (angels) into rebellion with him. That did not happen after the days of Adam and Eve. It happened before. And we are shown Satan then had a beast kingdom setup when he did that which had only "seven crowns" compared to the final one in our days of Rev.13, which is to have "ten crowns". That is why that original beast kingdom in Rev.12 is linked with the time of his drawing a third of the angels into rebellion with him.

In the parable of Ezek.28 with God pointing to Satan as the anointed cherub that was in His Garden of Eden, that was about Satan's original rebellion and fall. What location does Gen.2 point to where God's Garden of Eden was? On earth, before He removed it off this earth to Heaven where it is now with Him. Thus Satan's original rebellion involved the ancient earth that God shook and brought a flood of waters upon at Gen.1:2.

God's original Perfect creation of the earth at Gen.1:1 is what Apostle Paul's subject of Romans 8:18-25 is about. Paul says there the creation was made subject to vanity, and in hope as we, to be delivered from the bondage of corruption. That begs the question of just when God put His creation into the state of vanity it's in today. Some will say at Adam's fall, but that is not when He did that. At Satan's overthrow is when God did it, shaking the earth, the hills and mountains being moved, and for this reason the earth mourns per Jer.4:23-28 and the sky above is in blackness (storm clouds, an imperfect weather system of today).

Truly, what Paul said that the sufferings of this present time cannot be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us when the future new heavens and earth is established by God. Per Revelation, that means no more sea, no more death, no more pain, no more hot and cold, God's River established once again on earth that will heal the waters left on the earth, and the tree of life bearing its fruits that will never be quit producing. Those are not conditions upon today's earth that we see, and they are hard to even be understood compared to today's imperfect state of His creation.

This is why tropical fossil remains of tropical animal and plant life have been found at both poles on the earth, the Woolly Mammoth found in the Arctic region frozen solid still with vegetation in its mouth, and undigested in its stomach, showing it was grazing in a green field when it was suddenly buried in water that was instantly frozen. Scientists have tried to come up with theories of earth plates shifting the land masses to account for that, but those ancient fossils are also found in lands closer to the equator.

Even geologists recently have discovered that the Sphinx on the Giza Plateau has signs of water erosion at its base, pointing to that area once having tropical rains, while throughout known history by man that area has been a desert. They have also come up with theories of super-cooling storms that brought ice ages upon the earth to account for the frozen Woolly Mammoths, yet they haven't accounted for all the waters the Mammoth was instantly frozen in.

Something scientists don't let out, is that the fossil record of the earth reveals a time of ancient animal and plant life having ended at one point in the fossil record with a layer of nothing, and then a creation of new life shown in a layer above that. The dinosaurs were part of that lower fossil record.

Imagine then, an original Perfect creation by God, when the creation was not in a bondage state like today, no storms, a literal Paradise upon the whole earth, and God's River healing all the waters upon earth it comes into contact with, and that will be close to how this earth was when Satan was created perfect in his ways before he rebelled against God. In Ezekiel 47 you can read about some of that being re-established here on this ancient earth in the future.

Excellent post DP I completely agree, and also the sphinx is so much older than civilization would believe. They just won't acknowledge it.

God Bless...allan

 

[Tintin]

Judging by many of your posts on this forum, I would say it's actually you who doesn't have much of a clue.

The funny thing, ATH1, is that you've just congratulated DP for practising eisegesis (reading into the Bible), not exegesis (reading out from the Bible). That's not a quality method for Bible study, that's an extremely poor one. And yes, I believe the Bible says that we can now eat pork, shellfish etc. We live in the light of the New Covenant.

 

[Dino246]

What a load of garbage, as spoken like a true YEC.

SR & GR are the most proven principles in all of physics, and they state that the Universe is billions of years old.

State your evidence, Bowman. Your assertions, without supporting evidence, are also without merit, and your ad-hominem attack is unnecessary. So far what you have contributed amounts to straw-man arguments, logical fallacies and unsupported statements. You have yet to make an assertion that would stand up in a college-level debate. You are welcome to continue using these tactics, but they only serve to undermine your position.

Perhaps you could state your understanding of the scientific method, and explain, in reference to it, how my statements about it are "garbage" as you say?

Your second statement is using reification (again!). Principles, any kind, don't state anything of the sort. People who discuss principles may make such statements, but that does not prove their validity.

I assume that by "SR" and "GR" you mean special relativity and general relativity.

 

[Bowman]

State your evidence, Bowman. Your assertions, without supporting evidence, are also without merit, and your ad-hominem attack is unnecessary. So far what you have contributed amounts to straw-man arguments, logical fallacies and unsupported statements. You have yet to make an assertion that would stand up in a college-level debate. You are welcome to continue using these tactics, but they only serve to undermine your position.

Perhaps you could state your understanding of the scientific method, and explain, in reference to it, how my statements about it are "garbage" as you say?

Your second statement is using reification (again!). Principles, any kind, don't state anything of the sort. People who discuss principles may make such statements, but that does not prove their validity.

I assume that by "SR" and "GR" you mean special relativity and general relativity.

Wait...I feel an 'appeal to authority' fallacy about to emerge.

Rotflol!!!

 

[tanakh]

well how could the world think these things, if their scientists did not preach them..

You just proved my point for me,, thank you.

who is to say, if the lord tarries for another 1000 years the scientists of today will not look like quacks who did not know what they were talking about. and had things only partially right?

