1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Old Universe/Recent Biosphere

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Paul33, Nov 3, 2004.

  1. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Trotter,

    You started out well, but ended badly.

    You bring in other issues that I'm not disputing. I agree with you, without Genesis, we have no fall, etc.

    We agree!

    Trotter, there is more than just, "Then God said."

    Did you do a word study on how many times the Bible mentions the "foundation" of the earth?

    This is eye-opening. The Bible indicates that God created the foundation of the earth during the ex nihilo creation of Genesis 1:1. "Foundation" is mentioned numerous places in the Bible, including Job 38:4. After God reveals that he made the foundation of the earth, he revealed to Job that the earth was wrapped in thick darkness (Job 38:9). Yet at the same time that the foundation of the earth was wrapped in thick darkness, the stars sang! There already was celestial light from stars, inluding our star, the sun! (Job 38:7).

    Trotter, I know you love God's Word as much as I do. This isn't man speaking! This is God himself revealing to Job the creation events! God created the universe, including the earth's foundation and stars in Genesis 1:1.

    Genesis 1:2 agrees perfectly with Job 38:9, all the while the stars of the universe are singing!

    God is wonderful and marvelous! He has revealed to us the nature of his ex nihilo creation!

    Secondly, Michelle is wrong about the God rested thing, because, until light reached the earth's surface, there was no first day!

    However long the Holy Spirit "moved" or hovered over the face of the deep, as long as there was pitch darkness, there was no first day!

    Day one is all about God bringing about light and darkness on the earth's surface by thinning the thick cloud that was wrapped around the earth. And there was morning and evening, the first day!

    This is exciting!
     
  2. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    It is appealing in that it can somewhat harmonize some OEC and YEC views. But I think even you, Paul33, would have to admit that if the earth had not been "shown to be old" this interpretation would never even have come up.

    It is a reading of the text that does allow for some of what we see - but it certainly is not the most LIKELY reading of the text.
     
  3. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are all sorts of things in the Bible that we understand today that we didn't understand 50 or 100 years ago!

    Just one example: "The life is in the blood."
    Well, just one more: "Contagious diseases and germs." God told Moses to do things that made no sense at all, until man discovered germs.

    The key to understanding Genesis 1:1-2 is Job 38:4-9.

    Again! This is God speaking!

    Most likely reading? I admit that the church has not understood it this way over the years. But that doesn't make it the wrong reading. Consider again Job 38:4-9. Fascinating!

    Thanks Charles for the discussion.
     
  4. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry I anded so badly, Paul, but you still just don't get it.

    Do you understand how Hebrew works? Greek is a very precise language (for the most part), as is English. Hebrew and Aramaic are not, in that they are picturesque languages.

    What does "the foundation of the earth" have to do with Genesis 1? It is a term used to describe the beginning of the world, the time before the world. God uses the term with Job to show Job just how finite he is in comparision to an infinite God. So what is your point?

    What you fail to see is that the context does not follow your theory. In disregarding the context, you violate the very basics of biblical interpretation.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  5. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    The link information is not new, it is just another way of attempting to prove old age. ALL of the different methods shown are theoretical with many, many unknown variables. The farther away a star is the more difficult to use any method. These are only ways of trying to figure an estimated distance when parallax falls apart, the problem is, they are less accurate and fall apart with distance, too.

    Science IS pointing towards young age, if you knew how many scientists who work on highly classified projects that are Christians that believe in a young Earth you would be amazed.

    Most of the scientists we hear about are the ones picked by the liberal media to fit their view-point, "old earth", "evolution", blah, blah.

    This board had an excellent forum concerning creationism until about three scientists who go around slamming Christian creationists got so nasty it had to be shut down. They follow creationist discussions and try to join in acting like they are theistic Christian when in fact they don't even believe in God.

    See, even your information UTEOTW, disagrees with Paul33. You are assuming astronomy, geology and WHAT other sciences? Biology? You didn't say it, but you might as well have.

    If the fossil records proves to be billions of years old, then God lied about "death" in Genesis, so do you believe that God just brooded around for thirty-forty billion years?

    Paul33 is not reading the passages correctly. He claims it does not fit the "inverted pyramid" style when in fact many stories in the Old Testament fit into a modified format as this.

    Let us take Paul33's "literal" (when I say literal I mean HIS literal veiw) view-point. Starting with Genesis 2:4
    4. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
    5. Now no shrub of the field was yet in th earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground. (NASB)

    WAIT A MINUTE. In chapter one something else must have been created, using Paul33's theory? We certainly cannot describe it in a summary and then go into detail, he won't allow us to do that in chapter 1.

    Obviously, chaper 2 is discussing another planet, or maybe THIS Earth while chapter 1 is discussing another planet.

    Paul33, you are going to kill a brain cell trying to read Genesis 1:1. If you go through this with the entire Bible, you are going to have one big mess on your hands. :cool:

    [ November 08, 2004, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
     
  6. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "The link information is not new, it is just another way of attempting to prove old age."

    What?

