OEC and The New Heavens and New Earth

[Shar]

 

  Lucifer and angels

 

Angels created before man and before the earth.

Angels have rank and order.  They can be messengers, protect His servants, serve before the throne, do the will of G-d, lead out before G-d’s presence, conduct warfare, deliver judgment, deliver G-d’s people, participate in worship, have positions of authority, protect and rule nations.

 

 For example, Daniel 12:1.  Michael is called the great prince and ruler who protects and stands for the people – Israel.

There are different types of angels – archangels, cherubs, seraphim, princes, rulers, etc.

 

Lucifer was in the Garden of Eden before the Fall with a possible social system that existed before our current social system.

 

Ezekiel 28:11-15.  This passage is exclusively talking about an anointed cherub and not a mere man.  Words in this passage such as:  He was the model of perfection, full of wisdom and beauty.  He was in the Garden of Eden.  Every precious stone adorned him.  His settings and crown were of gold.  He was anointed as the Guardian Cherub, he was on the Holy Mountain of G-d, and he was blameless in his ways from the day he was created. (NO MAN fits that description)

 

He was anointed, which meant he was a king.  Throughout the Bible, kings are anointed.  G-d set the Cherub over the Earth, in the Garden of Eden, to protect, overshadow it and rule it.

 

Ezekiel 28:15-19…until wickedness was found in him, filled with violence and he sinned.  So, G-d drove him out from the Mountain of G-d, and expelled “you, O Guardian Cherub”. (Jesus even says to his disciples he saw Satan falling from Heaven in Lk. 10:18).  His heart became proud on account of his beauty and his wisdom became corrupted because of his splendor.  “So, I threw you to the earth and made you a spectacle before kings.  By his many sins and dishonest trade, he desecrated his sanctuaries (angels engage in worship) the symbolism of him losing his glory, and being assigned to Hell fire.  “All who knew you among the peoples shall be appalled at you; you shall be terrors, and you will not be forever.”

 

Lucifer ruled a social system here on Earth, in the Garden of Eden, before Adam.  This social system had a structure, trade, kings, and a people.  However, these peoples were not created in the image of G-d.  Many sages of Judaism, who studied the Word many centuries before us, and the Talmud discuss the existence of beings living before Adam.  They are described as human in shape and intelligence, but lacking the neshama “soul” to make them human.

 

This great sin, wickedness and rebellion resulted in judgment from G-d with a devastating flood, different from Noah’s flood.  I will contrast the two floods in the next post.  Will try to post on Sunday.

 

A Previous Social System - 2 Pe.3:5 “But they are ignorant, and forget that long ago by G-ds word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.  By these waters also the world (social system) of that time was deluged and perished (completely destroyed).

 

By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the Day of Judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 

 

Here we see there was a previous world system that completely perished and the present heavens and earth are different.

 

The prophets of the O.T. often spoke of situations that have a “Near – Far” implication.  Such as Isaiah has numerous references to Antiochus Epiphanies when he set up the desolation of Abomination in the temple, before the Maccabees  revolted and claimed it back, as well as to the future AntiChrist, who will do the same.  The following in Jeremiah could have that kind of implication.

 

Je. 4:23-26 “I beheld the earth and, lo. It was without form and void; and the heavens and they had no light.  I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they quaked, and all the hills were shaken.  I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds fled.  I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities were broken down at the presence of the L-rd, and by His fierce anger”.

 

This present earth has NEVER had man completely gone.  It never will.  However, here there is a reference that “there was no man (He. “ayin” – to not exist).  There were animals, vegetation, and cities mentioned, but all were destroyed at G-d’s fierce anger.  These events occurred; they are not indicated as a possible future event, because man will continue to exist on this earth after G-d’s wrath is poured out during the end times.  This seems indicative of G-d’s judgment on a prior social system on earth before Adam. 

 

My Resonse:

 

1. The Bible knows of no “social system among the angels.”   You are making a lot of assumptions for which there is no biblical claim.   Angels do not relate to each other socially.   Michael is called a prince, ruler and archangel.  So those probably synonymous terms and not an actual ranking system.

There are numerous passages that refer to different types of angels and their function and rank.  The word "Archangel" that is used in the Bible means "first in order".    We read in 1 Peter 3 that Jesus went into Heaven and is at G-d's right hand with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.  There are different types of angels, like cherubim, seraphims, archangels, messengers.  They have different functions.  They have an army which has rank.  Go do a study on angels and you will find there are about 9 ranks.  Even the fallen angels have a ranking - Ep. 6:12.

