Creation and an Old Earth - One Possibility

[enoob57]

It could mean this it could mean that... rebellion is stepping out the place of 'IS' just as in the begin when satan fell! The
spirit that influences to find hidden meanings to support agendas outside of the plain sense of Scripture should in fact
be examined as to why.... Love, Steven

[ARGOSY]

32 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

God created the earth day one... period the other days were for design that pleased Him as He went. To make
it any other sense is to be motivated by an agenda outside the hermeneutic of written intent... Period  All this
hoop thru hoop stuff to support an agenda of evolutionary thought is fraught with man elevating himself above
the Scripture and re-writing to accommodate...

I don't support evolution. I'm a bible literalist who believes biological life was created about 6000 years ago during a literal creation week. All I'm saying is that the bible does not support a 6000 year old planet. Anyway I have stated my case, it's actually the correct case, and anyone can easily understand it. Its pretty easy to understand that the word erets means land. Therefore land was created, and the planet earth wasn't even mentioned in Genesis 1. If you do not agree, it's not important.  The salvation message is not based on our understanding of Genesis 1. But I do enjoy an exchange of ideas and it was good chatting to you.

[enoob57]

16 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

I don't support evolution. I'm a bible literalist who believes biological life was created about 6000 years ago during a literal creation week. All I'm saying is that the bible does not support a 6000 year old planet. Anyway I have stated my case, it's actually the correct case, and anyone can easily understand it. Its pretty easy to understand that the word erets means land. Therefore land was created, and the planet earth wasn't even mentioned in Genesis 1. If you do not agree, it's not important.  The salvation message is not based on our understanding of Genesis 1. But I do enjoy an exchange of ideas and it was good chatting to you.

In the literary science of (hermeneutics) in Genesis chapter one as written disagrees with your assessment ....  I do think that a proper
interpretation must begin there or the skewed pattern of interpretation that will taint the rest of which follows! "In the beginning" as
God stated must be understood as 'All that has beginning' or you have already violated the hermeneutic of written material for it allows
for no other thought unless the written material allows for thus somewhere else... thanks for the dialogue.   Love, Steven

[ARGOSY]

5 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

In the literary science of (hermeneutics) in Genesis chapter one as written disagrees with your assessment ....  I do think that a proper
interpretation must begin there or the skewed pattern of interpretation that will taint the rest of which follows! "In the beginning" as
God stated must be understood as 'All that has beginning' or you have already violated the hermeneutic of written material for it allows
for no other thought unless the written material allows for thus somewhere else... thanks for the dialogue.   Love, Steven

The phrase "in the beginning" can mean anything.  It certainly does not mean in the beginning of God's existence. It does not deal with that far back.   It certainly does not mean in the beginning, "God's first ever project"   God is eternal, it logically follows He must have had many many projects before creation week.   You are pushing it if you say it means the "beginning of matter".  Context is not clear that matter is referred to.    So its entirely open to interpretation what Genesis is talking about. We do know it refers to dry land, and a sky.  So let's stick to that, it's safer than guesswork.       In the beginning God created dry land and sky, and then mankind.   Knowing at least these facts then context favors the bible being mankind's story.  The beginning of the project that concerns humans.   But I'm entirely happy to agree to disagree and hoping we can wind this down now.

[enoob57]

Just now, ARGOSY said:

The phrase "in the beginning" can mean anything.  It certainly does not mean in the beginning of God's existence. It does not deal with that far back.   It certainly does not mean in the beginning, "God's first ever project"   God is eternal, it logically follows He must have had many many projects before creation week.   You are pushing it if you say it means the "beginning of matter".  Context is not clear that matter is referred to.    So its entirely open to interpretation what Genesis is talking about. We do know it refers to dry land, and a sky.  So let's stick to that, it's safer than guesswork.       In the beginning God created dry land and sky, and then mankind.   Knowing at least these facts then context favors the bible being mankind's story.  The beginning of the project that concerns humans.   But I'm entirely happy to agree to disagree and hoping we can wind this down now.

I don't see how this is difficult for you to understand ...   God has no beginning then God spoke that with beginning into exist stated "in the beginning" ...
That's it! That where we obediently stand till permitted to go elsewhere by the Word of God! Is it all inclusive of all that had beginning it must be assessed as so
till God gives us by His Word other >AND< He does not for the rest of The Written Word... It is simplistic, it is what is written, it is the hermeneutic of literary
science.   That's why the gap people failed in the literary sense of interpretation they said as you there are other beginnings- prove it by The Word or else be
honest enough to say it is not there but I believe (on whatever you want to base it on) but you cannot by the written Word of God!!! Love, Steven

[Kan]

12 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

... ALL land is referred to , this becomes vuirtually synonymous with our modern planetary view , so there is some interchange. But because Genesis 1:10 already definies the word, let us stick to the biblical definition than our own definition. Genesis 1 then becomes In the beginning God made the sky and the land...

