1000 years like a day

[JohnD]

Opening statement to each Science Scripture and Salvation broadcast:

"Welcome to Science Scripture and Salvation a radio ministry of the Institute for Creation Research. In this program we want to encourage you in your Christian faith by showing how scientific evidence supports the Bible. Particularly the Genesis account. The book of Genesis lays the foundation for all matters addressed in the rest of the Bible; the nature of God, his sovereignty in creation, man's purpose, sin, marriage, family and why we need a Savior are all introduced and explained in Genesis.

"When we see the first and most foundational book of the Bible can be trusted in all matters (including science) it builds confidence in the inspired Word all the way to Revelation."

[DeighAnn]

On 5/6/2023 at 4:00 AM, RV_Wizard said:

If we exclude Genesis and look to the 10 commandments which were carved into a stone tablet by God Himself, God personally said He created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh.  Do you believe him?  There is no poetry in Exodus 20:11.  God is very clearly a creationist.

FOR six days God made YHVH the heavens and the earth the sea and all that in them...

Yet, if we exclude Genesis, then we have to exclude Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah ect. and we exclude precept on precept, and if we exclude 1 Pet we exclude a bit of here a little...

The reason we don't 'exclude' but BUILD upon, is so Gods Truth shines forth the LIGHT shows the errors of mans doctrines with his addings and subtractings.   

I agree, God is the creator and that in six days THIS age came into being.  BUT what 6 days doesn't take into account is 'the light' ILLUMINATED AN EARTH already PRESENT, although in a state of destruction...yet God tells us (as well as our own common sense) that isn't HOW GOD CREATES anything.  

[FJK]

How important is this?

[RV_Wizard]

21 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

The reason we don't 'exclude' but BUILD upon, is so Gods Truth shines forth the LIGHT shows the errors of mans doctrines with his addings and subtractings.   

I agree, God is the creator and that in six days THIS age came into being.  BUT what 6 days doesn't take into account is 'the light' ILLUMINATED AN EARTH already PRESENT, although in a state of destruction...yet God tells us (as well as our own common sense) that isn't HOW GOD CREATES anything.  

We don't exclude anything in the Bible.  I simply illustrated that according to God the Creator, "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

The earth was made, not revealed. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  The earth was in a liquid or gaseous state on day one.  It was not millions of years old, but moments old.  This is what the text tells us.  It does not say "And the light revealed a planet full of dead dinosaurs, riddled with meteors and not yet polluted by man."

The origination of anything is a scientific impossibility since energy cannot be created or destroyed; only changed in form to a lesser form of heat energy.  Only God can do the impossible.  The impossible cannot come about by any natural means.  The universe declares the glory of God; not the cause and effect of natural processes that somehow created themselves.

[DeighAnn]

On 5/8/2023 at 6:39 AM, RV_Wizard said:

We don't exclude anything in the Bible.  I simply illustrated that according to God the Creator, "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

The earth was made, not revealed. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  The earth was in a liquid or gaseous state on day one.  It was not millions of years old, but moments old.  This is what the text tells us.  It does not say "And the light revealed a planet full of dead dinosaurs, riddled with meteors and not yet polluted by man."

The origination of anything is a scientific impossibility since energy cannot be created or destroyed; only changed in form to a lesser form of heat energy.  Only God can do the impossible.  The impossible cannot come about by any natural means.  The universe declares the glory of God; not the cause and effect of natural processes that somehow created themselves.

If you could get THE WAY it is written in the HEBREW to change, you MIGHT be able to go there but SINCE we have to go by WHAT IS WRITTEN and not what our OWN personal religion wants,


your DISPUTE is not with me, but with what is written. And what you speak to is evolution and ONLY

EVOLUTION would NEED TO START OUT THAT WAY, but WORDS SPOKEN by GOD, not even close.    

Gen 1:2 The earth was found to be TOHU VA BOHU

Isa 45:18 says IT WAS NOT created TOHU VA BOHU

So, if it was NOT created TOHU VA BOHU but it was found to be tohu va bohu, then OBVIOUSLY something happened.  

We choose to either do a little bit of twisting OR take it as written and adjust the belief to what is written as what is mean.  Your choice.  


 1961. hayah ►
Strong's Concordance
hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be
Original Word: הָיָה
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: hayah
Phonetic Spelling: (haw-yaw)
Definition: to fall out, come to pass, become, be

 8414. tohu ►
Strong's Concordance
tohu: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness
Original Word: תֹּהוּ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: tohu
Phonetic Spelling: (to'-hoo)
Definition: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

Do YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT IN SPEAKING THE EARTH INTO EXISTENCE,

GOD STARTED WITH WORDS LIKE FORMLESS, CONFUSION, UNREALITY, EMPTINESS?