Your definition of Scientist is obviously different from that of everyone else. It wouldnt be surprising if more knowledge would be gained in a thousand years. That is how Scientists work. No one calls Gallileo or Newton a Quack. They had
Scientific knowledge gained by observation, but much more has been gained since then. Twenty years ago the only Planets
known about were in our Solar System now over a thousand have been discovered. According to your estimation Astronomers and Scientists around prior to their discovery were Quacks. Anyway it is obvios that iy is pointless to continue this discussion so Im finishing it here.

 

[ATH1]

The funny thing, ATH1, is that you've just congratulated DP for practising eisegesis (reading into the Bible), not exegesis (reading out from the Bible). That's not a quality method for Bible study, that's an extremely poor one. And yes, I believe the Bible says that we can now eat pork, shellfish etc. We live in the light of the New Covenant.

hi tintin,

I know, lol, I was so surprised to see DP's long post. I have to say I agree with a lot he said in the post. I am so against church doctrine. I think churches are the reason we have 1 Jesus and 300 different denominations each contradicting each other, making Christians look foolish.

When I form an opinion about the bible, I want that opinion to hold true throught the book. I believe the flood was only in the "world" of Noah's time, not the entire global world. It could have been the whole entire earth, but I just don't think so.
Either way, it doesn't change my belief in God. I believe in the "gap" theory between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 I believe each "day" was a period of time/ I think in God's dimension, there is no "time", and Gods use of the word day was to help us understand His message better.
I believe that God created the earth "in the beginning" In Job it says that all the angels sang in unison until one day there was descenction found among the angels and satan drew a 1/3 of Gods angels away from God, and Lucifer became the satan we know today.
I would almost have to write a book to explain all the rest but in short version God wants to separate those that want to serve God from those that want to serve satan and that is what this earth age is all about. At the end, the judgement comes.

I don't know why DP believes one way but seems to antagonize in another, but I sure am not an authority, I just have my thoughts as I see them. Some people like to shock and awe and some just like to discuss quietly. Each serves God the best he can and that is ok with me.

I just want things to be like they were in JOB where ALL the angels sang in unison with God.

humbly...allan

 

[Budman]

I have always believed that if the Bible taught God created the universe billions of years ago, and man via evolutionary means, atheistic scientists would claim that the evidence points to a recent creation, with no evidence for macro-evolution.

 

[Tintin]

I have always believed that if the Bible taught God created the universe billions of years ago, and man via evolutionary means, atheistic scientists would claim that the evidence points to a recent creation, with no evidence for macro-evolution.

Did you know it was the secular scientists of Darwin's day that initially resisted his evolutionary theory? They didn't see it as anything more than fairytales for adults. Sadly, the Church lapped up Darwin's theory like the sheep they are. And we see how that's turned out for Europe.

 

[Tintin]

hi tintin,

When I form an opinion about the bible, I want that opinion to hold true through the book. I believe the flood was only in the "world" of Noah's time, not the entire global world. It could have been the whole entire earth, but I just don't think so.
Either way, it doesn't change my belief in God. I believe in the "gap" theory between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 I believe each "day" was a period of time/ I think in God's dimension, there is no "time", and Gods use of the word day was to help us understand His message better.

If you want to be consistent with your Bible reading, you have to realise the prophets and Jesus all believed in a worldwide Flood. Why don't you? And as for the Gap theory, it's a load of tosh. So God used the word 'day' to help us understand His message better by confusing us at the very beginning? Well, that's evil of Him! The Bible means nothing if it's not God's Truth written to us. If we can't trust His Word from the very beginning, why should we believe any other part of it? When does the truth kick in? Might want to think about that one a little more. Don't just believe the Gap theory, look at the issues with it and test it for yourself. You'll find it wanting in light of the Scriptures.

Noah's Flood and why it couldn't be local:
Noah's Flood covered the whole earth - creation.com

 

[ATH1]

Hi
How I wished Gods people would read the bible without having some denomination s view imprinted so solidly in their belief.

Lets start with a simple one.

Did God allow us to eat pork after God brought Peter the blanket of banned food to him in Acts?

I think God brought the blanket of food to Peter 3 times and Peter refused to eat. what is this? God said eat and Peter wouldn't.

From this statement, which is in the bible, are we allowed to eat this food today

 

[Tintin]

How I wished Gods people would read the bible without having some denomination s view imprinted so solidly in their belief.

Lets start with a simple one.

Did God allow us to eat pork after God brought Peter the blanket of banned food to him in Acts?

I think God brought the blanket of food to Peter 4 times and Peter refused to eat. what is this?

This has nothing to do with denominations and everything to do with understanding the New Convenant. But nice try avoiding the question. If you hate pork, don't eat it. You don't need to crap on about it all of the time.

 

[ATH1]

Good morning tintin,
What do you believe the new covenment means about eating the banned food

 

[ATH1]

Like I said the flood may or may not have been worldwide or local. God was only angry at the angels that came and procreated with ADAMS family. The rest of creation was not mentioned here. only adams family. After the 6th day, God was very happy with his creation. It was only the adam in the garden that the angels (satans boys) were ntrying to infiltrate. they knew that Gods plan was for Jesus to be born at some point and satan was trying to prevent Jesus from being able to be born thru a "perfect" lineage.
I'm sure you know this tintin.