OEC and The New Heavens and New Earth

[Spock]

Questions for YEC advocates:

1. Is there anything science could do to prove to you the earth is over 6000 -10000 years old?

2. If you answer yes, what exactly would convince you?

Thanks

[Spock]

One of the best ways to interpret Scripture is through other Scripture.  You cannot read your Bible like it is the latest novel off the New York Best Seller's list.  If you would dig through the Scriptures, as if searching for treasure, you may find additional exegesis.  The constant roar that anyone who does not agree is spreading false doctrine is a primitive debate tactic to swing the debate in your favor, when really and often, you cannot respond with an adequate answer.

My argument is not that if you disagree with me you are spreading false doctrine.   My argument is that the Gap Theory is a false doctrine.  It impugns God's character and really borders on heresy, though I doubt it completely rises to the level of heresy.

 

There is a differnce between using Scripture to interpreet Scripture and strining verses together to support a theory that is completely false at the outset.  You are trying to use Scripture in a way that justifies a false teaching, and that is an illegitimate use of the texts.

Shiloh, I see you have learned the art of using key words to arouse passion from the masses- false doctrine, God's character, heresy ( that was a good one), illegitimate (people react to this word no matter what setting).

Hard to believe so many godly men are guilty of all this. Well, at least in your eyes.

Oh, what was that adjective you used to describe what shar has been sharing? Ridiculous. Classy!!

I stand behind every word I said.   Yes, it is heart-breaking that otherwise intelligent godly men are led astray by this false teaching of a Gap.

I'm sure they don't think they are being led astray. They may think you are being closed minded and are in error in your exegesis of the bible. Isn't it POSSIBLE you are the one in error?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

One of the best ways to interpret Scripture is through other Scripture.  You cannot read your Bible like it is the latest novel off the New York Best Seller's list.  If you would dig through the Scriptures, as if searching for treasure, you may find additional exegesis.  The constant roar that anyone who does not agree is spreading false doctrine is a primitive debate tactic to swing the debate in your favor, when really and often, you cannot respond with an adequate answer.

My argument is not that if you disagree with me you are spreading false doctrine.   My argument is that the Gap Theory is a false doctrine.  It impugns God's character and really borders on heresy, though I doubt it completely rises to the level of heresy.

 

There is a differnce between using Scripture to interpreet Scripture and strining verses together to support a theory that is completely false at the outset.  You are trying to use Scripture in a way that justifies a false teaching, and that is an illegitimate use of the texts.

Shiloh, I see you have learned the art of using key words to arouse passion from the masses- false doctrine, God's character, heresy ( that was a good one), illegitimate (people react to this word no matter what setting).

Hard to believe so many godly men are guilty of all this. Well, at least in your eyes.

Oh, what was that adjective you used to describe what shar has been sharing? Ridiculous. Classy!!

I stand behind every word I said.   Yes, it is heart-breaking that otherwise intelligent godly men are led astray by this false teaching of a Gap.

I'm sure they don't think they are being led astray.

 

Yes and I am sure the Branch Davidians didn't they were being  led astray either.

 

They may think you are being closed minded and are in error in your exegesis of the bible. Isn't it POSSIBLE you are the one in error?

 

If am, it would be easy to prove.  So far, no one has produced an actual degreed scholar of Hebrew that would refute anything I have said. I have produced a Hebrew scholar who confirms what I have said about a young earth , and his comments were soundly ignored.  

 

  If the Bible actually claimed there was a pre-adamite earth, there would be nothing left for me to say. 

 

See, I am only reflecting the facts, which up to this point you have been helpless to refute.  So why should I believe I am in error?

[Guest shiloh357]

Questions for YEC advocates:

1. Is there anything science could do to prove to you the earth is over 6000 -10000 years old?

 

 

Considering that all of the dating methods currently available produce radically erroneous results, considering that the OE view is actually an assumption that predates modern science by over 200 years,  I doubt there is anything science can do except to continue to pound louder and louder on the table and demand that we accept their unproven assumptions as established fact. 

 

In short, "No."

[other one]

Questions for YEC advocates:

1. Is there anything science could do to prove to you the earth is over 6000 -10000 years old?

2. If you answer yes, what exactly would convince you?

Thanks

 

Look at the first three or four pages of threads on this forum.....   note the subjects.    then randomly click on the number of posts on each one and see who posted how many.....      I think you will find that this is a sensitive subject for Shiloh......   and he's been defending that position for a really long time as I look through the forum.

[Spock]

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

I got it from bible.org article by Pastor Bob Deffinbaugh, Dallas theological graduate

Many interpretations exist for the first three verses of the Bible, but we will briefly mention the three most popularly held by evangelicals. We will not spend a great deal of time here because our conclusions will be tentative and the differences have little bearing on the application of the text. Let me simply begin by saying that we who name the name of Christ as Savior must ultimately take Genesis 1:1 at face value on faith (Heb 11:3).