BECAUSE that is what you are SAYING.  


922. bohu ►
Strong's Concordance
bohu: emptiness
Original Word: בֹּהוּ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: bohu
Phonetic Spelling: (bo'-hoo)
Definition: emptiness

AND emptiness?   

Is that how GOD spoke creation?  By speaking emptiness and confusion?  WHY would GOD speak that FIRST?  Why not speak it like HE did in JOB?  

 2822. choshek ►
Strong's Concordance
choshek: darkness, obscurity
Original Word: חשֶׁךְ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: choshek
Phonetic Spelling: (kho-shek')
Definition: darkness, obscurity

Do you REALLY see GOD who is LIGHT speaking DARKNESS to begin to CREATE???????  for what purpose?  what kind of sense does that make?  


I don't.  Pure and simple.  I don't see GOD speaking ANY OF THOSE WORDS in the beginning.  I think that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of how GOD would create the earth.  


AND perfect as the WORD is, WE ARE TOLD FOR SURE, what you put forth isn't what is meant.  


17But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God HIMSELF that formed the earth and made it; HE HATH established it, HE CREATED IT NOT IN VAIN, HE  formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

19I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.


3808. lo ►
Strong's Concordance
lo: not
Original Word: לֹא
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: lo
Phonetic Spelling: (lo)
Definition: not


 8414. tohu ►
Strong's Concordance
tohu: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness
Original Word: תֹּהוּ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: tohu
Phonetic Spelling: (to'-hoo)
Definition: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness


 3335. yatsar ►
Strong's Concordance
yatsar: to form, fashion
Original Word: יָצַר
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: yatsar
Phonetic Spelling: (yaw-tsar')
Definition: to form, fashion


So, let's agree to disagree....or we could go into Proverbs, and Job, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Revelation and all the other places God writes of 'LIFE' BEFORE THE EARTH WAS CREATED.  


 

[Roymond]

On 5/6/2023 at 2:43 AM, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

Actually I would say that most pastors and parents don't give young people a proper education in creationism. Then they get indoctrinated in the false theory of evolution and believe it. Churches should have creationism classes that teach people correct science, not the fables they are learning in schools. 

There's no such thing as a "proper education in creationism" because creationism is based on a false understanding of the scriptures, namely that in order to be true everything has to be 100% scientifically accurate.  That idea does not come from the scriptures, it comes from scientific materialism that crept into the church over about a century.  Thus creationism is based on a system that is inherently atheistic.

It's also based on a false understanding of the scriptures because neither of the two different Creation accounts that open Genesis were written as history.  The first one is a form I learned to call "royal chronicle", though it's more a "royal brag", an account depicting a mighty accomplishment of a great king; at the same time it fits the literary form of a temple inauguration ceremony where first the space of the temple is established, then the temple is filled with appropriate items, after which the deity comes and "rests" in the temple.  It took genius to twine two forms together like that! 

It should be noted that the order of events in the first Creation account follow the order of events in the Egyptian creation account.  This indicates one purpose:  in the Egyptian version, pretty much everything is a deity, from the sky to the sea to the sun and moon, but the Genesis writer takes that story and uses it to set the record straight:  that none of those things are gods, they're things YHWH-Elohim created as tools to serve Him!  It's a message that tells the people of Israel that the stories they had heard from the Egyptians around them were wrong, wrong, and also wrong!  plus it tells later generations that the stories about their gods from the other nations around them are also wrong because most of the ancient near east had basically the same creation story; the names of the gods just changed.

Then there's that repeated phrase, "There was evening, there was morning", which if you take it literally describes a night since a night starts after evening and ends in the morning.  This is significant because all the 'theology' of the other nations regarded darkness as an enemy of the gods, which made night a time of battle as the gods had to fight to make sure the sun came back -- but this quick phrase throws all that out by making evening and night and morning just more things that YHWH-Elohim created to serve Him!

Creationism misses the glory of the Creation story by treating it as though it's a friend's great-great-grandfather's diary of events he lived through and wrote down.  That misses the powerful message that the Earth was intended as God's temple from the start and that everything in it is supposed to be here and it's our job to maintain and care for it all, along with the declaration that God is the great king Who made the world and so everything in it is His servant, plus the message that the gods of the nations are just tools that are supposed to serve God -- that the sky is no god, the sea is no god, etc.  [Interestingly the biggest slam is on two of the most important gods, the sun and the moon:  the writer doesn't even name them, just describes their function!]