1. Lucifer was anointed, but that does not mean he was a king. The word anointed doesn’t mean king.  Kings were anointed, but not all people who were anointed by God were kings.   The Bible never refers to Satan as a “king” over the angels or anyone else.  Anointed means that he was specially chosen for a specific task

Anointing is also an act for kingship.  David was anointed, Saul was anointed and Jesus will be anointed when he returns here to rule as King.  See examples in the O.T.

. 

1. In reference to 2 Peter. 3:5, you appear to be trying place the deluge back to the pre-adamite earth, but  Peter is actually referring to Noah’s deluge and calls the earth “the old world” using the same reference in the previous reference to Noah’s deluge in Chapter two.  The evidence is further contained in the context in that Peter is refuting mockers who claim that Jesus isn’t returning and all things continue as they always have.  But Peter makes the point that all things are not as they always have been, and he refereces Noah’s deluge,  the old world that was formed out of the (Gk. Between) the waters was subject to a great deluge when the people of that day were least expecting it.  It came upon them suddenly took them by surprise.   The coming of the Lord is comparable to that, and so Peter references those people in verse 7 as awaiting judgment.

In 1 Peter, whenever he refers to Noah's flood, he says Noah's flood and individuals saved.  In 2 Pe. 3:5 he does not say Noah's flood, but most says the world was completely destroyed by water ( the world of long ago) and there is no reference to people being saved.   Specifically, he then talks about this present world and it being reserved for destruction by fire

1. If Peter were referring to men who had no soul, they would not be subject to judgment.  They would have been nothing but animals and I would not rely on the Talmud to interpret the New Testament.  That is another grievous error you are making.

Really?   But I said, they were not made in G-d's image.  They can intelligent, functional beings, but not be in His image, or requiring a redemption plan.  Angels are not made in G-d's image and they are far from not being intelligent and capable. They certainly are not mere animals.

1. Jer. 4:23-26 is not about the earth, but is using hyperbolic references to the state of Judah’s destruction at the hands of the Babylonians.   He is trying to express the level of devestation in the strongest terms he can.   Tohu v’bohu are very strong terms and make the point about the degree of devestation that was heaped upon Judah by the Babylonians.

You did not read thoroughly the near-far possibility and did not address the statement that there was no man.  He did not exist on the earth, yet there were cities, animals and vegetation.  This earth will never not have man on it.

1. Notice what the rest of Jeremiah says AFTER verse 26 in the same prophecy:

Common duality in near-far prophecy.

 

For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it. The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.

Jer 4:27-29

 

 

 

 

It is clear that the prophecy is not describing the earth but is describing the desolation of Judah using imagery drawn from Genesis to communicate just how bad things are at that point in Judah’s history.

 

[Shar]

 

Not asking to be rude, but can you tell me your source of Hebrew?  You stated you consider yourself qualified to address the Hebrew.  Can you tell me how you qualify?  I read and speak Hebrew, but I would not described myself as an expert.  I must rely on Hebrew scholars and translation experts of the Bible, who reference down to the earliest manuscripts.  My references are from literal translations of the Hebrew Biblical text.  We will have points of translational differences because obviously we are not using the same resources.

 

I learned Hebrew from both a Rabbi and am also university trained in Hebrew as well. I both read and speak it, as well.  I am still working on fluency in conversational Hebrew as well.   

 

But the fact is that I am working from the Hebrew, not only from translations.

 

Already stated scholars and bible translators who state it can mean "became".  We have already been through this on the word.

 

But there is a differenc between what a word can mean and what it DOES mean in a given context.  In some other contexts, hi-ya does mean became.  But there is NO way hi-ya can be translated "became" when following a "vav" disjunctive.   You can reject it if you want, but you are wrong to do so.   I don't know of any translators that agree with you.   And by the way, most of the "scholars" that side with your view I have found to be evangelical radio and TV preachers.  They are not scholars of Hebrew.

 

The actual word, as I referenced, means blazing star.  Words, even if they are sometimes used in poetry do not mean they are necessarily symbolic, but are actual.

 

This is not about what words mean, but how words are used.   The angels are often characterized as "stars."   Word usage trumps word meaning.   Furthermore, the verse in Job is a poetic synonomous parallel and needs to handled like poetry. 

