thanks!
to me, that would lend weight to the days being literal, if the sun is already working.
to you, then, does this mean that the totality of the physical universe was created all at once, in the beginning?
getting dates about a young earth
- Thread starter Dan_473
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
thanks!
to me, that would lend weight to the days being literal, if the sun is already working.
to you, then, does this mean that the totality of the physical universe was created all at once, in the beginning?
God commands the deceiving spirit to go to the prophets.
the spirit and God converse, implying to me intelligence on the part of the spirit.
so, for me, not like the Christmas spirit.
Micaiah says God put the spirit there. to me, that's action on God's part.
I agree that God stretching out the heavens, the billions condensed into 6,000, doesn't fit with our observations today.
I was just saying it raised a possibility, a reason to suspect that a divine "stretching" occured.
If I had to pick, I'd go with that phrase being poetry.
I'm leaning towards "God created the stars with starlight already on its way".
right, why stop?
if the universe evolved over billions of years to its present state, why not carry the thinking all the way forward to this very thread,
and say that ideas about spirituallity are simply an evolutionary adaptation?
people who think they are always being watched by a spirit are more likely to do things that benefit the clan, thereby increasing the chance of their own genes continuing.
T
Tintin
Guest
People, it's not possible to read the Creation Week in Genesis 1 and 2 as being long ages without bringing in outside information. If you use Scripture to interpret Scripture (as God's Word tells us to do) the Creation Week reads as 6 ordinary days of work and one regular day of rest. If you want to believe otherwise, okay. But that's what Moses wrote via Holy Spirit. And Hebrew poetry is very recognisable. Early Genesis has none of its features (for countless examples of Hebrew poetry see the Psalms).
Bogus.
There are numerous creation passages outside of Genesis, in the Holy Bible.
To shoehorn Gen 1 into 24hr segments forces other Biblical creation passages into contradiction.
T
Tintin
Guest
Magenta, look at the context. The verse has absolutely nothing to do with Creation Week. Also, it's metaphoric language.
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
That is the context... creation is specifically mentioned.
Also: "... everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
There is nothing new...
If you consider known physics, when spinning a top, the energy applied to it is understandably dissipated. The top slows to a stop. I never saw or heard of one continuing to spin.
Now, though, it should be understood that all creation is like letters on a scroll. The stars are on it, and the scroll, a "fabric", was stretched out in every direction by God, who made the fabric with the stars on it. It wouldn't matter how long ago a particular star was born, concerning it's position now compared to it's beginning position. What matters is all of them were stretched out into space at once, perhaps in a nanosecond of time, and supposedly the moment every object of his fabric was created. Along with those objects, their emitted light was stretched too. So, the light emitted from each star left a trail on the fabric through "time".
To visualize that, take a sheet of cloth, put some ink dots on it, then measure the distance between each. Then wet and stretch it with all your might. Next, measure the distance between spots. You will find each is farther apart. If you could stand on the surface in the middle of that sheet witnessing it all, you would have seen each star giving light recede, but since you too are spreading outward at the same speed as some of those dots, "spreading" outward like all of them, the light coming to you will be slower and of a longer light wave, or "bluer", toward the ultraviolet light bands.
He could have, but perhaps He waited so we could see His awesomeness and ponder it. For us it it may seem a waste of time, but God doesn't experience time like us, so to Him it's no time at all.
Just for the record, I thought I had explained this, I don't believe life evolved over time, I believe life was created instantly; but I don't have a problem with the universe, stars, planets, and suns etc. evolving and being fine tuned by God to support life for our existence.
I wasn't accusing you of believing in evolution of species. I was just presenting my view of the old earth theory and why I thought it was dangerous because of the conclusions it often leads to. Sorry for the confusion.
T
Tintin
Guest
I'm pretty sure God is called the Creator of all things, not the Facilitator of all things for good reason.
They are literal epochs of time, yes.
Further, our sun was not created on 'day 4'.
No.
Gen 1.1 condenses billions of years into one statement....then it provides the sequence that the earth was made habitable.....from simple to more and more complex life forms.
Re: You struck out....
No.
The YEC point of view has no merit.....less, in fact, with each passing day...
The Greeks also thought that the Universe was eternal.
Should we continue to use old definitions and thought, when they are clearly in error?
No.
Our sun is not a star?
You have a heavy burden to prove that statement.