    It is just a list of 26 ways to determine distances. What part of that do you think is trying to show an old age? They are just measuring distance. Now that does mean an old age due to the time of flight for the light. But that is different. Do you have any objections to it? You said that error increases exponentially with increasing distance. The nearest large galaxy is M31 and it is about 2 million light years away. Just what do you think is the error there? You cannot possibly get it within 6000 light years.

    "Science IS pointing towards young age..."

    I have yet to see a convincing argument for this on the facts. I was around here when you held a different position. I have seen a lot of arguments put forth. I have yet to see one that holds water. I have seen a lot based on misrepresentations.

    "...if you knew how many scientists who work on highly classified projects that are Christians that believe in a young Earth you would be amazed."

    I am not sure what that means. If they are not dealing with geology or astronomy or biology or something real closely related, then their opinions do not mean much. There is a reason that the more education you have in one of those areas the more likelt you are to accept it findings.

    "This board had an excellent forum concerning creationism until about three scientists who go around slamming Christian creationists got so nasty it had to be shut down."

    I thought it was because Helen no longer had time to moderate it.

    "If the fossil records proves to be billions of years old, then God lied about "death" in Genesis,"

    Or He could have meant spititual death...

    "so do you believe that God just brooded around for thirty-forty billion years?"

    Nope. Besides, the universe is only about 13.7 billion years old.
     
  7. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    For whatever it's worth, and as ex-moderator of that old creation forum (thanks, Phillip!), the Hebrew does matter and it does NOT indicate any time between verses one and two of Genesis 1. The first verse is a statement of fact. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Fact.

    The second verse narrows the focus to earth. That is the meaning of the Hebrew grammar set forth there. The earth did not become void, when it was created it had no intrinsic internal structure or shape. Genesis 1 tells how God worked step by step through that to an earth full of life.

    Verse three simply gives the first step of that process.

    Was it on day 1?

    Let's let Bible explain Bible. Look at Exodus 31:14-17. God is speaking through Moses to the Israelites:

    "Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he astained from work and rested."

    If Genesis 1 is allegorical or contains an unmentioned gap of some kind between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, or if the Spirit of God was 'hovering' for a couple of billion years or so, what on earth are you going to do with Exodus 31?

    In other words, take Genesis 1 as it is presented -- as a literal history. Then either accept it or reject it, but don't try to twist it. Especially since it is rather well explained as per meaning of those creation days in Exodus 31.
     
  8. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen,

    Why don't you deal with Job 38:4-9?

    Trotter,

    Foundation is also used in the Greek NT. Why don't you deal with foundation in Job 38:4 and its use in the NT?

    Job 38:4-9 and Genesis 1:1-2 describe something different than what Helen just said.

    Hebrew does mean something.

    God created the universe, sun, moon, stars, and planet earth. Job 38 tells us that the stars were singing while the earth was wrapped in thick darkness! Genesis 1:2 is in total agreement with Job 38:9. If you can't see that, it's because you refuse to take God's own words at face value.

    Why don't you folks deal with the text instead of your opinions. I am showing you verses from the Bible and interpreting them literally. You are injecting your opinions into the text. In fact, you argue with God's own statement in Job 38!
     
  9. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen,

    The time gap is between verse 2 and verse 3, not verse 1 and verse 2.

    I can tell by your post that you have taken very little time in reading the original post. That's too bad. You might actually learn something if you would take the time to read the text of Scripture without your preconceived notions.
     
  10. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    The earth was barren and empty. If you subtract the work of God from day seven back to day one, you end up with verse 2! A submerged land mass surrounded by a thick cloud, all the while, the stars are singing (Job 38:7). Just like God said in Job 38:4, 9. And you have the audacity to say that I'm twisting Scripture! Go argue with God, he said it.

    I'm beginning to snicker at your inability to read the Bible literally.

    The earth wasn't a formless mass. It was a submerged land mass. That's what tohu wabohu means! Empty and barren.

    Even if you didn't know what tohu wabohu meant, the context would tell you. Again, subtracting backwards, you wind up with a planet (land mass) submerged in water. So it can't mean formless. Since it is submerged in water and wrapped in pitch darkness, it is empty and barren of all life!
     
  11. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exodus 31:14-17 is a repeat of Exodus 20:11.

    There is no preposition "in" in Hebrew in either of these texts. Properly translated: For six days the LORD made the sky and the land.

    Again you dare to argue with God. He called the shamayim "sky" and the eres "land." You don't like his translation? Take it up with God.

    These are the same words translated "heaven" and "earth" in Exodus 20 and 31, but they're not the words God used! God called it "sky" and "land." This is what God worked on for six days.
     
  12. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    If you want empty and barren of life, that's fine. Submerged land, at least by day three when it was brought up out of the waters, yes. (That doesn't mean it was that way at first, though, and where do you get the thick cloud?) You are welcome to read it that way, Paul33. But look at Exodus 31 -- there is no possibility of a gap between verses 2 and 3.
     
  13. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen, it would really help if you read Job 38:4-9. Verse 9 - thick cloud.

    What do you mean it wasn't under water at the first? Read Genesis 1:2!
     