 

I will name a few of the translations I know that state the word can possibly mean became.  This lies in their footnotes.  The International Version, the King James, the Interlinear Bible.   There are more, but I have to research for them.

 

Can you tell me the actual resources you used for the translation of the Hebrew you reference?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Not asking to be rude, but can you tell me your source of Hebrew?  You stated you consider yourself qualified to address the Hebrew.  Can you tell me how you qualify?  I read and speak Hebrew, but I would not described myself as an expert.  I must rely on Hebrew scholars and translation experts of the Bible, who reference down to the earliest manuscripts.  My references are from literal translations of the Hebrew Biblical text.  We will have points of translational differences because obviously we are not using the same resources.

 

I learned Hebrew from both a Rabbi and am also university trained in Hebrew as well. I both read and speak it, as well.  I am still working on fluency in conversational Hebrew as well.   

 

But the fact is that I am working from the Hebrew, not only from translations.

 

Already stated scholars and bible translators who state it can mean "became".  We have already been through this on the word.

 

But there is a differenc between what a word can mean and what it DOES mean in a given context.  In some other contexts, hi-ya does mean became.  But there is NO way hi-ya can be translated "became" when following a "vav" disjunctive.   You can reject it if you want, but you are wrong to do so.   I don't know of any translators that agree with you.   And by the way, most of the "scholars" that side with your view I have found to be evangelical radio and TV preachers.  They are not scholars of Hebrew.

 

The actual word, as I referenced, means blazing star.  Words, even if they are sometimes used in poetry do not mean they are necessarily symbolic, but are actual.

 

This is not about what words mean, but how words are used.   The angels are often characterized as "stars."   Word usage trumps word meaning.   Furthermore, the verse in Job is a poetic synonomous parallel and needs to handled like poetry. 

 

I will name a few of the translations I know that state the word can possibly mean became.  This lies in their footnotes.  The International Version, the King James, the Interlinear Bible.   There are more, but I have to research for them.

 

Can you tell me the actual resources you used for the translation of the Hebrew you reference?

 

I use  the New American Standard Bible, which is the most accurate English tranlsation produced today, I also use the Jewish Publication Society translation and I work from the Masorectic Texts. 

[Spock]

We have all read shilohs take on the Hebrew showing why Genesis 1 demands a young earth.

Now, it is time to ponder the other side. This article shows how this "expert" interprets the Hebrew to support an old earth. This man has written many books on Hebrew and clearly is an expert in the true sense of the word so his resume should not be a hindrance. What merit you put on his research or teaching is up to you.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_one_age_earth.html

Who is right? I'm sure each expert would say they are, so it's really not fair to ask them. Ultimately, it is up to the lay person who is studying this to determine the truth. You have the scriptures and you have the world around you to observe. Good luck.

Spock out

[Guest shiloh357]

Now, it is time to ponder the other side. This article shows how this "expert" interprets the Hebrew to support an old earth. This man has written many books on Hebrew and clearly is an expert in the true sense of the word so his resume should not be a hindrance. What merit you put on his research or teaching is up to you.

 

 

What other books on Hebrew has he written.  Several searches on numerous search engines, and amazon.com, Barnes and Noble,  turn up only ONE book that book is excerpted in the web page you cite above.  I don't think it is wise for you to present such misinformation, especially since it is so glaringly false.  I hope that wasn't intetional.

 

In addition, Mr. Whitefield is a physicist, not a scholar in Hebrew.  That makes a difference where his resume is concerned.  He is not an "expert" in Hebrew.   A degree in one field does not make one an expert him an expert in other areas.   He could write 100 books on Hebrew, but that is not criteria for being an expert in any language.

 

I know people with over 18 hours of graduate level Hebrew who do not call themselves "experts" in Hebrew.  I seriously doubt that Mr. Whitefield has that level of knowledge of Hebrew.   You still cannot find an actual Hebrew scholar to refute one thing I have presented.  Mr. Whitefield makes mistakes that any first year Hebrew student would catch.   Your "expert" is nothing of the sort.   Even in his endnotes, there is no reference made to one scholar of Hebrew to support one claim he has made about the Hebrew language.   There are no references to written Hebrew resources.  We are evidently simply expected to take your word for it that he is some kind of "expert"  when it comes to Hebrew.

 

I think it advisable that you set the bar a little higher in the future for who you pass off as an expert.

