Old Universe/Recent Biosphere

Michelle, Praise the Lord we agree again!!!

That was the exact reason I changed from a gap theory to a strict six day creationist. I myself being an engineer has been fascinated at science.

I would debate with Helen on this board until I was blue in the face. She was patient with me and would send me information that her husband had developed (He is a creation scientist who developed a theory of change of light speed based on observations of a slowing down of light speed since it has been measured.)

Anyway, it never occurred to me that death had not yet occurred, so how could you have dinos running around dying. DUUUHHHHH! Was I STUPID.

The day it hit me I wrote Helen and she just literally went ecstatic because I then HAD to believe in a six day creation.

Now, let me be clear, I did NOT believe in theistic evolution and never have, but I did think the exstinct animals were living during a gap.

I noticed that "air" was mentioned. Does he not know that air is thinner than the skin of an apple on the earths surface in comparison to the size of the planet. Space would not be air.

The first sentence of Genesis is simply an opening statement. If you have ever studied journalism (my minor in school) you have a thing called inverted pyramid for news stories. You tell the main story in the first sentence and then go on to expound on the details. Genesis first chapter is an excellent picture of an inverted pyramid.

But again, the bottom line is that twice the Bible says God made the Heavens and Earth in six days and rested. There is NO implication of anything longer.

Besides, from a strictly scientific point of view scientists have typically been non-religious meaning that they have to come up with a theory for life that does not include a God. Everything has to be a natural law. Therefore the only choice they have is evolution. Evolution is only a theory and evolution would require billions of years, if it was possible.

By looking at life, though, it is impossible. For example the eye ball. How would something evolve to see light with a lens that inverts and focuses the picture and rods and cones to convert it to electrical impulses. It can't happen, because there is no place to start.

I had a couple of ducks as pets. One night I was cooking hamburgers outside and watched one fly across the yard and realized the complexity of stability of the duck being able to fly. Completely stabilized wing structure and tail structure for stabilization, just like an aircraft only better. This could not have evolved from a flying squirrel type of animal, too much complexity.

Again, thank you Michelle for bringing up "death". God was very clear it did not work.

Also, if Paul33 thinks that God played around with muck for millions of years. Why? He spoke things into existence. He spoke a living breathing world into existence.

The Hebrew term does not actually indicate that the Earth "became" it is actually better translated as "was" void.

Scientifically, studies are pointing more and more towards a young Earth. When Mount St. Helen's had the big eruption a few years back it left strata that to scientists looked like it was millions of years old. This occurred in one day.

The fossil record does NOT show evolution. It shows a world wide flood.

We don't see fossils forming today, nor do we see coal forming today. Nor have we EVER seen a species change to another species. There is evolution within the species to fit the environment. This is God's little gift to protect a species. For example, man-made evolution in dogs shows a change from the original wild dog. Bottom line; however, it is still a "dog". You will not ever see a dog turn into a cat or anything else.

Evolutionary theories are too full of holes. Now they are trying to say that dark matter makes up over 90% of the universe simply because the equations don't fit. They don't fit because the universe is not millions of years old.

Read Genesis again. Don't try to read anything INTO it.

 

I'll have to look more closely at exactly what's being said, but if you carefully read the presentation that's being made, but I can clearly see this is NOT theisitic evolution by any stretch.

The difference here is that you all say THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, including the earth's core, mantle, crust, and all life forms and atmosphere was made in 6 days. This presentation says the universe and the core elements of the earth were formed prior to the six days of creation. This is NOT evolution. No death in creation is involved. A literal six day creation of the biosphere (the atmosphere as it was prior to the Flood, the life forms on it/in it, plants, et.al., and no death comes until the sin of Adam) itself is literally affirmed.

The gap theory is different than this. Theistic evolution is different from this. Nothing here is outside the bounds of orthodoxy.

 

Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Ex 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Paul33, are you NOT reading these verses? Do you ignore them?

God didn't brood over anything for any length of time more than six days. In SIX days the LORD MADE HEAVEN AND EARTH. What is NOT clear about that? Anything else is your poor, sad theory.

Science does NOT refute the Bible, only bad theories based on multiple variables refute the Bible. We can't even measure stars more than 100 light years away accurately because we have to measure on one side of the sun, then again on the other side and determine the angle. This is soooooo small compared to the size of the universe, it is not accurate--everything else is a guess.

 

Yes it is, read the verses I posted above.

 

You need to read my posts closer. My discussion of evolution was my testimony; not related to your situation, although I was agreeing with what Michelle said about death.

Since your theory does not include that, then it doesn't apply.

Obviously, you do not have much of a background in science because you have not brought science to an issue, only scripture. Your interpretation of scripture is the only thing at issue here and even you have to admit there it must only be a theory.

By the way, "heavens" is defined as anything outside of the realm. Where are you getting that this only means sky?