  14. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Charles took the words out of my mouth! I was going to say that nobody reading Gen. 1 would think God's Spirit hovered or brooded for millions of years unless they knew about claims that the earth is that old.

    I also think this is a classic case of reading into the text.
     
  15. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    As to Job 38:
    Paul33, one must also read into the text to say that this means what you say it means. God gives no special order here or time. This is a poetic passage.

    Also, the "morning stars" is often thought to be angels, not stars, as a parallel with the "sons of God."

    The Job 38 passage cannot be used to back up what you are reading into Gen 1 as both cases require reading into the text, and the stars thing doesn't work here at all to support your proposition.
     
  16. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Except that scientists discovered not too long ago that the stars sing. Each star gives off its own distinct note!

    So you don't believe God when he revealed to Job that the earth was covered in a thick cloud? It agrees with Genesis 1:2.

    God using the words "foundation" in reference to the earth means nothing to you?

    No one thought the earth "was suspended over nothing" either. Scientists in the early 1900s thought it floated on ether.

    How far is the light from the farthest star?
    God very well may have hovered until light could reach the earth's surface. I don't know how long the Holy Spirit hovered. The text doesn't say. But the text does say that he hovered. Could you please tell me how long he hovered? You think it was a short period of time. Could you show me in the text how you know it was a short period of time? The text doesn't say.
     
  17. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Whether the stars give off a "note" or not (and what do you mean by that -- a vibration?), the usual interpretation is that "morning stars" means angels. Other places in scripture refer to angels using the term "stars."

    Of course, I believe what God says in Job; but it doesn't have anything to do with millions of years passing while God's Spirit hovered.

    Why do I think God's spirit hovered a short period of time? Because when one reads the opening passage of Genesis, it indicates creation of the whole universe in 6 days, and in Ex 20, God says he created "heaven and earth" in 6 days. How would men have understood that? They would have understood that to mean the universe in total. I think going beyond that meaning is reading into the text. "Heaven and earth" is a phrase that encompasses our creation.

    Since you are the one presenting a new interpretation, the burden is on you to support it, and I don't think you have done that. The burden is not on us to disprove it.
     
  18. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've already proven what Exodus 20:11 says in the Hebrew.

    "For six days God made the sky and the land and the seas and all that is in them." Exactly what Genesis 1:3ff describes.

    Not one of you has been able to refute the subtraction principle!

    Start with day seven and subtract what God did each day until you reach day zero. And what do you get?

    You, Marcia, are reading your understanding into the text of Ex. 20: 11. But the Hebrew doesn't mean what you said it means.
     
  19. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    OK, let's look at it. Let's look at verses 4-15 though, instead.

    I don't think there is any doubt that verses 4-7 are talking about creation.

    But then we have, in verse 8, "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb?" The KJV has it a little differently, using the word 'brake' instead of 'burst', among other things. That verb is a very strong verb in the Hebrew, indicating a gushing forth, thrashing about, bursting. The Bible tells us only one time when waters burst forth. You will find it in Genesis 7:11, when the first thing that happened during the deluge was a bursting of waters from under the earth's crust.

    Bursting waters from under the crust. They must have been under a LOT of pressure for all of them to go at once, as Genesis 7 says they did. This would have brought up tons upon tons of pulverized debris from the crust and below. The darkness would have been very thick! And water under pressure is hot water -- it would have formed thick clouds extremely rapidly as it reached the cooler atmospheric heights, and then come pouring down as it condensed.

    It is Noah's Flood which is being described in verses 8-9, and the cessation of it in verses 10-11.

    Your only other option with these verses is to say that the earth's surface was literally bouncing around during creation! For we have the waters bursting from the earth in Job, the waters covering the earth in Genesis 1:2, and then on day three back up bounces the land!

    Rather, God is briefing Job on not only those two moments in history -- creation and the Deluge -- but another one as well. In verses 12-13, there is a reference to something more than establishing the dawn. Here are the two verses together as the one sentence they are:

    "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?"

    There are two other catastrophes mentioned in Genesis, and it could be referring to either one: Babel or the splitting of the continents during the time of Peleg. The reference to this shaking being associated with the giving of orders to the morning and showing the dawn its place would very well also be referring to the tilting of the axis of the earth, which we know has happened.

    In other words, pay more attention to what the Lord is recounting to Job, and you will find that the opening of chapter 38 of that book is more than a quick briefing on creation.

    We do know, by the way, that the land was under the waters by day three. We do not know its condition at the very beginning, which is what verse 2 of Genesis 1 talks about.
     
  20. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marcia, just a quick note here: the stars do produce harmonics. This we know. The morning stars the Lord talks about in Job would be what astronomers call Population II stars. They would have been part of the first day's creation. The Population I stars, like our sun, came about on day 4. They are younger. If you notice Genesis 1:16b, you will notice that there is just the mention that God made the stars also. Which He did! But not all at once, as Job 38 testifies.

    The angels, however, are never ever mentioned in the Bible as singing.

    Interesting, eh?
     
Loading...