 

 

 

Let's look at his claims:

 

 

The  second word is the verb ht'y>h' . This verb means “to be,” “to exist,” “to become,” or “tohappen.”

 

He is correct in referring to the verb a qual perfect in the article, but what he fails to mention is that there are two qal perfect forms.  He calls refers to hy-yata as a pluperfect (strong perfect), but he is wrong when he says that it means "to be," or "to exist" or "to become."    The qual perfect for "to be" is not a pluperfect; rather, it is what we call a stative verb.  He is taking a strong perfect followed by predicate adjective and is translating like stative perfect and that simply doesn't fly.

 

"Came to be"  as a translation would ONLY be possible if the "vav" in the beginning of Gen. 1: 2 were followed by the verb, and not the noun, "haeretz."

 

 

(1) The assertion based on the word in fails. The word "in" does not appear in the Hebrew text of Exodus 20:11 (or Exodus 31:17). The word "in" is a word added by the KJV translators. The KJV writes the word "in" in italics indicating that this word does not exist in the Hebrew text. But, the "in" is not italicized in most other English translations or in some recent printings of the KJV. Typically, the reader of Exodus 20:11 is unaware that the "in" is not in the Hebrew text. The insertion of the word "in" into the translation of Exodus 20:11 significantly distorts the meaning. The absence of the "in" removes the interpretation that all making must take place within the six creative times and voids the asserted inclusion of the "bara" of Genesis 1:1.

 

 

Evidently he doesn't understand that translators have to add words to smooth out the English in order to give the sense of Hebrew.  This also done in New Testament as well.   There is no way to give an absolute word-for-word rendering in the English because Hebrew grammatical structure is vastly different than English and so italics serve to smooth that out.  Furthermore, the words in italics are often added because Hebrew and Greek are more nuanced than English and so they serve to reflect those nuances.  The italics are invaluable tools for translating.  They are not placed in the text arbitrarily at the liberty of the translators.  They are important and necessary for a correct translation of the text.

 

To say that "in" doesn't belong in the text and can be considered disposable is false and shows that Mr. Whitefield doesn't understand how translators work or think.

[enoob57]

We have all read shilohs take on the Hebrew showing why Genesis 1 demands a young earth.

Now, it is time to ponder the other side. This article shows how this "expert" interprets the Hebrew to support an old earth. This man has written many books on Hebrew and clearly is an expert in the true sense of the word so his resume should not be a hindrance. What merit you put on his research or teaching is up to you.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_one_age_earth.html

Who is right? I'm sure each expert would say they are, so it's really not fair to ask them. Ultimately, it is up to the lay person who is studying this to determine the truth. You have the scriptures and you have the world around you to observe. Good luck.

Spock out

God is right and if you understand this then your actively seeking Him in this...

1 Cor 1:27-28

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;

and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things

which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are

despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to

nought things that are:

KJV

There are reasoning's outside of the context that also lead me to believe in the literal day!

Here is one in point- the whole education system has a platform whereby they elevate one another

toward influencing others as to authority. However the born again know only One Authority and that

of His Word and evening and morning is an indicator of a meter of time in reference to day... now

the whole of humanity has this example before them since all have existed even in the histories

of written works and communication! Now the profound educated platform of 'the know' says millions

of billions of years... shadowing the above Scripture to this fact forms a reasonable conclusion:

[indent}In this reason -> I see the above affirming this question- What would every child

on this subject of evening, morning, day automatically come up with in their thought?

then finish the reason with this statement by God in Paul

Rom 1:21-22

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither

were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart

was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

KJV

No matter the anything else this is self evident truth-> to bind God in any form within the creative

laws He has set forth in our beginning is to demand beginning for God... thus when they knew God-

Everyone born knows of the natural witness of life yet this witness we have been born in testifies

of death leaving the concept of life beyond that in which we can know which cannot be death! The

Word testifies that on the other side of this barrier 'IS' God and all things as here are determined

by that Word we have... satan knows if he can bring God into creative act and place Him subservient

to those created laws = God then becomes other and people build off of [(g)od]

Rom 1:23-24

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,

and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up

to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between

themselves:

KJV

as this reasoning is seen in the progression of communication of God through Paul to us; Placing

the bounds of our created begin upon God by saying evolution, which is no more a science but a

philosophy of a certain faith, must be defined outside of the simple understanding of God's Word

and connected to the real and evidentiary understanding of the created element whereby all truth is

determined by that which is made and not of that which was before the making!