What is your science background?
If this were the case, then verse one of Genesis would only say that "God created the earth and the sky". What, no universe? How could he invent the sky (atmosphere) if he only invented the Earth's core? You need to add science to this too. Science and the Bible do not disagree by the way, only bad-science THEORIES. And yours is one of them.

All science today is actually pointing towards young Earth. The only scientists that cannot agree with this are evolutionists who REQUIRE billions of years for their theory to work. So, why do YOU need the long period of time?

Why do you think God needed that long time?

Why do you think there even WAS long time, based on science because the verse obviously does not say anything about time? You are the one adding the time.

Did you not read my note about inverted pyramid descriptions. It is used more than once in Genesis, including Genesis 2. Which if you wanted to read into it, He created man twice.

 

14 hours Biblical Hebrew and 9 hours Biblical Greek. 22 hours Old Testament Theology. 17 hours New Testament theology. I still don't claim to know my Hebrew or Greek well. I have to rely on reference books because I have trouble remembering specifics, only concepts.

Oh, (added later) these are college hours, not actual hours.


Most of my studies are on the Old Testament; I just decided to do this because I wanted to learn the older history, because less people study it today.

I have taught Genesis 1-11 and creationism to multiple Church groups in different churches. I currently have a book in process already in edit concerning specific theories of creation science.

I have also taught English Bible translation and history (I have a large collection of 1600, 1700 Bibles and pages).

I just finished one Genesis 1-11 creation class about a month ago. I have to rest between due to the level of detail I teach (sometimes up to one year at one day a week).

All of my seminary classes were taken in the last 10 years since I obtained my MBA.

What's yours? I don't think you answered mine on science~?


As for stars, I don't understand your question. Are you referring to one single star? Naked eye? Binoculars, 6 inch refractor, 56 inch reflector, Hubble, interpolation between multiple world-wide telescopes? Most stars we see are a 140 or less light years. Many below 75.

Anything over approximately 40 light years will be fairly inaccurate, with inaccuracy increasing almost exponentially with distance. This is due to the limited angle provided by a maximum of 2 AU since this is only approximately 16 light minutes. (if my poor memory serves me).

Honestly, I don't understand your question though. No offense.

Why would God try to confuse people when the easiest interpretation is obviously 6 days? Otherwise, He would obviously say, it took 20 million years to create the universe and 6 days to create the Earth.

 

By the way, your theory is not new, it is quite old and has been considered to be a "revision" of the gap theory. It was shot down about the same time as the gap theory by most creation scientists.

Maybe Helen will read this, she is so much better than I since creationism is such a complex science.

What you are not realizing is that everything science is finding is pointing towards a young universe. As I said, the ONLY reason for long time periods is for the evolution theory to work. Otherwise, there is no proof of it.

 

I'm going to bed. Will answer any responses tomorrow. ...got a hard day tomorrow. Should be on tomorrow night.

 

"Anything over approximately 40 light years will be fairly inaccurate, with inaccuracy increasing almost exponentially with distance. This is due to the limited angle provided by a maximum of 2 AU since this is only approximately 16 light minutes. (if my poor memory serves me)."

There are ways to measure distance other than parallax. This is a good tutorial.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm

"All science today is actually pointing towards young Earth. The only scientists that cannot agree with this are evolutionists who REQUIRE billions of years for their theory to work."

Don't forget about geologists and astronomers. They agree on the age, too, but have nothing to do with biology or evolution.

But y'all go on. I just wanted to briefly chime in.

 

Lots of diverse arguments going on here...

On the bara/asah issue I think the minimalist approach is best. To say that because asah is used that creation is not taking place is unseemly at best. Asah can very well mean make or create.

On the time issues - honest interpretation of the passage really seems to be implying that everything was done in a short time period. An intentional time gap here is probably more inferred than implied! To me the question seems to be whether or not the account was meant to be literal or whether it was a theological epic of sorts, intending to define YHWH as the supreme creator, and not intending to say that the earth is x years old.

 

Genesis 1

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
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.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


Verse 1 is an opening statement of what God created:

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


Verse 2 describes the state of the earth and that the Holy Spirit of God MOVED upon the face of the deep which precedes into verse 3, explaining God speaking Light into existance (the Holy Spirit also being light).


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.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


The rest is self explanatory. There is not any need to imply that God created the heaven and earth, and then WAITED for a period of time to create the rest, as this would indicate God rested in his creation PRIOR to when God said he did, which is on the SEVENTH DAY.


