getting dates about a young earth

[DP]

Show you the Scripture for it? LOL. It's all through the Scriptures. We'd have no Gospel message without that understanding. Why did God come to earth as a human (but still God), to suffer and die and rise to new life in our place? Uh... You can't answer any of that without knowing why we needed a Kinsman Redeemer in the first place. And to do that you need to know that there was a first Adam who buggered it up for everyone and a last Adam (Jesus) who put everything right (the war has ended, but the battle still rages, until He comes back).

That's what I thought. You don't really know what Paul was talking about in the Rom.8 Scripture about God's creation.

That reveals you've simply decided in your own mind that the Gap idea has to be about man's theories of evolution, and then decided to jump on the political anti bandwagon, which of course gives you absolutely no Biblical support. It only shows you've joined a political faction, nothing more.

 

[Bowman]

I don't ignore general revelation.

If you are a YEC, then you most certainly do...

 

[Bowman]

not true. I learned nt greek so I could learn the truth about JW doctrines (it's a little rusty now).

one thing I learned from that experience, is that with a few exceptions a good word-for-word translation (say, the nasb) gave me the same information.
(and the benefit of the decades of study the translators had.)

I also learned that the nt writers quote the lxx more often than the hebrew.
so I said to myself, Self, is learning hebrew the most efficient use of time, since I already know greek, and the lxx may be more reliable.

I looked at how Luke handles Jesus reading Isaiah in the synagogue, where Jesus says, "the spirit of the Lord is upon me."
the lxx differs from the hebrew a word or phrase here or there.
Luke has Jesus quoting the lxx.
maybe this was because Jesus read from the lxx, or maybe Luke used it instead because his reader was more familiar with it, and Luke figured 'close enough.'
the thrust of the passage remains unchanged, I think.

The LXX was translated from Hebrew.

Thus, it is most beneficial to study the original, obviously.

 

[Tintin]

That's what I thought. You don't really know what Paul was talking about in the Rom.8 Scripture about God's creation.

That reveals you've simply decided in your own mind that the Gap idea has to be about man's theories of evolution, and then decided to jump on the political anti bandwagon, which of course gives you absolutely no Biblical support. It only shows you've joined a political faction, nothing more.

How about you do some proper research on the Gap Theory? How about you do some proper reading of the Scriptures? The answers are all through the Bible, you just need to look. And I couldn't give a rat's backside about politics. This is a clash of worldviews, nothing more. It's certainly not political.

Paul speaks of a perfect creation ruined, held in bondage (all because humanity rebelled against their Creator) and then restored to its original state, by way of Jesus' sacrifice for us. It's pretty simple. I don't see how you don't see its relevance.

 

[DP]

How about you do some proper research on the Gap Theory? How about you do some proper reading of the Scriptures? The answers are all through the Bible, you just need to look. And I couldn't give a rat's backside about politics. This is a clash of worldviews, nothing more. It's certainly not political.

Paul speaks of a perfect creation ruined, held in bondage (all because humanity rebelled against their Creator) and then restored to its original state, by way of Jesus' sacrifice for us. It's pretty simple. I don't see how you don't see its relevance.

If you really understood what the Gap idea is about, you would know how it was that Apostle Paul showed in Rom.8 that God placed His creation in a state of bondage to corruption, and His creation like us, seeks a release from that bondage state. What that especially reveals is that God did NOT originally make His creation in that bondage state it's been in, and still is in today. What we see today with His creation, is not how He originally created it, is what that especially reveals. That's what you are lacking in understanding about, i.e., His original creation.

 

[Bookends]

Why would they think otherwise. What kind of scientific proof would they have? How would they determine dates of rocks or anything else??

We can not know what they thought we were not there. But what would make us believe they believed in OLD earth? How could they? What science would they have used?

remember, they determined dates and years by using years of kings. or family trees.. and who begot who....