To stand for God here in this place of reason one must, as in all other places, deny one's self,

the world's influence by the majority of peoples, and all that can manipulate in myriad of ways

the created element against the Word that brought the created element into being!

Love, Steven

[Sheniy]

(snip)

 

Conclusion - There are too many more verses that can support a previous social system here on earth before Adam.  There is a case to support this.  Besides, G-d says His nature and His creation testify of Him.  We have science that can show us that the age of the present earth and universe is much greater than 10,000 years.  YE have to ask, “if G-d really is the Creator He claims to be in John 1:1, creating from the beginning, and He calls himself the Ancient of Days, what was G-d doing prior to the last 10,000 years?”  What was He doing for eons and eons and eons and eons?  OE and YE will never agree, but at least we can understand why each of us differs and what can lead to different viewpoints, while still being a believing and loving body.

   That...was fascinating.  The stuff about the hebrew translations: I have seen much of that before, but I don't remember where I read it.  The part about a social system before Adam, though...

 

Interesting... *strokes chin thoughtfully*

 

 

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_one_age_earth.html

 

I believe this is where I read it! Haha.  Thanks, Spock.

 

I quickly scanned the article again, and I remember running across this before.

 

 

Today, the truth of the Bible is under serious attack based upon the claim, by some, that the Earth is only about 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

 

For evangelism, the issue is clear. Non-believers who decide to explore the Bible and the claims of Christ will typically start with the first page of the Bible. If the opponents of Christianity can impugn the truthfulness of the Bible on the first page, the claims of Christ may never be seriously considered.

 

I have seen something like this happen with a family member.  Nearly wrecked his faith. 

 

How many seekers have we pushed away because they couldn't accept this claim of a young earth?

 

This is not to say that the Young Earth model is wrong necessarily.  It's just...does it have to be the only possibility?  Why is the idea of an old earth so terrible?

[Enoch2021]

 

(snip)

 

Conclusion - There are too many more verses that can support a previous social system here on earth before Adam.  There is a case to support this.  Besides, G-d says His nature and His creation testify of Him.  We have science that can show us that the age of the present earth and universe is much greater than 10,000 years.  YE have to ask, “if G-d really is the Creator He claims to be in John 1:1, creating from the beginning, and He calls himself the Ancient of Days, what was G-d doing prior to the last 10,000 years?”  What was He doing for eons and eons and eons and eons?  OE and YE will never agree, but at least we can understand why each of us differs and what can lead to different viewpoints, while still being a believing and loving body.

   That...was fascinating.  The stuff about the hebrew translations: I have seen much of that before, but I don't remember where I read it.  The part about a social system before Adam, though...

 

Interesting... *strokes chin thoughtfully*

 

 

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_one_age_earth.html

 

I believe this is where I read it! Haha.  Thanks, Spock.

 

I quickly scanned the article again, and I remember running across this before.

 

 

Today, the truth of the Bible is under serious attack based upon the claim, by some, that the Earth is only about 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

 

For evangelism, the issue is clear. Non-believers who decide to explore the Bible and the claims of Christ will typically start with the first page of the Bible. If the opponents of Christianity can impugn the truthfulness of the Bible on the first page, the claims of Christ may never be seriously considered.

 

I have seen something like this happen with a family member.  Nearly wrecked his faith. 

 

How many seekers have we pushed away because they couldn't accept this claim of a young earth?

 

This is not to say that the Young Earth model is wrong necessarily.  It's just...does it have to be the only possibility?  Why is the idea of an old earth so terrible?

 

 

"Why is the idea of an old earth so terrible?"

 

Well it's usually in the context of Things dying (Fossils) before Adam sinned.  

 

Which then questions what the LORD said.....(Romans 5:12) "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

 

Then it is countered with..."well the Lord was only talking about Men dying as a result of sin not animals et al"

 

Which is then Checkmated with.....among the fossils of Dead Things "Fossilized THORNS and THISTLES" are found:

 

(Genesis 3:17-18) "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;"

 

Do you see it?  There were no Thorns and Thistles prior to the FALL or Curse.

 

Therefore by proxy, if "they" can convince people of Millions/Billions of years and things dying.... it undermines GOD'S WORD and Questions The Sacrifice of Christ and the Whole of Salvation Doctrine in TOTO.