It might benefit you to use the inspired and innerrant word of God in the English language that God so wonderfully provided for us, and generations of believers, so that you are not brought into error of understanding simple basic English words, with the modern versions, and opinions scholars of today that have altered the plain truth and meaning of the scriptures as indicated in the KJB. Notice the word of God says "MOVED" upon. It does not say hovered or brood. This I believe, is an error in the mv's, and have caused many to believe something that is not true.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle,

I think the Hebrew would be a safer bet, don't you?
--------------------------------------------------


NO, I do not believe this, and I will tell you why. The reason is that many people today have different interpretations of what the Hebrew means, many even among the scholars today who differ on it, and many times it contradicts, or weakens what the Lord has provided us already and perfectly with. Many today, have become wise in their own eyes. And as I have shown you, that the word "moved" is accurate, and hovered or brood is not, as this denotes a DIFFERENT action, than what is being indicated in this passage. The Holy Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, and this was the light that God was speaking of. It did not hover, nor brood, but MOVED upon, as the wind moves upon the waters of the ocean, and does not hover or brood (read John 3).


--------------------------------------------------
Then God said. (v. 3) Day one does not encompass verses 1 and 2. To say that is to read into the text and distort Hebrew grammar.
--------------------------------------------------

No it does not. As verse one is a STATEMENT of what God created, ending with a period. The verse 2 gives a description of what God did on the first day, as the very same thing HE has done with all other days. He first gives the creation account of the earth, and then the heaven, and then again the earth. YOu unfortunately in your desire to prove your ASSUMPTION, ignore the fact that your ASSUMPTION must include a REST of God PRIOR to the rest HE indicated HE did not do until the seventh day. You also neglect to recognize the POWER OF GODS SPOKEN WORD. You are PRESUMING SOMETHING that, in short, is not only not biblically accurate, but meaningless as well, unless you are trying to condone those that believe in evolution, to which is not the truth, and a very big lie of Satan, that tries to destroy the Power and ability of God ALMIGHTY and also makes God to look as though he is a liar. If you are trying to compensate for scientists out there that believe the earth is old, you my dear brother, are trying to twist the scriptures and the pure and plain meaning of them, to fit man's opinions, to which they truly have no knowledge of in the first place, nor could they as they are mere men. God's word is the truth, and must be taken at face value, to which is, and always has been that God created the heaven and earth in 6 literal days, and GOD HAS THE ABILITY AND POWER TO DO IT. It is because man denies this power of God, or reject God at all in thier equation, that they do this not only to their own ignorance, but to the threat of the faith of others in God's holy words of truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
God must be a real idiot for using Hebrew in the OT.
--------------------------------------------------


Rather it is the modern day scholars and those who think they know the Hebrew and Greek that are the true "idiots". Not God, nor the Hebrew languate have ANYTHING to do with this. It is rather those today who view themselves as wise in their own eyes that are the idiots.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Regardless, the proposition has been set forth that God created the universe and then "brooded" an indefinate period of time before He finished His creative work on the earth's biosphere.

Paul, there is nothing in the text (be it in Hebrew, Greek {LXX}, English {1611 or otherwise}) to support that theory. Just because verse 3 states, "Then God said..." does not mean that the first day began there. Michelle is right in one thing: for God to make the universe and then stop would be tantamount to God exposing Himself as a liar in His own word. God said (through the pen of the author) that He rested on the seventh day, not somewhere/somewhen else.

I will admit that your theory is appealing in that it gives both old earth and new earth people something to hold on to. But, it is not supported by the context, nor is it supported by the refernces Phillip cited above. Your insistance that it is only talking about the biosphere does not hold water, no matter how many verbal gymnastics you try to impose on the text.

Genesis is not complicated, but it is essential. The entirity of the word of God rests upon the Genesis narative. If Genesis is destroyed, all of the word of God crumbles. Without Genesis, you do not have the Fall (thus no original sin), you do not have God as creator (and we are all monkeys who learned to walk upright), you do not have the promise of a Redeemer (and no forthcoming Messiah), you do not have to destruction of the world by flood (and no promise to never do so again), you do not have the line of Abraham (thus not descendants to become Israelites, no line of David, no ancestors for the prophecy of the Messiah to come through). All of the bible stands or falls on Genesis.

So, what is the big deal? You are attempting to inject man's 'manology' into the creation account by saying, "This is what God meant to say." God said what He meant to say. If there had been a pause, a rest, a period of inactivity, God would have spelled it out plainly without the linguistic aerobatics.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

--------------------------------------------------
Genesis is not complicated, but it is essential. The entirity of the word of God rests upon the Genesis narative. If Genesis is destroyed, all of the word of God crumbles. Without Genesis, you do not have the Fall (thus no original sin), you do not have God as creator (and we are all monkeys who learned to walk upright), you do not have the promise of a Redeemer (and no forthcoming Messiah), you do not have to destruction of the world by flood (and no promise to never do so again), you do not have the line of Abraham (thus not descendants to become Israelites, no line of David, no ancestors for the prophecy of the Messiah to come through). All of the bible stands or falls on Genesis.
--------------------------------------------------


Amen!!!Trotter.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle