OEC and The New Heavens and New Earth

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

(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*
 

 

"There is no such thing as a Hebrew "translation."  There are translations of Hebrew into other languages, but there are no Hebrew translations of the Bible.  Hebrew is an orginal language, not a translation.

 

There were no social systems before Adam.  The Bible knows of no such thing.  

 

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.

 

The article is written by physicist, not a Hebrew scholar and he makes several errors that even a first year Hebrew student would recognize easily.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

None.  Usually, Christianity is rejected on the grounds that evolution makes more sense.  Many atheists on this board who claim to have been Christians before cite evolution as a major enabler for their deconversion from Christianity.

 

No one has ever blamed believing the Bible to be the source of their rejection of Jesus. It is usually competing influences that challenged their faith and caused them to doubt the accuracy or trustworthiness of the Bible.

 

This is not to say that the Young Earth model is wrong necessarily.  It's just...does it have to be the only possibility?

 

There is only one way it could have happend.  Why would we want to place our faith in a possibility and not in the truth?   There are all kinds of possibilities, but that really isn't something you can anchor your heart to.   As Christians we should be after the truth.

 

 

Why is the idea of an old earth so terrible?

 

The old earth view is rooted in philosophy, not science.  The old earth view was first introduced in the 1700's long and it was philosophers of the "Age of Reason" not scientists who introduced it.  They were unbelievers who were hostile to the Bible particularly its supernatural claims.   OEC has its roots in unbelief and a rejection of Scripture.  That is one reason why I reject it.  

 

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

 

 

Actually that is not true.  Sin and death did not exist before Adam, because sin and death were not engineered by God into creation.  God could not have, at the end of the sixth day of creaion, looked at an earth steeped in sin and death and declare it to be "very good" (tov meod), an emphatic statement which carries the strong connotation of perfection.

 

Furthermore, the Bible says that sin came into the earth through Adam's disobedience.  If it were already here via Lucifer and fallen angels, then it contradicts the Bible.  Bible only gives us ONE  explanation for the orign of sin.  The Bible NEVER blames satan for the origin of sin.  The Bible always blames Adam.  The earth was perfect until Adam sinned.

 

 

All we need to know about the earth prior to sin of Adam is to look at the book of Revelation chatpers 21 and 22 to see what the earth will look like after the sin of man is eradicated once and for all.   The earth will be restored to its pre-sin condition and perhaps even better than it was prior to Adam's fall in the Garden.   Notice that the eradication of sin doesn't just affect a change in mankind, it affects a change in all of creation.

 

Notice what the Bible says about the New Heavens and New Earth in Isaiah 65:

 

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

 

(snip)

 

There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.  (Isa 65:17, 20-25)

 

You will notice that it is not just the human condition that undergoes a change when sin is removed. All of creation was effected.  It, therefore, follows that when sin came into the physical world via Adam's disobedience, there was a change in all of creation.  

 

 

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.

 

Wrong. Read what God said:

 

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; (Gen 3:17-18)

 

Notice that the ground was cursed because of Adam's sin. The Bible clearly teaches that there was a change in the rest of creation when Adam sinned, not just a change in Adam.  God's curse on the ground would make no sense if thorns and thistles were already a reality to contend with in the earth.   Why would God curse the earth with thorns and thistles if they were already there?

 

 

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

 

The Bible makes it very clear that death was not part of creation prior to Adam's sin. We know this because it won't be part of creation when sin is fully eradicated.

[Enoch2021]

 

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.

 

 

Actually that is not true.  Sin and death did not exist before Adam, because sin and death were not engineered by God into creation.  God could not have, at the end of the sixth day of creaion, looked at an earth steeped in sin and death and declare it to be "very good" (tov meod), an emphatic statement which carries the strong connotation of perfection.

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.

 

 

Furthermore, the Bible says that sin came into the earth through Adam's disobedience.  If it were already here via Lucifer and fallen angels, then it contradicts the Bible.  Bible only gives us ONE  explanation for the orign of sin.  The Bible NEVER blames satan for the origin of sin.  The Bible always blames Adam.  The earth was perfect until Adam sinned.

 

 

All we need to know about the earth prior to sin of Adam is to look at the book of Revelation chatpers 21 and 22 to see what the earth will look like after the sin of man is eradicated once and for all.   The earth will be restored to its pre-sin condition and perhaps even better than it was prior to Adam's fall in the Garden.   Notice that the eradication of sin doesn't just affect a change in mankind, it affects a change in all of creation.

 

Notice what the Bible says about the New Heavens and New Earth in Isaiah 65:

 

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

 

(snip)

 

There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.  (Isa 65:17, 20-25)

 

You will notice that it is not just the human condition that undergoes a change when sin is removed. All of creation was effected.  It, therefore, follows that when sin came into the physical world via Adam's disobedience, there was a change in all of creation.  

 

 

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.

 

Wrong. Read what God said:

 

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; (Gen 3:17-18)

 

Notice that the ground was cursed because of Adam's sin. The Bible clearly teaches that there was a change in the rest of creation when Adam sinned, not just a change in Adam.  God's curse on the ground would make no sense if thorns and thistles were already a reality to contend with in the earth.   Why would God curse the earth with thorns and thistles if they were already there?

 

 

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

 

The Bible makes it very clear that death was not part of creation prior to Adam's sin. We know this because it won't be part of creation when sin is fully eradicated.

 

 

Well Shar....

 

What's really left to say...that should pretty much wrap things up.

 

Thanks Shiloh

[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*

 

 

"There is no such thing as a Hebrew "translation."  There are translations of Hebrew into other languages, but there are no Hebrew translations of the Bible.  Hebrew is an orginal language, not a translation.

 

There were no social systems before Adam.  The Bible knows of no such thing.  

 

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.

 

The article is written by physicist, not a Hebrew scholar and he makes several errors that even a first year Hebrew student would recognize easily.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

None.  Usually, Christianity is rejected on the grounds that evolution makes more sense.  Many atheists on this board who claim to have been Christians before cite evolution as a major enabler for their deconversion from Christianity.

 

No one has ever blamed believing the Bible to be the source of their rejection of Jesus. It is usually competing influences that challenged their faith and caused them to doubt the accuracy or trustworthiness of the Bible.

 

This is not to say that the Young Earth model is wrong necessarily.  It's just...does it have to be the only possibility?

 

There is only one way it could have happend.  Why would we want to place our faith in a possibility and not in the truth?   There are all kinds of possibilities, but that really isn't something you can anchor your heart to.   As Christians we should be after the truth.

 

 

Why is the idea of an old earth so terrible?

 

The old earth view is rooted in philosophy, not science.  The old earth view was first introduced in the 1700's long and it was philosophers of the "Age of Reason" not scientists who introduced it.  They were unbelievers who were hostile to the Bible particularly its supernatural claims.   OEC has its roots in unbelief and a rejection of Scripture.  That is one reason why I reject it.  

 

 

New Earth, particularly YEC, only really became a emerging view around 1972 through Henry Morris in an effort to discredit the fossil record, following his split from the Creation Science Research Center.  Old Earth View is not rooted in philosophy, but in ancient Judaism, science and empirical data that can be observed, especially today, with our advances in space, astronomy, physics, technology, etc.  The physical and fixed laws of G-d's universe are being revealed to us today- birth and death of stars, planets, speed of light, starlight distance, etc.  Your "modus operandi" is always to throw some slight by accusing others of being unbelievers, rejecting Scripture, being homosexual, promoting false doctrine, whenever you cannot fully support YEC, or adequately refute OEC.  Really the YEC has some incredulous assumptions about G-d, who has been creating from eternity past - not just getting around to creating about 10,000 years ago.

[Enoch2021]

 

New Earth, particularly YEC, only really became a emerging view around 1972 through Henry Morris in an effort to discredit the fossil record, following his split from the Creation Science Research Center.  Old Earth View is not rooted in philosophy, but in ancient Judaism, science and empirical data that can be observed, especially today, with our advances in space, astronomy, physics, technology, etc.  The physical and fixed laws of G-d's universe are being revealed to us today- birth and death of stars, planets, speed of light, starlight distance, etc.  Your "modus operandi" is always to throw some slight by accusing others of being unbelievers, rejecting Scripture, being homosexual, promoting false doctrine, whenever you cannot fully support YEC, or adequately refute OEC.  Really the YEC has some incredulous assumptions about G-d, who has been creating from eternity past - not just getting around to creating about 10,000 years ago.

 

 

"New Earth, particularly YEC, only really became a emerging view around 1972"

 

??  Did you make this up?  I'm also failing to see the relevance with "when" it emerged ??

 

 

"Henry Morris in an effort to discredit the fossil record"

 

How would you go about discrediting fossils?

 

 

"science and empirical data that can be observed, especially today, with our advances in space, astronomy, physics, technology, etc."

 

And how exactly is this related to OEC?

 

 

"The physical and fixed laws of G-d's universe are being revealed to us today "

 

You meant to say the "Fixed" Laws after Day 6.  Weren't they revealed after Day 6?

 

 

"birth and death of stars, planets"

 

Woe woe there...you started getting on a roll then rolled right off the reservation.  "Birth" of Stars??  Have you been watching the Discovery Channel?  Can you show one EVER? Pics please...and site source.  Can you also explain this in a 2LOT context in the framework of Boyle's Gas Law and Jeans Mass?

 

 

"speed of light, starlight distance, etc."

 

Are you saying that using the Speed of Light the distances to the stars prove an Old Universe/Earth? 

 

 

"whenever you cannot fully support YEC, or adequately refute OEC."

 

Have you been reading these threads?  I haven't see an instance where we couldn't fully support YEC.  Adequately refute OEC?...for instance?

 

 

"Really the YEC has some incredulous assumptions about G-d"

 

And.......For Instance?

 

 

"who has been creating from eternity past"

 

Eternity past?  Are you saying the Universe is Eternal?  Or show where GOD said HE'S been "creating from eternity past"?

 

 

 

Sorry about all the questions.  This is usually the case when ASSERTIONS or Ambiguous points are made without any support.

 

I'll be busy for a good chunk of the day tomorrow so take your time.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

New Earth, particularly YEC, only really became a emerging view around 1972 through Henry Morris in an effort to discredit the fossil record, following his split from the Creation Science Research Center. 

LOL, It actually dates back about 3500 years ago when Moses put ink to papyrus. 

 

Old Earth View is not rooted in philosophy, but in ancient Judaism, science and empirical data that can be observed, especially today, with our advances in space, astronomy, physics, technology, etc.

 

 There is no emprical data or science that can be relied on for an accurate date for the age of the earth.  I am sorry to see that your argument rests in trusting in men not in the Word of God.  I find it telling that you have to leave the Word of God to make your case. 

 

Your "modus operandi" is always to throw some slight by accusing others of being unbelievers, rejecting Scripture, being homosexual, promoting false doctrine, whenever you cannot fully support YEC, or adequately refute OEC.

 

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

  Really the YEC has some incredulous assumptions about G-d, who has been creating from eternity past - not just getting around to creating about 10,000 years ago.

 

Yeah, that whole notion that God's Word is true and can be trusted as written without inserting pre-adamite fairytales.  Yeah if that is an incredulous assumption  then I guess I have some incredulous assumptions about God based on His Word.   I guess that's better than having to rely ancient Judaism and theories of fallible men when I can support my views with a competent view of Scripture.

[Guest]

Really the YEC has some incredulous assumptions about G-d, who has been creating from eternity past - not just getting around to creating about 10,000 years ago.

 

Yeah, that whole notion that God's Word is true and can be trusted as written without inserting pre-adamite fairy tales.  Yeah if that is an incredulous assumption  then I guess I have some incredulous assumptions about God based on His Word.   I guess that's better than having to rely ancient Judaism and theories of fallible men when I can support my views with a competent view of Scripture.

 

 

Notions Will Stop, Shortly

 

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.

 

If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me. I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.

 

Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. Deuteronomy 32:39-43

[Shar]

 

 

 

New Earth, particularly YEC, only really became a emerging view around 1972 through Henry Morris in an effort to discredit the fossil record, following his split from the Creation Science Research Center. 

LOL, It actually dates back about 3500 years ago when Moses put ink to papyrus. 

 

Old Earth View is not rooted in philosophy, but in ancient Judaism, science and empirical data that can be observed, especially today, with our advances in space, astronomy, physics, technology, etc.

 

 There is no emprical data or science that can be relied on for an accurate date for the age of the earth.  I am sorry to see that your argument rests in trusting in men not in the Word of God.  I find it telling that you have to leave the Word of God to make your case. 

 

Your "modus operandi" is always to throw some slight by accusing others of being unbelievers, rejecting Scripture, being homosexual, promoting false doctrine, whenever you cannot fully support YEC, or adequately refute OEC.

 

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

  Really the YEC has some incredulous assumptions about G-d, who has been creating from eternity past - not just getting around to creating about 10,000 years ago.

 

Yeah, that whole notion that God's Word is true and can be trusted as written without inserting pre-adamite fairytales.  Yeah if that is an incredulous assumption  then I guess I have some incredulous assumptions about God based on His Word.   I guess that's better than having to rely ancient Judaism and theories of fallible men when I can support my views with a competent view of Scripture.

