Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

When was the earth created?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
127 replies to this topic

#1
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

In Gen 

 

Verse 1 there is a statement about everything being made.

Verse 2 there is a statement about the form of the earth

Verse 3-5 the first recorded creation event..light on "day" one

Verse 6-8 the second recorded creation event..water being separated on "day" two

Verse 9-13 the third recorded creation event..dry land and plants on "day" three

Verse 14-20 the fourth recorded creation event..sun, moon and stars on "day" four

Verse 21-23 the fifth recorded creation event..birds and fish on "day" five

Verse 24-31 the sixth recorded creation event..animals and man on "day" six

 

So, when was the earth it self created since it was not recorded as being created on any of these days.


Edited by LookingForAnswers, 15 January 2014 - 09:56 PM.


#2
bopeep1909

bopeep1909

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,768 posts

Their have been several threads already on this :hmmm:



#3
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

Each had a different focus.  This is not about how many years ago, but about what the bible states. On which "day" does the bible state the earth was created? 



#4
bopeep1909

bopeep1909

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,768 posts

Genesis 1:3-5Then 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 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.The fourth day.How can there be light,mornings,and evenings on the first,second,and third days if the sun,moon,and stars were not created until the fourth day?This is a problem if we do not take into account an infinite and omnipotent God.God does not need the Sun,moon,and stars to provide light.God is light 1John 1:5This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.



#5
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts

Verse 2 says the earth existed, but was in darkness. Verse 3 says there was light, and subsequently the first day.

 

This clearly means that the earth existed before the first 24 hour day of creation week.



#6
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,802 posts

Mistaken assumption #1:   Genesis 1:1 describes a creative event that occured at some point in the dateless past prior to Genesis 1:2.

 

Mistaken assumption #2:   Genesis 1:2 is describing a created planet that is covered in water.

 

Having a planet covered in water defies the two-fold description of formless and void given in the Hebrew.  A planet covered in water is not formless or chaotic.  The word "tohu" in Genesis 1:2  has other applications in Scripture including the concept of nothingness (Isa. 40:17, Isa. 40:23; Isa. 49:4).  The word "bohu" speaks to that which is vain, empty, barren. 

 

The sprit of God hovers over the face of the "deep," which is the word,  "tehom" and means to "rage" or to "roar."  The image we have when we put these three together is a formless, orderless, chaotic, violent, raging, watery mass, an abysss.   It's not a planet at all.  It has no form, it doesn't look like anything.

 

It is not a created object.  It is what you have in the absence of order, or any creative event.  

 

The heaven (firmament) and earth, as we know them, were made on days 2 and 3. In days two and three God is bringing order out of chaos.



#7
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts

 

Mistaken assumption #2:   Genesis 1:2 is describing a created planet that is covered in water.

 

Having a planet covered in water defies the two-fold description of formless and void given in the Hebrew.  A planet covered in water is not formless or chaotic.  The word "tohu" in Genesis 1:2  has other applications in Scripture including the concept of nothingness (Isa. 40:17, Isa. 40:23; Isa. 49:4).  The word "bohu" speaks to that which is vain, empty, barren. 

 

The sprit of God hovers over the face of the "deep," which is the word,  "tehom" and means to "rage" or to "roar."  The image we have when we put these three together is a formless, orderless, chaotic, violent, raging, watery mass, an abysss.   It's not a planet at all.  It has no form, it doesn't look like anything.

 

It is not a created object.  It is what you have in the absence of order, or any creative event.  

 

Did you notice that the verse says "earth", the Hebrew word is "erets" which means land?

 

I agree with your analysis, but which land do you think involved  the spirit of God hovering "over the face of the "deep," which is the word,  "tehom" and means to "rage" or to "roar."  The image we have when we put these three together is a formless, orderless, chaotic, violent, raging, watery mass, an abyss" as per your wording.

 

I would suggest that this roaring watery mass is what the earth was like before creation week, please tell me what you think was "roaring, formless, chaotic"?



#8
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,802 posts

Did you notice that the verse says "earth", the Hebrew word is "erets" which means land?

 

But because it is described as "formless" and void"   it doesn't mean, "continental land mass." 

 

I agree with your analysis, but which land do you think involved  the spirit of God hovering "over the face of the "deep," which is the word,  "tehom" and means to "rage" or to "roar."  The image we have when we put these three together is a formless, orderless, chaotic, violent, raging, watery mass, an abyss" as per your wording.

 

I would suggest that this roaring watery mass is what the earth was like before creation week, please tell me what you think was "roaring, formless, chaotic"?
 

What it seems to picture simply by going by the description given to us is that the elements for a physical universe are there, but in a chaotic, orderless state.