Which ever way we see it, as far as I read, the whole process of creating the sky and earth took six days. 

Now, I don't think the language gives licence to say, the creation week was only a dress up, where as the earth existed long before that. 

God is not indebted to time or material to create. When Jesus commanded a thing to be done, it was done immediately. We count on this speed and power in His Word for salvation.

I would hate to belong to a savior who when you ask for salvation, replies - 

"How long have you been a Christian? I hope its been for a while so that I may dress you up."

"You are giving me such short notice, I don't think I can help you, after all, the clergy have proven that Christians have been around for a long time before they got dressed up."

[ARGOSY]

6 hours ago, Kan said:

Which ever way we see it, as far as I read, the whole process of creating the sky and earth took six days. 

Now, I don't think the language gives licence to say, the creation week was only a dress up, where as the earth existed long before that. 

God is not indebted to time or material to create. When Jesus commanded a thing to be done, it was done immediately. We count on this speed and power in His Word for salvation.

I would hate to belong to a savior who when you ask for salvation, replies - 

"How long have you been a Christian? I hope its been for a while so that I may dress you up."

"You are giving me such short notice, I don't think I can help you, after all, the clergy have proven that Christians have been around for a long time before they got dressed up."

I agree that the process of creating the sky and the land took six days.  Yes we haven't got license to conclude about the watery planet itself, from a biblical perspective we don't know how old it is. From a scientific perspective  they have deep flaws in their radiometric dating methods and so the current age of earth from scientific consensus cannot be trusted. But my view is that it is significantly older than biological life.

[Kan]

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

I agree that the process of creating the sky and the land took six days.  Yes we haven't got license to conclude about the watery planet itself, from a biblical perspective we don't know how old it is. From a scientific perspective  they have deep flaws in their radiometric dating methods and so the current age of earth from scientific consensus cannot be trusted. But my view is that it is significantly older than biological life.

You sound almost convinced to be a young earther...what aspects or thoughts make you hold short of it?

The beginning of Genesis used to puzzle me, how the earth was (past tense) without form and void, how long for? and where did these waters come from, that the Spirit of God had to move over? It seems like an undeniable pre creation scenario.

I never allowed myself to accept it though, based on other scriptures. however I have come to other conclusions - personal, which answer the question about the waters etc. But I am cautious about revealing that, because the story of creation was primarily simple when I read it as a child, and I think it is sufficient to get the message across that God is who He is - a creator.

[ARGOSY]

57 minutes ago, Kan said:

You sound almost convinced to be a young earther...what aspects or thoughts make you hold short of it?

The beginning of Genesis used to puzzle me, how the earth was (past tense) without form and void, how long for? and where did these waters come from, that the Spirit of God had to move over? It seems like an undeniable pre creation scenario.

I never allowed myself to accept it though, based on other scriptures. however I have come to other conclusions - personal, which answer the question about the waters etc. But I am cautious about revealing that, because the story of creation was primarily simple when I read it as a child, and I think it is sufficient to get the message across that God is who He is - a creator.

Hold short of what? Being a young earther?  I basically am, except my position is we cannot know the age of earth from the bible. So I stick to what we can know.  Science relies on faulty radiometric dating, so that doesn't help either.

Well I just worry that when the science proves earth is older than biology, if that's the truth, then it will weaken creationism.  The more creationists stick to the truth, the more chance of being proved right, and truth is most important to me, no matter the source. If we dilute the truth in favor of the trendy Christian philosophy of the day, then we are off track.   Do you know how Victorian archaeologists messed with archaeology while trying to prove the bible?  Now to fix historical timelines has become difficult. This is what happens when one tries to dilute truth in favor of trendy acceptable sounding belief systems.

[Kan]

10 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Hold short of what? Being a young earther?  I basically am, except my position is we cannot know the age of earth from the bible. So I stick to what we can know.  Science relies on faulty radiometric dating, so that doesn't help either.

Well I just worry that when the science proves earth is older than biology, if that's the truth, then it will weaken creationism.  The more creationists stick to the truth, the more chance of being proved right, and truth is most important to me, no matter the source. If we dilute the truth in favor of the trendy Christian philosophy of the day, then we are off track.   Do you know how Victorian archaeologists messed with archaeology while trying to prove the bible?  Now to fix historical timelines has become difficult. This is what happens when one tries to dilute truth in favor of trendy acceptable sounding belief systems.

Yes, that's right, we are in a world that disagrees with views of the past. Happily in some areas, and not so in others. As you said, the past has been botched, even in favor of trying to prove the Bible right, and I guess that hasn't stopped with opposing views either. There are plenty of people who have had high positions in education and science fields who have evidence to dismiss commonly accepted views held by the respective communities. Like you said, it is interesting to know the truth. 

Personally I have never seen any reason to accept the opinions of so called science, mainly because they were very young at the time of creation.