View 1: The Re-creation (or Gap) Theory. This view maintains that Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth, prior to the fall of Satan (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12ff). As a result of Satan’s fall the earth lost its original state of beauty and bliss and is found in a state of chaos in Genesis 1:2. This ‘gap’ between verses 1 and 2 not only helps to explain the teaching of Satan’s fall, but it also allows for a considerable time period, which helps to harmonize the creation account with modern scientific theory. It does suffer from a number of difficulties.32

View 2: The Initial Chaos Theory. Briefly, this view holds that verse one would be an independent introductory statement. Verse 2 would describe the state of the initial creation as unformed and unfilled. In other words the universe is like an untouched block of granite before the sculpter begins to fashion it. The creation is not in an evil state, as the result of some catastrophic fall, but merely in its initial unformed state, like a lump of clay in the potter’s hands. Verses 3 and following begin to describe God’s working and fashioning of the mass, transforming it from chaos to cosmos. Many respectable scholars hold this position.33

View 3: Precreation Chaos Theory: In this view (held by Dr. Waltke), verse one is understood either as a dependent clause (“When God began to create … ”) or as an independent introductory summary statement (“In the beginning God created … ”). The creation account summarized in verse one begins in verse two. This ‘creation’ is not ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing), but out of the stuff existing in verse 2. Where this comes from is not explained in these verses. In effect, this view holds that the chaotic state does not occur between verses one and two, but before verse one of an unspecified time. The absolute origin of matter is, then, not the subject of the ‘creation’ account of Genesis 1, but only the relative beginnings of the world and civilization as we know it today.34

If you had to choose one, which one, if any?

PS if you like this, I will attach the link to the entire article.

[Guest]

....Hard to believe so many godly men are guilty of all this....

....Oh, what was that adjective you used to describe what shar has been sharing....

 

 

Plain Speaking Men Of God Are A Privilege

 

These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. Jude 1:16

 

Not A Right

 

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 1:3-4

 

So Thank Him For Trying

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

And Try Very Hard To Listen To Any Exhortations He May Offer

 

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Enoch2021]

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

I got it from bible.org article by Pastor Bob Deffinbaugh, Dallas theological graduate

Many interpretations exist for the first three verses of the Bible, but we will briefly mention the three most popularly held by evangelicals. We will not spend a great deal of time here because our conclusions will be tentative and the differences have little bearing on the application of the text. Let me simply begin by saying that we who name the name of Christ as Savior must ultimately take Genesis 1:1 at face value on faith (Heb 11:3).

View 1: The Re-creation (or Gap) Theory. This view maintains that Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth, prior to the fall of Satan (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12ff). As a result of Satan’s fall the earth lost its original state of beauty and bliss and is found in a state of chaos in Genesis 1:2. This ‘gap’ between verses 1 and 2 not only helps to explain the teaching of Satan’s fall, but it also allows for a considerable time period, which helps to harmonize the creation account with modern scientific theory. It does suffer from a number of difficulties.32

View 2: The Initial Chaos Theory. Briefly, this view holds that verse one would be an independent introductory statement. Verse 2 would describe the state of the initial creation as unformed and unfilled. In other words the universe is like an untouched block of granite before the sculpter begins to fashion it. The creation is not in an evil state, as the result of some catastrophic fall, but merely in its initial unformed state, like a lump of clay in the potter’s hands. Verses 3 and following begin to describe God’s working and fashioning of the mass, transforming it from chaos to cosmos. Many respectable scholars hold this position.33

View 3: Precreation Chaos Theory: In this view (held by Dr. Waltke), verse one is understood either as a dependent clause (“When God began to create … ”) or as an independent introductory summary statement (“In the beginning God created … ”). The creation account summarized in verse one begins in verse two. This ‘creation’ is not ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing), but out of the stuff existing in verse 2. Where this comes from is not explained in these verses. In effect, this view holds that the chaotic state does not occur between verses one and two, but before verse one of an unspecified time. The absolute origin of matter is, then, not the subject of the ‘creation’ account of Genesis 1, but only the relative beginnings of the world and civilization as we know it today.34

If you had to choose one, which one, if any?

PS if you like this, I will attach the link to the entire article.

 

As soon as I saw Dallas Theological Grad I started...... 

 

I choose GOD'S Version

[Guest]

If you had to choose one, which one, if any?

 

 

#4. God Meant

 

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

 

Just What He Said

 

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

 

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:8-11

 

And He Will Do It

 

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Revelation 21:1-2

 

One Again

 

And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. Revelation 22:5

 

And Baskets Full Of Doctorates Of Philosophy Or Theology

 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

Will Not Move God One Inch

 

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

 

You See

 

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth. Psalms 119:89-90

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

 

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. John 8:34-36

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[a-seeker]

 

 

I will put together a small outline backing my argument....note, it is not primarily for you; perhaps not even remotely.  We both know nothing will convince you of anything that might be used to support OE or non-absolutely-literal reading of Scripture. I have no intention of so using this (I could care less how old the earth is).  But since it could be used, I know you are already in disagreement. Rather, it will be for those who are not yet convinced, and those tired of the science/Scripture debate, and those who would like to know what scholarship is discovering in these ancient texts.

 

I will attempt to put together the bibliography but that means going through all my books and syllabi which is tedious.  And no doubt (this is not conjecture or "straw man", it is you're inevitable counterattack) you will denigrate each one for some reason (He's a Catholic; or he supports gays; or he eats his brats with ketchup).  But I will do it all the same to show I am not alone.

 

clb

 

I'd be interested in seeing this, too. 

 

hello,

 

I don't think we've ever spoken.

 

It doesn't matter much, but I am curious, are you.....how should I say........a zealot for the YEarth view?

 

clb