 

Satan is very subtle....KNOW YOUR ENEMY (See: Ephesians)

 

Hope that helped

 

Praise The LORD!!!

[enoob57]

"Why is the idea of an old earth so terrible?"

 

Well it's usually in the context of Things dying (Fossils) before Adam sinned.  

 

Which then questions what the LORD said.....(Romans 5:12) "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

 

Then it is countered with..."well the Lord was only talking about Men dying as a result of sin not animals et al"

 

Which is then Checkmated with.....among the fossils of Dead Things "Fossilized THORNS and THISTLES" are found:

 

(Genesis 3:17-18) "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;"

 

Do you see it?  There were no Thorns and Thistles prior to the FALL or Curse.

 

Therefore by proxy, if "they" can convince people of Millions/Billions of years and things dying.... it undermines GOD'S WORD and Questions The Sacrifice of Christ and the Whole of Salvation Doctrine in TOTO.

 

Satan is very subtle....KNOW YOUR ENEMY (See: Ephesians)

 

Hope that helped

 

Praise The LORD!!!

It is the perfection of examining the foundation for which you build the rest of what you are

to become! God blesses the Truth of His Own coming by the unity in which it sings... a perfect

understanding of the error of life being built upon death and curse even though it is all that

we can see in this place after the fact~ faith takes us before by total reliance upon God's Word

to us and that not of ourselves nor the examination of that which we are in

The scream of need to be other than what is brings us to The 'IS' now unaffecteded by sin and death!

Love, Steven

[Shar]

 

 

(snip)

 

Conclusion - There are too many more verses that can support a previous social system here on earth before Adam.  There is a case to support this.  Besides, G-d says His nature and His creation testify of Him.  We have science that can show us that the age of the present earth and universe is much greater than 10,000 years.  YE have to ask, “if G-d really is the Creator He claims to be in John 1:1, creating from the beginning, and He calls himself the Ancient of Days, what was G-d doing prior to the last 10,000 years?”  What was He doing for eons and eons and eons and eons?  OE and YE will never agree, but at least we can understand why each of us differs and what can lead to different viewpoints, while still being a believing and loving body.

   That...was fascinating.  The stuff about the hebrew translations: I have seen much of that before, but I don't remember where I read it.  The part about a social system before Adam, though...

 

Interesting... *strokes chin thoughtfully*

 

 

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_one_age_earth.html

 

I believe this is where I read it! Haha.  Thanks, Spock.

 

I quickly scanned the article again, and I remember running across this before.

 

 

Today, the truth of the Bible is under serious attack based upon the claim, by some, that the Earth is only about 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

 

For evangelism, the issue is clear. Non-believers who decide to explore the Bible and the claims of Christ will typically start with the first page of the Bible. If the opponents of Christianity can impugn the truthfulness of the Bible on the first page, the claims of Christ may never be seriously considered.

 

I have seen something like this happen with a family member.  Nearly wrecked his faith. 

 

How many seekers have we pushed away because they couldn't accept this claim of a young earth?

 

This is not to say that the Young Earth model is wrong necessarily.  It's just...does it have to be the only possibility?  Why is the idea of an old earth so terrible?

 

 

"Why is the idea of an old earth so terrible?"

 

Well it's usually in the context of Things dying (Fossils) before Adam sinned.  

 

Which then questions what the LORD said.....(Romans 5:12) "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

 

This is simply a reference that sin in man came through one man.  It does not mean sin nor death did not exist before Adam.  We know that Lucifer and other angels sinned before Adam.

 

Then it is countered with..."well the Lord was only talking about Men dying as a result of sin not animals et al"

 

Which is then Checkmated with.....among the fossils of Dead Things "Fossilized THORNS and THISTLES" are found:

 

(Genesis 3:17-18) "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;"

 

Do you see it?  There were no Thorns and Thistles prior to the FALL or Curse.

 

We don't know that.  This simply is part of the curse to Adam that the easy life of taking care of the garden is done.  Now he will have to work, and work very hard, by the sweat of his brow.

 

Therefore by proxy, if "they" can convince people of Millions/Billions of years and things dying.... it undermines GOD'S WORD and Questions The Sacrifice of Christ and the Whole of Salvation Doctrine in TOTO.

 

Does not state that death did not exist.  Just that death to Adam's race came through him.

 

Satan is very subtle....KNOW YOUR ENEMY (See: Ephesians)

 

 

 

Hope that helped

 

Praise The LORD!!!