One can think or believe the earth is old or new without proof. There was a lot incorrect theories back then, it was generally believe the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

 

[Bookends]

The problem of some here is a predisposition to disbelief in the power of God, while calling themselves people of faith. Those who've referenced scripture are right, the fifth verse of Genesis states, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." These Hebrew words for evening and morning have ordinary meaning of night, like after sunset, and morning, like daybreak. An effort was made to specify what sort of day the first day and other days of creation were, in terms of what we know as a 24 hour cycle. Also given the Word of God creates by His word, that the power of God is beyond imagining, demonstrably in no need of factory facilities or raw materials, the Bible creation account would clearly point to a young earth: God has all the wherewithal to do just that.

Interesting, also, that the young earth can't really be decisively debunked, for objections of quite competent creation scientists. So, if either case can be "proved," nobody here is prepared to categorically say anything, in terms of science, especially when truth cannot discount the unlimited power of God, beyond all human understanding. Such power is way beyond man's best science, which is, as often as not, a best guess, and that guess also often lame, with as many holes as a spaghetti strainer. Everybody knows that, when you shine a light on the Big Bang or evolution, the very sensibility flees. I'd go as far as to say, if it were possible the Lord could ever get in a rush, He could plant another universe in one day, as surely as He changed water into wine in an instant, without planting, growing, harvesting or processing any grapes. That's power! There's a Bible caution, about trying to elevate man, and reduce God, to, as if, meet in the middle, which is an unfaithful form of egomaniacal creature hubris,

2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Those of you tearing at the Bible creation account, why don't you just admit you don't believe it, and that your Creator of Genesis has to be diminished and more conform to the creature? Add that, and you see this all over message boards, His thinking has to conform to yours, doesn't it, regardless clear scripture? Some of you need to go off somewhere and write your own Bible.

Just because you can't fully prove your position doesn't give you permission to bash the other and to make them look as if we/they aren't Christian (claim we don't have faith, claiming we are against creation).

 

[Tintin]

If you really understood what the Gap idea is about, you would know how it was that Apostle Paul showed in Rom.8 that God placed His creation in a state of bondage to corruption, and His creation like us, seeks a release from that bondage state. What that especially reveals is that God did NOT originally make His creation in that bondage state it's been in, and still is in today. What we see today with His creation, is not how He originally created it, is what that especially reveals. That's what you are lacking in understanding about, i.e., His original creation.

Good grief! I know what I'm talking about. Yes, creation was in a perfect state originally. The state of bondage was a result of the rebellion against God in the garden of Eden and this sin corrupted the whole of creation. It's plain to see. The whole Bible corroborates that truth. The whole of creation waits for Jesus to return so it can be restored to its original Edenic state as the New Heavens and the New Earth.

 

[Bookends]

yes, I agree with that the "thousand years / day" means God doesn't experience time as we do.

as you read the story, are the Days / Epochs the same length?

to me, it looks like they are,
each has the same "timestamp".
There was evening and morning, day "N".

I don't know if the days/epoch are the same length. I don't see the phrase "evening and morning" as a time stamp, but rather a closer (God did not work again until the next day/epoch). Like when we work a day, we often say "another day another dollar", in saying this, we don't mean we worked the whole 24 hour day.

 

[Bookends]

so here's a thought,


when moses tells the israelites to work six days and rest on the seventh, he compares it to what God did.

he says God rested on the seventh. I don't know how the hebrew would handle this, but if moses thought God worked six epochs and is resting now on the seventh epoch, would it make more sense to say 'God started resting on the seventh'?

or maybe the lxx with its greek verbs would be of help.

I think the 7 epochs were pattern for our 7-24 hour weak period. Often the Hebrew writers didn't understand what the wrote, especially the prophecies.

For example: Generally I think the Israelites had disdain for the gentiles and other nations. What do you think King David and his Israelite brothers thought after King David wrote Psalm 2:8

Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.

 

[Bookends]

Oh. Wait. Is this that thing where, instead of directly facing the things said about us, we deflect it and try and put the attention on the other person by making things up to make them look bad?

There's another on here who called OECist faithless and creation deniers. Mind giving him the same treatment to him that you are to Bowman. I'm not saying your wrong and Bowman could tone it down a bit. Or are you bias against OECist? Just asking?

 

[Bookends]

But...of course...






