Rev 16:18 suggests the earth is much older than Adam/Eve

[Dennis1209]

On 1/3/2024 at 6:09 AM, RV_Wizard said:

John was not God.  He was told to accurately recount the vision that was given to him as it was given to him.  His vision dealt with the end of man on earth, not the beginning.  He would not reference things outside of his vision.  He would reference the history of man because that's what the vision was about.

Regarding this nonsense of an earth that was and became desolate, what was it with no lights, no heat, and no establishment of time?  With no source of heat, how did it exist?  How could it exist?  For how long?  Why doesn't a single English translation of the Bible agree with you?  The notion of long ages was proposed so that people would swallow the lie of common descent.  The thing is, without a source of light or heat, NOTHING could live on the planet.  Light came the same day after the creation of the earth, and man arrived on the six day.  This is what the Bible teaches, and this is what makes sense.  You're claiming the earth became desolate.  That would require God to have made a mistake.  He doesn't make mistakes.

As God Himself wrote in Exodus 20:11, for in six days the Lord created the heavens, the earth, and all that is within them.  The Fourth Commandment is one of the basic tenants of our faith; just as the other nine are.  God created the universe and said that it was good.  No mulligans.  No errors.  No imperfections of any kind.

Good afternoon,

I will not argue new vs. old Earth because there is room for exegesis and debate, and I am not choosing a side. God is not the author of chaos and confusion, but someone else fits that title, who is Chaos himself, coming to rob, destroy, and kill.

² And the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

WAS= hāyâ: All Hebrew lexicons agree this word “was” means it became a change of state, a change of possession, occurring events, or came to pass. Grammar and other Hebrew word meanings reinforce that thought, ex nihilo vs. material mold and refashioning.

In the Six-Day Creation account, God said everything was created good. Except for Genesis 1:6-8, the Second Day, the firmament (sky, 2^nd heaven). I find that interesting.

Is it still that way today, or did something change with the definition of “was?”

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. [Is this good as created, did it become, come to pass?]

All of creation includes the entire universe and everything within.

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:

How did one man’s sin affect the entire universal creation? Who sinned first, Lucifer or Eve?

I propose that the covering Cherib was also responsible for the Earth at one time. Few would argue Satan, the power and principality of the air, is currently the god of this planet. Jesus did not dispute Satan’s legal authority when He was tempted. So, how did that transfer of dominion of the planet transfer from Adam to Satan?

I suggest our Lord is a legalist. When Adam sinned, it makes sense that that title legally reverted to the previous holder. Looking at it this way seems to add to the understanding of the final unveiling of Revelation and the mystery of iniquity.

Among all the judgments in the seven seals scroll in Revelation, some also compare it with the title deed to Earth and the rightful heir and Creator. Sin contaminates everything; a fervent heat must cleanse the entire universe. How did Adam’s sin escape Earth and contaminate Pluto?

For in six days the Lord made (ʿā·śā(h) heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,

There is a difference, not necessarily interchangeable, between bā·rā and ʻâsâh.

These are just thoughts looking at it from the opposite perspective. Many great men of God, scholars, and theologians hold opposing views. Fortunately, this is not a core tenant of our Salvation and faith.

 

[RV_Wizard]

18 hours ago, BeyondET said:

I don't think there's any theory that has life starting with only one plant and animal.

This search took nearly eight seconds.

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor.  source

[RV_Wizard]

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I asked for any proponent that I QUOTED, and you tell me who else agrees with my view.

I didn't say you credited them, I said you quoted them.  You are saying the same things they said originally.  How does that make them agree with you?  Your argument is neither original nor valid.  Doesn't it resonate with you that you're using arguments that people made intentionally to try and discredit the Bible?

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I'm VERY INTERESTED in what the Bible SAYS, and I have gone to the original language to understand what the Bible MEANS.

I posted the words of experts who explained that your opinion is incorrect.  I believe them.  Your misinterpretation, while parroted by many over the centuries, doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.  For the earth to have "become desolate," it would have had to be not desolate before hand.  Yet, there was no light, no heat, and nothing by which to measure time.  The rest of the universe wasn't formed until day four.  How could the earth EVER HAVE BEEN ANYTHING BUT desolate prior to the creation of light?

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Every "account" and "theory" that is opposed to the Biblical account of anything is from Satan.  I'll just bet he gets quite a chuckle when well meaning but misinformed YECs try to defend a young earth to scientists who know better.

Who know better than what?  God said He created everything in six days.  Do they know better than God?  Christ said that from the beginning God made us man and woman.  He was there and spoke with Adam and Eve.  Do they know more than He does?

Adam was probably at least in his early twenties when He was formed.  Trees bearing fruit had to be 5-7 years old when they were spoken into existence.  Birds, fish and animals were told to be fruitful and multiply, meaning that they were at reproductive age the moment they were created.  The earth was perfectly suited to support life by the end of day three, which means it was also created mature.

No, scientists don't know better.  A five-year-old who pays attention in Sunday School knows better.

 

[BeyondET]

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

This search took nearly eight seconds.

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor.  source

 A single ancestor still isn't saying just one animal or one plant. The ancestor single species can be comprised of billions. Reading the source provided about how far back man has gotten is only to microfossils and impressions in rocks of soft body organisms which isn't no where near the beginning of life on Earth.

 

A clip from the link you posted.

Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed in geologic time. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard body parts and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life.