#9
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

Would it be possible for someone to address the topic of the thread? 



#10
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,802 posts

Would it be possible for someone to address the topic of the thread? 

 I did.   Post #6 : "The heaven (firmament) and earth, as we know them, were made on days 2 and 3. In days two and three God is bringing order out of chaos."



#11
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

Sorry, missed that sentence.  If that is the case (which is not what a simple reading of the passage would tell one) what then was the Spirit of God was hovering in verse 2?



#12
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts

 

Did you notice that the verse says "earth", the Hebrew word is "erets" which means land?

 

But because it is described as "formless" and void"   it doesn't mean, "continental land mass." 

 

I agree with your analysis, but which land do you think involved  the spirit of God hovering "over the face of the "deep," which is the word,  "tehom" and means to "rage" or to "roar."  The image we have when we put these three together is a formless, orderless, chaotic, violent, raging, watery mass, an abyss" as per your wording.

 

I would suggest that this roaring watery mass is what the earth was like before creation week, please tell me what you think was "roaring, formless, chaotic"?
 

What it seems to picture simply by going by the description given to us is that the elements for a physical universe are there, but in a chaotic, orderless state.

 

You say  "But because it is described as "formless" and void"   it doesn't mean, "continental land mass."   

Its possible that the landmass was covered in water, and this would then explain why the land was formless and empty. Its not impossible that the landmass was in such a state, and  the word "erets" is actually used, therefore land is definitely involved, you seem to be in complete denial of the Hebrew meaning of verse 2, choosing to ignore the word "erets" just because you don't think the land can be formless.   

 

This is directly relevant to this thread because verse 2 indicates that the land existed before the first day, which answers the opening post's question. 



#13
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,802 posts

Sorry, missed that sentence.  If that is the case (which is not what a simple reading of the passage would tell one) what then was the Spirit of God was hovering in verse 2?

the chaotic, orderless, formless, raging watery mass/abyss.



#14
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,802 posts

 

 

Did you notice that the verse says "earth", the Hebrew word is "erets" which means land?

 

But because it is described as "formless" and void"   it doesn't mean, "continental land mass." 

 

I agree with your analysis, but which land do you think involved  the spirit of God hovering "over the face of the "deep," which is the word,  "tehom" and means to "rage" or to "roar."  The image we have when we put these three together is a formless, orderless, chaotic, violent, raging, watery mass, an abyss" as per your wording.

 

I would suggest that this roaring watery mass is what the earth was like before creation week, please tell me what you think was "roaring, formless, chaotic"?
 

What it seems to picture simply by going by the description given to us is that the elements for a physical universe are there, but in a chaotic, orderless state.

 

You say  "But because it is described as "formless" and void"   it doesn't mean, "continental land mass."   

Its possible that the landmass was covered in water, and this would then explain why the land was formless and empty. Its not impossible that the landmass was in such a state, and  the word "erets" is actually used, therefore land is definitely involved, you seem to be in complete denial of the Hebrew meaning of verse 2, choosing to ignore the word "erets" just because you don't think the land can be formless.   

 

This is directly relevant to this thread because verse 2 indicates that the land existed before the first day, which answers the opening post's question. 

 

If it was a solid, planetary land mass covered in water, it would not be formless.  The raw elements for land were there but there was no form and no order to them.  In that sense there was eretz, but it was not a cohesive land mass if it was formless.

 

God forms the land on day three.



#15
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts

 

 

 

Did you notice that the verse says "earth", the Hebrew word is "erets" which means land?

 

But because it is described as "formless" and void"   it doesn't mean, "continental land mass." 

 

I agree with your analysis, but which land do you think involved  the spirit of God hovering "over the face of the "deep," which is the word,  "tehom" and means to "rage" or to "roar."  The image we have when we put these three together is a formless, orderless, chaotic, violent, raging, watery mass, an abyss" as per your wording.

 

I would suggest that this roaring watery mass is what the earth was like before creation week, please tell me what you think was "roaring, formless, chaotic"?
 

What it seems to picture simply by going by the description given to us is that the elements for a physical universe are there, but in a chaotic, orderless state.

 

You say  "But because it is described as "formless" and void"   it doesn't mean, "continental land mass."   

Its possible that the landmass was covered in water, and this would then explain why the land was formless and empty. Its not impossible that the landmass was in such a state, and  the word "erets" is actually used, therefore land is definitely involved, you seem to be in complete denial of the Hebrew meaning of verse 2, choosing to ignore the word "erets" just because you don't think the land can be formless.   

