E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
I agree, all we have are theories, No one was there..
One day we can all ask God.. He may even take us there to see his wonderous work.. (at least I have he does)
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.
I agree, all we have are theories, No one was there..
One day we can all ask God.. He may even take us there to see his wonderous work.. (at least I have he does)
Paradise was in heaven (2 Cor 12.4). It was Jesus' body that lay 'at the heart of the earth', His Spirit went to Paradise,
,
Sir, I didn't say verse 1 showed the earth as a mess, saying "In the beginning, God created a mess, but in verse 2 only.
Verse one says, the earth was created, verse two shows the earth already here in a chaotic state. In short, a mess, as though it had been hit by a massive asteroid.
I can see an all powerful God working with that and creating beauty.
The earth and the substances that make up the earth were not always here. there use to be a void. As in, no matter or material to make the earth.
God didn't just bring the material into the natural as a mess, then form it into something beautiful.
If He did that with the earth, then He had to have done the same with all the planets.
I would think the earth would be no different in its formation than any other planet's formation.
What did you read or hear that convinced you to change your mind?
Before Jesus' ascension, I showed paradise was in the earth. For, Jesus said to the thief, "this day I will be with you in paradise". And He also said that He would be in the heart or center of the earth for three days and nights. "This day" had to be within the first three days in the earth where Jesus said He would be.
When Jesus ascended, He took with Him the dead in the earth to the third heaven, which was already there, only without the saints who lived and died before Jesus ascended to heaven.
2 Cor 12:4 is showing where paradise was after Jesus' ascension, not before.
You cannot have some verses showing paradise in the earth and one other showing it somewhere in outer space.
That would make parts of the word of God a lie. God's word cannot contradict itself, and the simple logic I used above should be proof enough that paradise was in the center of the earth before Jesus ascended.
know1..should we laugh now, or later? before I ate my last meal, the center of my stomach was growling and letting me know that I needed to eat. Before I ate my leftovers, they were in the refrigerator. Based on your LOGIC...my well being was in the refrigerator, but after I ingested it, it was in my body..and now that I've eliminated it, it is now in my septic tank...so where is the center of my well being now? lol GOD's WORD is NOT contradicted..only your assumption is.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Your reading into scripture something that is not there.
All verse two says is that at one point the earth was without form and void. Nothing in the passage says it was hit with an asteroid.. SO you can not say that.
Vs 1 says God created the heaven and earth
Vs 2 shows the earth in its original state, before God spend 6 days putting it together before he rested on the seventh.
Nothing else in the text can be gleamed without reading into it. something that is not there.
ps. I used to believe as you do. I was very in tune with the gap theory..
You struck out....
Wrong and wrong.
plan·et
ˈplanət/
noun
noun: planet; plural noun: planets
Wrong and wrong.
plan·et
ˈplanət/
noun
noun: planet; plural noun: planets
- a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star.
[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
[TD]celestial body, heavenly body, dwarf planet, satellite, moon,earth, asteroid, planetoid; literaryorb [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Wrong.
sun
sən/
noun
noun: sun; noun: Sun; noun: the sun- 1.
the star around which the earth orbits.
Wrong.
Planets are formed via accretion.
Go back to school...
- 1.
אבְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָאאֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
1:1 Bereishit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz.
In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth;
The compound Hebrew noun “hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz”, “heavens” (plural) and “earth” (singular) with the definite articles and the conjunction, carries with it a distinct meaning.
Just as the English words “under” and “statement” and “dragon” and “fly” put together as compound nouns take on specific meanings.
“Hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz” consistently refers to the totality of the physical universe: matter, energy, space, and time.
References:
Creation & Time
Waltke
pp. 20, 25-26
Creation & Blessing
Allen P. Ross
pp. 721, 725-726
Last edited:
Re: You struck out....
Still debunked, as it was back at post #402. Conservation of angular momentum is enough to debunk this.
Still debunked, as it was back at post #402. Conservation of angular momentum is enough to debunk this.
That YEC clip does not disprove accretion.
If you think that it does, then defend it.
The YEC narrator is too busy repeating the word 'evolutionists' to be given any credibility.
I'm not an evolutionist.
In your narrow-YEC mind, anyone who believes in an ancient Universe must also believe in human evolution...NOT!
Wake up...
Sir, Jesus said He would be in the earth 3 days and nights, not His body. The flesh of the man is not the man, it's just a vessel for the spirit, heart, and soul of the man.
Without the spirit of the man in the body, the body is just flesh and bone, but there is no one in there.
I have to admit, I've never heard anyone say that it was Jesus' body that went to the center of the earth. How did you come to that conclusion? How do you prove that the body of Jesus wasn't in the tomb but in the center of the earth?
And that His Spirit went to paradise in heaven? And if that is the case, then how do you explain away the verse below?
Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
If Jesus was in paradise and paradise was in heaven where God the Father resides, then how is it that Jesus hadn't ascended to the Father after He rose from the dead? Was there another paradise somewhere else? If so, please show scripturally.
I don't get it.
I don't get the analogy.
I don't see what's so funny.
And I don't understand you language.
Please explain what the "center of your well being" is. Is that what you call food?
You still have yet to prove contrary to what I wrote with scripture.
Re: You struck out....
Lol Apparently I am educated enough to know all about your old earth myths and why they are lies. I would rather think its your deficit of knowledge which prevents you from understanding my point of view as my point of view is taken from the Bible and from science. I notice you're using modernistic definitions that have obviously been tainted by old earth mythologists. Here's the original.