As for evolution, I have yet to encounter a young-Earth Creationist who can correctly state what the theory of evolution is, which is truly sad because what evolution boils down to is describing how things went when God commanded earth and sea to "Bring forth!"  When I was in university, I knew several students who had been atheists or agnostics until they studied evolution; the elegance of the system convinced them that there must be a Designer!

[Roymond]

On 5/6/2023 at 4:00 AM, RV_Wizard said:

The problem is that some people have an incorrect perception that science is the uncovering of truth, when science is actually the study of the physical world around us.  It cannot account for the supernatural.  The creation was a supernatural event, therefore it cannot be explained scientifically.  An easy test of this is the resurrection of Christ.  We know scientifically that this is impossible, yet it's the basis of Christianity.  The Bible is NOT a science book, though there are many things mentioned that we only learned of many years later.

Actually we don't "know scientifically that this is impossible" because we don't know how it happened, and it's not possible to disprove something without knowing exactly what went on.

On 5/6/2023 at 4:00 AM, RV_Wizard said:

If we exclude Genesis and look to the 10 commandments which were carved into a stone tablet by God Himself, God personally said He created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh.  Do you believe him?  There is no poetry in Exodus 20:11.  God is very clearly a creationist.

That assumes that the days are literal and ordinary.  There were ancient scholars who pointed out that at first there was nothing that marked out time, and that until the sixth day there was no one to measure time except God, so they concluded that those were "divine days" that lasted however long God considered appropriate.

There were other ancient scholars who examined the Hebrew text very closely and concluded that Genesis tells us that:

* the universe began tinier than a grain of mustard (an idiom for 'the smallest possible size')

* it almost immediately expanded extremely rapidly to a size beyond human comprehension

* the universe was dark and filled with fluid (waters)

* light could not shine until the fluid thinned when God commanded light into existence

* the Earth also is vastly ancient (which is why God gets called "the Ancient of Days")

That's eerily a lot like what modern cosmology has concluded about the universe, and this was from scholars back before Galileo ever thought of a telescope.

And these different views from scholars who devoted their lives to studying Genesis in the Hebrew (most of them spoke Hebrew fluently) demonstrate that there is more than one way to understand the text -- but only when it is being treated as ancient literature.

[Roymond]

On 5/8/2023 at 6:39 AM, RV_Wizard said:

We don't exclude anything in the Bible.  I simply illustrated that according to God the Creator, "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

The earth was made, not revealed. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  The earth was in a liquid or gaseous state on day one.  It was not millions of years old, but moments old.  This is what the text tells us.  It does not say "And the light revealed a planet full of dead dinosaurs, riddled with meteors and not yet polluted by man."

Of course the text doesn't say that -- God communicated to them in the terms they understood. 

Just by the way, ancient scholars often interpreted "the deep" as being the entirety of Creation.  It's an interesting thought.

"Moments old".  We don't know that -- there's no time scale given.  For all we know the earth remained "without form and void" for a billion years -- though that's actually mistreating the text because it's not that kind of literature.

 

On 5/8/2023 at 6:39 AM, RV_Wizard said:

The origination of anything is a scientific impossibility since energy cannot be created or destroyed; only changed in form to a lesser form of heat energy.  Only God can do the impossible.  The impossible cannot come about by any natural means.  The universe declares the glory of God; not the cause and effect of natural processes that somehow created themselves.

If the universe developed as the cosmologists say, it still declares the glory of God -- as an atheist physics/astronomy student I knew in my university days who pondered the entire universe developing from just a set of 'simple' rules and thus decided there must be a Designer said, that something so beautiful and complex came from a small set of rules and constants is evidence of immense genius. 

[Roymond]

On 5/10/2023 at 9:52 AM, DeighAnn said:

 

Gen 1:2 The earth was found to be TOHU VA BOHU

Isa 45:18 says IT WAS NOT created TOHU VA BOHU

Isaiah says no such thing -- it says "ה֣וּא כֽוֹנְנָ֔הּ לֹֽא־תֹ֥הוּ", "He established it not in vain".  "Vain" is indeed "tohu", but there is no "bohu" and when they occur separately they have different meanings.

For that matter, there is no "found" in the text, there's only a "was" -- the earth WAS, it wasn't "found".