 

This is directly relevant to this thread because verse 2 indicates that the land existed before the first day, which answers the opening post's question. 

 

If it was a solid, planetary land mass covered in water, it would not be formless.  The raw elements for land were there but there was no form and no order to them.  In that sense there was eretz, but it was not a cohesive land mass if it was formless.

 

God forms the land on day three.

 

oKaaay I'm now beginning to understand you. So you believe the word "erets" in verse 2 is referring to raw elements rather than land. Surely that is not what the word means, you are choosing to be unfaithful to the actual meaning of the Hebrew to favor your view.  So we have two choices here:

 

1) To see the land as literal and then apply the formless "tohuw" to it, which is possible due to the earth being empty and possibly full of chaotic volcanism, a lifeless wasteland which is true to the Hebrew:

 tohuw :  formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness, formlessness (of primeval earth), nothingness, empty space, that which is empty or unreal (of idols) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places), place of chaos, vanity

2) Or to see the land as meaning raw elements, which isn't true to the actual meaning of "erets" and has never been used like that in the bible before.

 

The word "erets" has been used more than 2500 times in the bible, and never once meaning "raw elements". The word does not mean "raw elements". It means "land" or "landmass" and so there was a wasteland/chaotic landmass before the first day of creation.



#16
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts

Mistaken assumption #1:   Genesis 1:1 describes a creative event that occured at some point in the dateless past prior to Genesis 1:2.

 

Mistaken assumption #2:   Genesis 1:2 is describing a created planet that is covered in water.

 

Having a planet covered in water defies the two-fold description of formless and void given in the Hebrew.  A planet covered in water is not formless or chaotic.  The word "tohu" in Genesis 1:2  has other applications in Scripture including the concept of nothingness (Isa. 40:17, Isa. 40:23; Isa. 49:4).  The word "bohu" speaks to that which is vain, empty, barren. 

 

The sprit of God hovers over the face of the "deep," which is the word,  "tehom" and means to "rage" or to "roar."  The image we have when we put these three together is a formless, orderless, chaotic, violent, raging, watery mass, an abysss.   It's not a planet at all.  It has no form, it doesn't look like anything.

 

It is not a created object.  It is what you have in the absence of order, or any creative event.  

 

The heaven (firmament) and earth, as we know them, were made on days 2 and 3. In days two and three God is bringing order out of chaos.

 

Question: Did God create the waters? If so, when?



#17
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts

The raw elements for land were there but there was no form and no order to them.  In that sense there was eretz, but it was not a cohesive land mass if it was formless.

 

Where did the raw elements come from?



#18
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
Thank you all for your replies. I think I more or less agree with Shiloh, and that point of view makes so much more sense from and old universe perspective than a young one. It fits the science of how planets are formed in its basic form.

#19
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,802 posts
oKaaay I'm now beginning to understand you. So you believe the word "erets" in verse 2 is referring to raw elements rather than land.

 

 

No. The land is there.  It is simply formless and void.  It is not a land mass, but is there.

 

Surely that is not what the word means, you are choosing to be unfaithful to the actual meaning of the Hebrew to favor your view.

 

I didn't say that is what it meant.

 

So we have two choices here:

 

1) To see the land as literal and then apply the formless "tohuw" to it, which is possible due to the earth being empty and possibly full of chaotic volcanism, a lifeless wasteland which is true to the Hebrew:

 tohuw :  formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness, formlessness (of primeval earth), nothingness, empty space, that which is empty or unreal (of idols) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places), place of chaos, vanity

2) Or to see the land as meaning raw elements, which isn't true to the actual meaning of "erets" and has never been used like that in the bible before.

 

The word "erets" has been used more than 2500 times in the bible, and never once meaning "raw elements".

 

Neither is a choice becaue neither is correct.  Both of your alleged "choices" stem from misrepresenting what I said.   Claiming it s formless land mass is a contradiction in terms, as a land mass clearly indicates a form.   Quoting from Strong's doesn't really create a problem for me.

 

The word does not mean "raw elements". It means "land" or "landmass" and so there was a wasteland/chaotic landmass before the first day of creation.

 

I didn't say it mean't "raw elements."   It doesn't mean "land mass."  It simply refers to material the land mass is comprised of.
 



#20
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,802 posts

Thank you all for your replies. I think I more or less agree with Shiloh, and that point of view makes so much more sense from and old universe perspective than a young one. It fits the science of how planets are formed in its basic form.

Not really, the OEC creationist form is exactly opposite what I said.   No mainstream OEC proponent would agree at all with what I presented.  I am placing the earth's creation inside the six days of creation.

 

Nice attempt at twisting what  I said to make it fit your assumption.






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network