1250-1300; Middle English planete (< Old French planète) < Late Latin planēta, planētēs (found only in plural planētae) < Greek (astéres) planḗtai literally, wandering (stars)
Why the distinction between stars and the sun in the Bible and in the knowledge of the Ancients? Seems most logical that the sun is not a star at all, but that rather that theory came about later from the atheists/nature worshippers to try to support their old earth mythology and heretical cosmological views.
Here's what the sun, moon, and stars actually are and also their origin.
Genesis 1:14-19
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
[SUP]15 [/SUP]And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[SUP]18 [/SUP]And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Accretion disks and all that has never been proven, it cannot be proven because it is a lie. In fact like most old earth mythology the accretion theory is ironically a fairly young creationist lie, not even 50 years old yet.
The earth does not revolve around the sun, but rather it is the earth that is fixed and the sun that goes around above the earth.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
[SUP]5 [/SUP]The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Lol Apparently I am educated enough to know all about your old earth myths and why they are lies. I would rather think its your deficit of knowledge which prevents you from understanding my point of view as my point of view is taken from the Bible and from science. I notice you're using modernistic definitions that have obviously been tainted by old earth mythologists. Here's the original.
1250-1300; Middle English planete (< Old French planète) < Late Latin planēta, planētēs (found only in plural planētae) < Greek (astéres) planḗtai literally, wandering (stars)
Why the distinction between stars and the sun in the Bible and in the knowledge of the Ancients? Seems most logical that the sun is not a star at all, but that rather that theory came about later from the atheists/nature worshippers to try to support their old earth mythology and heretical cosmological views.
Here's what the sun, moon, and stars actually are and also their origin.
Genesis 1:14-19
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
[SUP]15 [/SUP]And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[SUP]18 [/SUP]And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Accretion disks and all that has never been proven, it cannot be proven because it is a lie. In fact like most old earth mythology the accretion theory is ironically a fairly young creationist lie, not even 50 years old yet.
The earth does not revolve around the sun, but rather it is the earth that is fixed and the sun that goes around above the earth.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
[SUP]5 [/SUP]The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Last edited:
1. IMO, I don't believe hell, hades or heaven (where God resides, his throne room etc. etc.) is place in our physical realm, but perhaps in a spiritual realm, sometimes described with physical attributes.
2. Where does it say in the bible the earth will be completely destroyed. It's of my understanding and opinion that the earth will be remade, or renovated along with the universe.
I don't see how thinking that God created the universe and it developed over time takes away from His awesomeness, the point scripture makes IMO is that God created the universe for a purpose. That purpose mainly being us in which He could be glorified through.
Isaiah 45
18 For thus says the Lord,
Who created the heavens,
Who is God,
Who formed the earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain,
Who formed it to be inhabited:
“I am the Lord, and there is no other.
However, living beings is another story, in order for living beings to survive all the necessary parts had to come together all at once. Take away one small part of a single cell and it dies.
The deceiving spirit could have been a willing angel, not directly God doing it. More likely IMO the "deceiving spirit" was just a spiritual blindfold placed on the man so he couldn't see the truth. The term spirit could also an attitude of personal disposition, such as the Christmas spirit, spirit of joy, spirit of content, spirit of Elijah (repentance) etc. etc.
No doubt God stretched out the heavens, and I'm no astrophysicist, but those that are (even Christians astrophysicist such as Hugh Ross) say the evidence suggests or points to a rapid expansion at first (billions of years ago) and a gradual slow down as object got farther away from each other.
If God did stretch out the heavens that fast, billions of light years condensed into 6000 years, you would think the universe would still be traveling close to the same rate of speed. So this theory suggests God spread out the heavens at creation really fast (in a day or two), then slowed it down in which gives us a false appearance of age and longevity. This is why this theory doesn't sit right with me. Not to mention the evidence observed is not compatible with this theory, I can't give the exact reason, has something to do with observing the light and red shifts I think.
Last edited:
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
1. I would agree with you.. I feel the same way..
2. this is what I see
Isaiah 65:17
“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.
Revelation 21:1
Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
I see what your saying, and you could be right,,
However, for God to create it to be inhabited. Then why did he create it, and wait so long to put mankind in it to inhabit it. (this seems like a waste)
Why could he not have done it all at once. in just a few days?
Hi Bookends. I think the danger in this is when we are said to have evolved as part of this mechanism of creation, seeing as how we are made in his image. If someone wants to say that God took a long time to make things rather than a literal six days, but created man instantly rather than through the means of evolution at some later point, then I don't have an issue, but I think that breaks the creation story as allegory theory since all the rest of the story would have to follow suit. This view also implies that we can still evolve, which much of the world believes we will eventually evolve into gods of our own or become part of the "God Consciousness".
I think the issue comes when people say "evolution was the means by which God created everything (man included)", which, to me, makes void the fact that we are created in his image.
Beyond that, the old earth theory opens people up to secular humanism and Darwinism and they often mix these world views with their Christian world view. I don't think the views are compatible. This is where I take issue with the old earth theory. If the bible says six days, I like to believe what it says.
Another problem with allegorizing the creation story is that it almost makes every miraculous event following it subject to allegorization rather than literal events that took place.
So, were Adam and Eve two monkeys made in God's image? Or two amoebas? Or two frogs? Two fish? Or were they the first two to have evolved into self-aware intelligent creatures? Or were they simply created by miraculous means as the bible says, already fully who God made them to be in his image?
I have no issues with the old earth theory other than man being evolved, and if man wasn't created by evolution, then the whole allegory breaks down and has to be taken literally.
I agree with this 100%.