We don't live in NT times, either...

We don't? Show me were the NT times has ended?

(this's a joke in part brother, I love yah)...

 

[Bookends]

If your talking about the seventh day of creation of Genesis. Then yes it ended for the evening and the morning were the next day. In OT times the next day started with the sun rising. Meaning a day was from sun to sun. To say that God rested on the seventh day is another thing. Did He really rest from all His works or is He still working with us and to us?

Actually I think your wrong, In OT times, the next day actually began at sun down. I could try to find sources that verify this if required too. (takes time I don't have though).

Also, God rested from creation, not from working in the world. So in this sense, He is still resting because He hasn't created anything new.

 

[Bookends]

oddly enough, I was an oec for most of my life.

I like to read stories from literary magazines.
over time, I became more sensitive to tone than I had been.

I think it was my increasing awareness of the difference between the tone of genesis and what I believed
that led me to yec-ism.


I had to ask myself, "if I'd never read this story before, and someone told me it was from a hindu veda, I would have said, 'Looks like they think one of their gods made the world in a really short time, like a week' ".

What it's a translation error? What the english translation read epoch 1, 2, 3, etc. etc. Surely you don't deny that Yom can mean "epoch."

 

[DP]

The state of bondage was a result of the rebellion against God in the garden of Eden and this sin corrupted the whole of creation.

But that's what I asked you Bible Scripture proof for. So far, that's just an assumption on your part. You haven't provided Scripture proof of that.

 

[Bookends]

What if it's a translation error? What if the english translation read epoch 1, 2, 3, etc. etc. Surely you don't deny that Yom can mean "epoch."

corrections sorry.

 

[Bookends]

But that's what I asked you Bible Scripture proof for. So far, that's just an assumption on your part. You haven't provided Scripture proof of that.

Are you saying that God curse Satan, woman and man as a result from Adam's sin, but not creation? If so, then when do you think creation was cursed?

 

[DP]

Are you saying that God curse Satan, woman and man as a result from Adam's sin, but not creation? If so, then when do you think creation was cursed?

I'm asking where is the Bible Scripture to show the time of Adam's fall was when God placed His creation in the state of vanity and bondage Paul spoke of in Romans 8.

I know the Scriptures where God said He did not create the earth in that state, and where He shows it in that state Paul preached per Rom.8. But where is the Scripture support for it happening at the time of Adam's fall which some here think?

 

[Bookends]

I'm asking where is the Bible Scripture to show the time of Adam's fall was when God placed His creation in the state of vanity and bondage Paul spoke of in Romans 8.

I know the Scriptures where God said He did not create the earth in that state, and where He shows it in that state Paul preached per Rom.8. But where is the Scripture support for it happening at the time of Adam's fall which some here think?

Well, wouldn't it be at the time God placed the curses on Satan, Adam and Eve as a direct consequence from Adam's first sin?

 

[DP]

The following Scripture is about the coming end of this present world:

Heb 12:25-29
25 See that ye refuse not Him That speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused Him That spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him That speaketh from heaven:


26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now He hath promised, saying, "Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven."


27 And this word, "Yet once more", signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.


28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
29 For our God is a consuming fire.
KJV

Verse 27 tells about the level... of shaking God is going to do on this earth in our near future, removing the things of man that can be shaken, so that those things which can't be shaken may remain. So that describes how powerful a destruction He is going to do upon this earth.

Verse 26 with "... I shake not the earth only, but also heaven," that future shaking is to include heaven shaking also.
But what is that "Yet once more" in that 26th verse? That's pointing to a another previous... time when God shook the earth.

That "Yet once more" verse 27 tells us that previous time also included a shaking of this earth to remove things made (man's works), but that one happened at sometime in the past history of the earth.

When... was that previous shaking of the earth by God to that same level that's also going to happen in our future?

Most will be led to say that previous shaking took place at the days of Noah with the flood. Then I ask, where's Scripture proof for that previous time of God shaking the earth in Noah's days?

And it's important to note per that above Hebrews Scripture, the level of shaking the earth that happened once before was the same level of the coming future shaking of the earth.