 

Ancient Judaism is based on the O.T. - the only scriptures of the Jesus, the disciples, Paul and the O.T saints.  G-d says he is not without testimony.  He references many, many times that He can be observed through his creation.  Science support his creation.  His laws are fixed.  They do not change.  Look to the heavens.  The Ancient of Days' work has been unfolded for us to see, thanks to the knowledge he has given men - Now, particularly through science.

[Shar]

 

 

New Earth, particularly YEC, only really became a emerging view around 1972 through Henry Morris in an effort to discredit the fossil record, following his split from the Creation Science Research Center.  Old Earth View is not rooted in philosophy, but in ancient Judaism, science and empirical data that can be observed, especially today, with our advances in space, astronomy, physics, technology, etc.  The physical and fixed laws of G-d's universe are being revealed to us today- birth and death of stars, planets, speed of light, starlight distance, etc.  Your "modus operandi" is always to throw some slight by accusing others of being unbelievers, rejecting Scripture, being homosexual, promoting false doctrine, whenever you cannot fully support YEC, or adequately refute OEC.  Really the YEC has some incredulous assumptions about G-d, who has been creating from eternity past - not just getting around to creating about 10,000 years ago.

 

 

"New Earth, particularly YEC, only really became a emerging view around 1972"

 

??  Did you make this up?  I'm also failing to see the relevance with "when" it emerged ??

 

 

"Henry Morris in an effort to discredit the fossil record"

 

How would you go about discrediting fossils?

 

 

"science and empirical data that can be observed, especially today, with our advances in space, astronomy, physics, technology, etc."

 

And how exactly is this related to OEC?

 

 

"The physical and fixed laws of G-d's universe are being revealed to us today "

 

You meant to say the "Fixed" Laws after Day 6.  Weren't they revealed after Day 6?

 

 

"birth and death of stars, planets"

 

Woe woe there...you started getting on a roll then rolled right off the reservation.  "Birth" of Stars??  Have you been watching the Discovery Channel?  Can you show one EVER? Pics please...and site source.  Can you also explain this in a 2LOT context in the framework of Boyle's Gas Law and Jeans Mass?

 

 

"speed of light, starlight distance, etc."

 

Are you saying that using the Speed of Light the distances to the stars prove an Old Universe/Earth? 

 

 

"whenever you cannot fully support YEC, or adequately refute OEC."

 

Have you been reading these threads?  I haven't see an instance where we couldn't fully support YEC.  Adequately refute OEC?...for instance?

 

 

"Really the YEC has some incredulous assumptions about G-d"

 

And.......For Instance?

 

 

"who has been creating from eternity past"

 

Eternity past?  Are you saying the Universe is Eternal?  Or show where GOD said HE'S been "creating from eternity past"?

 

 

 

Sorry about all the questions.  This is usually the case when ASSERTIONS or Ambiguous points are made without any support.

 

I'll be busy for a good chunk of the day tomorrow so take your time.

 

In John 1:1, which I have already referenced numerous times,  "In the beginning".  This Greek phrase means, the very first order, first in place, time, order.  We see in the verse that "in the beginning" was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d.  He was with G-d "in the beginning".  Through him all things were made.

 

Now go to Ge. 1:1.  "In the beginning".  The Hebrew phrase, means the same thing...the very first order, first in time, place, order.  We see in this verse G-d created the heavens and the earth.  This is not an introductory phrase to what follows.  It is a statement that He created from the beginning.  The beginning was the Word.  He created the heavens.  The heavens are His abode, the celestial bodies and the sky.

 

Now go to He. 1:10  "In the beginning" - the same phrase.  "In the beginning, O L-rd, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."  By the way, "foundations of the earth" is the building block.  You must lay a foundation before you can build on it.

 

G-d has been creating, since "in the beginning.  He began by laying the foundations of the earth.  If you think He has only been creating the heavens and the earth over the last 10,000 years, then we have to conclude G-d is equally as young.  Definitely not so.  He is the Ancient of Days - The Ancient of All Eternity.

[enoob57]

'I AM THAT I AM' answer this foolishness rather well don't you think children?

John 17:5

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the

glory which I had with thee before the world was.

KJV

1 Corinthians 2:7

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom,

which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

KJV

2 Timothy 1:9

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according

to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was

given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

KJV

Titus 1:2

2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before

the world began;

KJV

We prefer to let God interpret His Word to us through the study of it!

We do not want the useless wandering through it without contextualization!

Love, Steven