“Day” Four: Genesis 1:14 – 1:19
And said God, Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night and let them be for signs, and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth; and it was so. And brought forth God, two the luminaries great; the luminary great for the rule of the day, and the luminary small for the rule of the night, and the stars. And appointed them God in the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate between the light and the darkness; and saw God that good (it was). And was the mixing and was the breaking forth time the fourth. (Gen 1:14-19)
The Transformation of the Earth’s atmosphere occurs on “Day” Four. The Sun, Moon, and Stars begin to mark the Earth’s days, years, and seasons.
Because you say so...?
You are totally jacked....wow!
No.
The YEC point of view has no merit.....less, in fact, with each passing day...
The Greeks also thought that the Universe was eternal.
Should we continue to use old definitions and thought, when they are clearly in error?
No.
Our sun is not a star?
You have a heavy burden to prove that statement.
“Day” Four: Genesis 1:14 – 1:19
And said God, Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night and let them be for signs, and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth; and it was so. And brought forth God, two the luminaries great; the luminary great for the rule of the day, and the luminary small for the rule of the night, and the stars. And appointed them God in the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate between the light and the darkness; and saw God that good (it was). And was the mixing and was the breaking forth time the fourth. (Gen 1:14-19)
The Transformation of the Earth’s atmosphere occurs on “Day” Four. The Sun, Moon, and Stars begin to mark the Earth’s days, years, and seasons.
Because you say so...?
You are totally jacked....wow!
You could be right, just remember the old Hebrew language consists of roughly 9100 words, while our language consists of more then a million. Of course I'm relying on other's works for these numbers but the point remains that translating can be tricky . In 1 kings 22 the spirit offered to go and tell the lie, all God did was approve of it, it wasn't God's idea (it seems). We don't know much about who this spirit was or is, or who it pledged it's allegiance too. It could have been an evil spirit willing to deceive, since that's what they love to do and God allowed it just as God allows people to sin (and God often uses sin to bring about a particular outcome -repentance or judgment). We know from Revelations that God uses Satan and demons to bring judgment on Jerusalem.
I'm not the only one with possibility or theory on this;
John Wesley, "He said - I will inspire a lie into the minds and mouths of his prophets. Thou shalt - I will give them up into thy hands, and leave them to their own ignorance and wickedness. Go - This is not a command, but only a permission."
John Gill, "and he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets; put them on encouraging Ahab to go up, and promising him success, as he had in former battles with the king of Syria, and which might both encourage them to give forth such a prediction, and him to believe it to be true; this proposal was quite agreeable to the character of the devil, as the father of lies:"
Poor man's commentary (Robert Hawker), "That Micaiah had been favoured with a divine vision, upon this occasion, is evident: for his prediction, and the event so exactly corresponding, plainly proved it. With respect to the lying spirit here spoken of, as influencing the prophets, to the destruction of Ahab: as this is an interesting part, and perhaps is not so generally understood; the pious Reader will not be displeased if I detain him with a few observations upon that subject. That there is at the head of our spirital eneumies, a leader, called Satan, who had a principal hand in the ruin of our nature at the fall; and who from that time, hath ruled, more or less, in the minds of the children of disobedience, is a doctrine, I take for granted, no wise person will venture to question, or deny. That the Son of God came to destroy his kingdom, is also an undoubted, and thoroughly allowed truth. That therefore, in this instance he had permission, by the mouths of the false prophets, to deceive Ahab; and that in numberless other instances, his power hath been, and still is, exerted (only limited as the wisdom of Jesus for blessed purposes allows) to influence the corrupt passions of men: scripture so decidedly shows, that it must argue great folly, as well as great wickedness, to dispute it. That the prophet Micaiah, therefore, should be taught this by the ministry of a vision, seems agreeable to the whole analogy of the divine word. And with respect both to the permission and success of his deception, when we consider what Job saith, and Paul confirms, the whole is most fully and satisfactorily explained. The former tells us, from inspired authority, that both the deceiver and deceived are his. And the latter, that in those that perish with the deceivableness of unrighteousness in the working of Satan, it is for this cause, God hath sent them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. See Job_12:16; 2Th_2:9-11. If the Reader would see more on this subject, I refer him to Job_2:1. Of Satan’s power in putting into the heart, as in the case of Judas; Joh_13:2: Of filling the heart, as in Ananias; Act_5:3: Of making the whole man full of subtilty, as in Elymas; Act_13:9-10: And of reigning and ruling in the children of disobedience at his will; see Eph_2:2; 2Ti_1:18.
Well, one could say that YEC is dangerous because it teaches against most evidences of an old earth and even older universe. Thus, when confronted with a reason for your faith and belief of God the creator the only answer is without satisfactory reason to the agnostic or atheist, "because the bible says so" (in which I don't think the bible directly does say so). It's a weak argument.