On 5/10/2023 at 9:52 AM, DeighAnn said:

So, if it was NOT created TOHU VA BOHU but it was found to be tohu va bohu, then OBVIOUSLY something happened.  

We choose to either do a little bit of twisting OR take it as written and adjust the belief to what is written as what is mean.  Your choice.  

You're twisting it, not taking it as written.  Nothing "happened", because the earth was not "found", it simply WAS.

On 5/10/2023 at 9:52 AM, DeighAnn said:

Do YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT IN SPEAKING THE EARTH INTO EXISTENCE,

GOD STARTED WITH WORDS LIKE FORMLESS, CONFUSION, UNREALITY, EMPTINESS?
Do you REALLY see GOD who is LIGHT speaking DARKNESS to begin to CREATE???????  for what purpose?  what kind of sense does that make?  


I don't.  Pure and simple.  I don't see GOD speaking ANY OF THOSE WORDS in the beginning.  I think that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of how GOD would create the earth.  


AND perfect as the WORD is, WE ARE TOLD FOR SURE, what you put forth isn't what is meant.  


17But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God HIMSELF that formed the earth and made it; HE HATH established it, HE CREATED IT NOT IN VAIN, HE  formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

 

So essentially you're imposing your preferred view of things onto the text instead of just reading the text.

This article should clear up the confusion:

 

Taken from Apologetics Press Does the Hebrew Word Yōm Endorse an Old Earth? – Apologetics Press

[Apologetics Press auxiliary writer Justin Rogers, PhD serves as an Associate Professor of Bible at Freed-Hardeman University. He holds an M.A. in New Testament from Freed-Hardeman University as well as an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.]

Gap theorists insist the term means “became” or “had become.” They assert the bārā’ stage of Creation “became” or “had become” a desolate waste, and thus a re-creation (the ‘āsāh stage) was necessary. In the assessment of Fields, “It is the mistranslation of this word which has, perhaps, added more to the ranks of gap theorists than any one factor” (1976, p. 88).

First of all, let us acknowledge that Gap theorists are correct about the Hebrew verb hāyāh. It can mean “became” or “had become.” BUT THE MEANING OF ANY WORD MUST BE DETERMINED BY ITS CONTEXT, AND NOT BY THE TRANSLATOR’S ARBITRARY CHOOSING OF A MEANING FROM A LEXICAL LIST. In Genesis 1:2, the copular usage of the verb hāyāh in biblical Hebrew must be understood. The community of Hebrew grammarians is uniform in recognizing that the term hāyetāh (a feminine form of hāyāh) in Genesis 1:2 functions as a copula (see, e.g., Joüon and Muraoka, 2006, §154m), and thus simply links the subject with the object without implying any true verbal quality. Let us explain.

Hebrew has no proper equivalent to the English verb “to be.” Therefore, several syntactical approximations, called copulas, communicate the essence of the English “to be.” For example, the pronouns hū’ (literally “he” or “it” for masculine objects) and hî’ (literally “she” or “it” for feminine objects) can serve this purpose (often translated “is”). The same is true of the verb “he became” (hāyāh). The copula hāyetāh is not, therefore, functioning in Genesis 1:2 in its true verbal sense as “became,” but in the copular sense as “was.”

It is recognized universally that “the Hebrew verb translated was refers to the time when God began his work of creation. Was does not mean that the earth remained in this shapeless state for a long time; nor does it mean that it became such after being something else earlier” (Reyburn and Fry, 1997, p. 30). This point is recognized in virtually every decent translation of the Hebrew text since the Septuagint (cf. the Latin Vulgate and the mountain of English translations). Gap theorists must find a different justification for their theory.

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

1 hour ago, Roymond said:

As for evolution, I have yet to encounter a young-Earth Creationist who can correctly state what the theory of evolution is, which is truly sad because what evolution boils down to is describing how things went when God commanded earth and sea to "Bring forth!" 

This is the only part of your long response I can address because it's the only part I disagree with. As a young earth creationist, I can tell you exactly what the theory of evolution is. If you read a school textbook, it is the idea that in the beginning there was nothing. Then somehow nothing exploded and became everything. Over billions of years it formed into planets and stars and life. The elephant in the room is that the very laws of physics say exactly the opposite. You CANNOT get life from non-life and order from disorder. But the teachers keep parroting it for all 12 years of your schooling and expect that you will believe it. Sadly, many DO believe this lie and surveys of college students has shown that Darwinism is the #1 reason people in college abandon the faith they were raised in.