Evidence of organisms prior to the development of hard body parts such as shells, bones and teeth is especially scarce, but exists in the form of ancient microfossils, as well as impressions of various soft-bodied organisms. 

Edited January 5 by BeyondET

[RV_Wizard]

3 hours ago, BeyondET said:

 A single ancestor still isn't saying just one animal or one plant. The ancestor single species can be comprised of billions.

Okay, let's do a 10 second search.

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.  source

The claim of "universal original progenitor" has been put forward by "Christian evolutionists" for decades.  Using the article's mathematics, the odds for an evolution proponent to believe in the Bible as written is "1 in 10 to the 6,000th power."

 

[FreeGrace]

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

I asked for any proponent that I QUOTED, and you tell me who else agrees with my view.

I didn't say you credited them, I said you quoted them.

More words games, I see.  I NEVER quoted anyone, other than what Moses wrote.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You are saying the same things they said originally.

I am only saying what Moses wrote.  Anyone can do that with a little research.  

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  How does that make them agree with you?  Your argument is neither original nor valid.

Well, at least you finally admit that I'm not the only one with my view, as you initially claimed.  But your opinion of the validity of my comments is irrelevant, since I only quoted the author of Genesis, Moses himself.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Doesn't it resonate with you that you're using arguments that people made intentionally to try and discredit the Bible?

I have no interest in who is stupid enough to try and discredit the Bible.  And if those who you think was doing that, and you claim they say the same things I say, you are really confused.  Becuase I only quote Moses.  So if those others also quote Moses, they clearly aren't trying to discredit the Bible, but supporting truth.

It is those who DENY what Moses wrote who are trying to discredit the Bible.  Look in mirror.  And get close.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I posted the words of experts who explained that your opinion is incorrect.

No, you only gave their opinions.  Anyone can explain an opinion.  But that doesn't make it true.  All you've got for your view are English translations.  Opinions.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  I believe them.  Your misinterpretation, while parroted by many over the centuries, doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.

I'm sorry what God's word SAYS doesn't make sense to you.  How difficult is it to simply understand that God restored the destroyed land of planet earth?

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  For the earth to have "become desolate," it would have had to be not desolate before hand.

Very good.  

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Yet, there was no light, no heat, and nothing by which to measure time.

We have NO IDEA what was present BEFORE the earth BECAME a wasteland.  That isn't difficult to grasp.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The rest of the universe wasn't formed until day four.  How could the earth EVER HAVE BEEN ANYTHING BUT desolate prior to the creation of light?

Only those who refuse to accept the meaning of "tohu wabohu" and realize that the earth became something it wasn't before can't understand.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 God said He created everything in six days.

No He didn't.  Seems you just won't grasp the difference between 'asah' and 'bara'.  Why are you being so stubborn?

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Christ said that from the beginning God made us man and woman.

Right.  Mark 10:6.  The Greek word is 'ktisis', from the word 'ktizoo'.  And my lexicon defines that word:

But from the beginning of creation (ktisis), God made them male and female.

NT:2937 ktisis (ktis'-is); from NT:2936; original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively):   Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's

NT:2936 ktizoo:

to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island  (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon,)

“To make habitable” can refer to “katartizo” in Heb 11:3, and therefore, a restoration of earth in Gen 1:2ff.

However, from my Analytical Greek Lexicon, Harper and Row, NY, and Bagster and Sons, London, under “ktizoo”:  “properly, to reduce from a state of disorder and wildness; in NT, to call into being, to create, Mark 13:19, to call into individual existence, to frame, Eph 2:15; to create spiritually, to invest with a spiritual frame, Eph 2:10, 4:24”.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  He was there and spoke with Adam and Eve.  Do they know more than He does?

Why don't "they" just believe what Moses wrote, instead of relying on English translations?

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, scientists don't know better.

Scientists that MEASURE earth and universe age do know better.  

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The claim of "universal original progenitor" has been put forward by "Christian evolutionists" for decades.  Using the article's mathematics, the odds for an evolution proponent to believe in the Bible as written is "1 in 10 to the 6,000th power."

Here's the difference between me and "Christian evolutionists".  I thoroughly REJECT any type of evolution as relates to creation.  I am a creationist, through and through.

Maybe you are like Ken Ham who can't seem to be able to differentiate between "old earth" and evolution, regardless of explanation.

[farouk]

On 1/3/2024 at 4:02 PM, NConly said:

I could be wrong in my thinking. I see it this way.

When I read @ Pet 3: 5

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

(This was before Adam and could have been when dinosaurs lived.)

(But I do not think it was 65 billion years ago more like 1 million at most.)

 

v 6 could have destroyed the dino's and all Land standing out of the water as in v 5.

when I read Gen 1: 2, 6-9

Gen 1:2

2 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.

 

(In Gen v 2 we see no land standing out of the water like in 2 Pet 3:5 so what became waste, was all above the water shown in 2 Pet 3:5. In verse 2 thhe Spirit of Gos moved against the deep no land above water.)

Gen

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

 

In Gen 1:9 the dry land under the water that was shown i 2 Pet 3:5 appeared because God moved the water to show.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

@NConly It's a searching subject.

Willful ignorance also has its solemn aspect.

[NConly]

14 minutes ago, farouk said:

@NConly It's a searching subject.

Willful ignorance also has its solemn aspect.

not sure how to take that care to be more clear.

[farouk]

5 minutes ago, NConly said:

not sure how to take that care to be more clear.

I was really just referring to your quote of 1 Peter 3.5.