Re: You struck out....
Nay, but what they call YEC actually is the orthodox view and the only view with any tangible evidence. Though admittedly as with the old earth mythology/new age revisionism, YEC theories also have undergone a modernistic sorta spin off. Lol though I'd be inclined to agree that with each passing day the so-called young creation does get older indeed.
Indeed, and we can see in the old earth mythologies and modern heretical cosmologies heavy Greek/Hellenistic influence. After all their old earth myths such as Big Bang are basically a rehash of this very concept of a perpetual universe. It's not hard to figure out, just look what they like to name their fantasy planets, space mission programs, etc.
Who said they were in error, a bunch of people only 200 some years young from our time now? What if a particular ancient belief system was true, Christianity and the Bible and the history and sciences pertaining.
The burden of proof is to prove the sun is a star. The original claim is the sun is its own distinct object. Man has extensively observed the sun, you can go out and just look up in the day time and see it for yourself. The stars also been observed much throughout time. You can also test and observe this yourself. The stars are innumerable and are apparently much smaller and unique to one another even.
1 Corinthians 15:41
[SUP]41 [/SUP]There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
The sky or atmosphere or the firmament, the celestial waters, the terrestrial waters, etc. was created on Day 2 lol.
Genesis 1:6-8
[SUP]6 [/SUP]And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]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.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Lol no, because even they say so. It's the point in time when their theories become in vogue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(astrophysics)
Basically this is why they can't date the earth to the theme of this topic. Revisionist sci-fi writers of the 20th century lol.
Lol you asked this originally;
I merely responded how it be, my apologies perhaps I am too quick witted myself sometimes. Lol someone has to rep the orthodox cosmology, but nonetheless there's no point in hating each other over whether the 5,000 some years of the known existence of the creation is old or young. Lol though I am amused by your wit as always. Be well old Bowman, praise Jesus.
Psalm 113
1 Praise ye the Lord. Praise, O ye servants of the Lord, praise the name of the Lord.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Blessed be the name of the Lord from this time forth and for evermore.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the Lord's name is to be praised.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]The Lord is high above all nations, and his glory above the heavens.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high,
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!
[SUP]7 [/SUP]He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill;
[SUP]8 [/SUP]That he may set him with princes, even with the princes of his people.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the Lord.
Nay, but what they call YEC actually is the orthodox view and the only view with any tangible evidence. Though admittedly as with the old earth mythology/new age revisionism, YEC theories also have undergone a modernistic sorta spin off. Lol though I'd be inclined to agree that with each passing day the so-called young creation does get older indeed.
Indeed, and we can see in the old earth mythologies and modern heretical cosmologies heavy Greek/Hellenistic influence. After all their old earth myths such as Big Bang are basically a rehash of this very concept of a perpetual universe. It's not hard to figure out, just look what they like to name their fantasy planets, space mission programs, etc.
Who said they were in error, a bunch of people only 200 some years young from our time now? What if a particular ancient belief system was true, Christianity and the Bible and the history and sciences pertaining.
The burden of proof is to prove the sun is a star. The original claim is the sun is its own distinct object. Man has extensively observed the sun, you can go out and just look up in the day time and see it for yourself. The stars also been observed much throughout time. You can also test and observe this yourself. The stars are innumerable and are apparently much smaller and unique to one another even.
1 Corinthians 15:41
[SUP]41 [/SUP]There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
The sky or atmosphere or the firmament, the celestial waters, the terrestrial waters, etc. was created on Day 2 lol.
Genesis 1:6-8
[SUP]6 [/SUP]And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]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.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Lol no, because even they say so. It's the point in time when their theories become in vogue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(astrophysics)
Basically this is why they can't date the earth to the theme of this topic. Revisionist sci-fi writers of the 20th century lol.
Lol you asked this originally;
I merely responded how it be, my apologies perhaps I am too quick witted myself sometimes. Lol someone has to rep the orthodox cosmology, but nonetheless there's no point in hating each other over whether the 5,000 some years of the known existence of the creation is old or young. Lol though I am amused by your wit as always. Be well old Bowman, praise Jesus.
Psalm 113
1 Praise ye the Lord. Praise, O ye servants of the Lord, praise the name of the Lord.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Blessed be the name of the Lord from this time forth and for evermore.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the Lord's name is to be praised.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]The Lord is high above all nations, and his glory above the heavens.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high,
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!
[SUP]7 [/SUP]He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill;
[SUP]8 [/SUP]That he may set him with princes, even with the princes of his people.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the Lord.