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

[NConly]

2 minutes ago, farouk said:

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

I see. the difference I see in 1 Peter 3:5 the land is under and above water. Something copuld have lived on the laand above the water. I Gen 1:2, and 9 it show no land above the water so if something perished it must have been the land above the water mentioned in 1 Peter 3:5. is the way I am thinking.

[FreeGrace]

1 minute ago, NConly said:

I see. the difference I see in 1 Peter 3:5 the land is under and above water. Something copuld have lived on the laand above the water. I Gen 1:2, and 9 it show no land above the water so if something perished it must have been the land above the water mentioned in 1 Peter 3:5. is the way I am thinking.

Peter could have been describing the earth as a wasteland, comparable to Gen 1:2.  Recall Moses described the Holy Spirit hovering over the waters (plural).

[Dennis1209]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Peter could have been describing the earth as a wasteland, comparable to Gen 1:2.  Recall Moses described the Holy Spirit hovering over the waters (plural).

Scripture alludes to “gaps” in several places other than Gen. 1:1-3, for instance, Isa. 61:1-2 vs. Luke 4:17. I do not hold to any form of evolution pertaining to kinds and creation.

Those holding a view that the earth is probably more than 10,000 years old, are in good company with G.H. Pember, C.I. Scofield, and many other great men of God. I have written my thoughts ad nauseam many times, so I will not rehash my view, other than to say, I slightly lean toward the Earth’s age as longer than Ussher and others calculate by genealogy. I am not dogmatic either way.

It is not heresy to have different biblical views on the noncore tenants of our faith, it is exegesis, critical interpretation.

As you surmise, Hebrew is a precise language, and lexicon words like tohou, bara, asah, and haya should be paid attention to, as well as the grammar of dependent and independent clauses.

It is recorded the Lord destroyed the earth at least once by water (Noah’s flood). He painstakingly promises He would not do it again, and signified His promise with the rainbow. I get the impression it may have happened before.

A question in my mind is, is God specifically talking about Noah’s flood here, or another one?

2 Peter 3:5 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:

“The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” That is, the world of people and of animals disappeared. This could refer to the world before Adam was put here, or it could refer to the Flood in Noah’s day. I have vacillated between these two viewpoints, but I lean toward the latter now.^[1]

 

---

^[1] McGee, J. Vernon. 1991. Thru the Bible Commentary: The Epistles (2 Peter). Electronic ed. Vol. 55. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Scripture alludes to “gaps” in several places other than Gen. 1:1-3, for instance, Isa. 61:1-2 vs. Luke 4:17. I do not hold to any form of evolution pertaining to kinds and creation.

Interesting!  I'll look up Isa and Luke.  I wasn't aware of other gaps.  And I agree with you about evolution having any part of creation.

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Those holding a view that the earth is probably more than 10,000 years old, are in good company with G.H. Pember, C.I. Scofield, and many other great men of God. I have written my thoughts ad nauseam many times, so I will not rehash my view, other than to say, I slightly lean toward the Earth’s age as longer than Ussher and others calculate by genealogy. I am not dogmatic either way.

For me, the number of years isn't the issue.  From Gen 1:2, the issue is that the earth needed to be restored for man's use.

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

It is not heresy to have different biblical views on the noncore tenants of our faith, it is exegesis, critical interpretation.

Amen.

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

As you surmise, Hebrew is a precise language, and lexicon words like tohou, bara, asah, and haya should be paid attention to, as well as the grammar of dependent and independent clauses.

That has been my only focus.

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

It is recorded the Lord destroyed the earth at least once by water (Noah’s flood). He painstakingly promises He would not do it again, and signified His promise with the rainbow. I get the impression it may have happened before.

A question in my mind is, is God specifically talking about Noah’s flood here, or another one?

2 Peter 3:5 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:cle

Since Gen 1:2 mentions the Holy Spirit hovering over (as in brooding like a mother hen) the waters (plural), it seems clear that the darkness over the "face of the deep" could refer to the surface of the planet under much ice.  And there is plenty of evidence for an ice age.

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

“The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” That is, the world of people and of animals disappeared. This could refer to the world before Adam was put here, or it could refer to the Flood in Noah’s day. I have vacillated between these two viewpoints, but I lean toward the latter now.^[1]

---

^[1] McGee, J. Vernon. 1991. Thru the Bible Commentary: The Epistles (2 Peter). Electronic ed. Vol. 55. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

From Gen 1:2, I tend toward the former.   

[Dennis1209]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Interesting!  I'll look up Isa and Luke.  I wasn't aware of other gaps.  And I agree with you about evolution having any part of creation.

For me, the number of years isn't the issue.  From Gen 1:2, the issue is that the earth needed to be restored for man's use.

Amen.

That has been my only focus.

Since Gen 1:2 mentions the Holy Spirit hovering over (as in brooding like a mother hen) the waters (plural), it seems clear that the darkness over the "face of the deep" could refer to the surface of the planet under much ice.  And there is plenty of evidence for an ice age.

From Gen 1:2, I tend toward the former.   

So, you do not miss it, read after the comma in Isaiah, that Jesus in Luke stops abruptly, drops the mic on the floor, and walks away, and does not finish the quote. It has not transpired yet, that this is the allusion to the end of the age, the church age (2,000 years thus far), the Day of the Lord, the 70^th week of Daniel, His 2^nd coming.

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

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

No, you just make the exact same argument they do.  of course, they lived many years before you were born and their stated intent was to discredit the Bible.  What's yours?

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Well, at least you finally admit that I'm not the only one with my view, as you initially claimed.

I admit it HAS been a while since I've heard the God of the Gaps Fallacy proclaimed to be something someone actually believes.  Mostly, it's just considered faulty reasoning. 

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So if those others also quote Moses, they clearly aren't trying to discredit the Bible, but supporting truth.

You forgot the "mis" before the word "quote."

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Anyone can explain an opinion.  But that doesn't make it true.  All you've got for your view are English translations.

Yes, which every Bible in America seems to agree with.  Amazingly, none of them seem to agree with you.  Why should anyone believe you when the Hebrew scholars do not?  

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

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

Not really.  Considering that the sun, moon and stars didn't come about until day four, and the entity called light came about AFTER the earth was without form and void, the earth was a most likely a gas cloud which cooled into solid and liquid.  there was no plant life prior to day three and no living things until day five.  There is no room for your gap, no light, no heat and no life.  Became?  Only in your mind.

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

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

Relying on a Russian translation wouldn't do much good in England or the US, now would it?

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Scientists that MEASURE earth and universe age do know better.  

No they don't.  They just claim to.  You can't measure the length of a board without knowing where both ends are.  You can't measure the amount of radioactive decay in a rock without knowing the radiation level to begin with.  You can't tell how much water has leaked out of a beaker without knowing the initial amount, and you can't measure the age of a planet if you can't point to the moment of its origination.  Since the origination of anything is a scientific impossibility, there is no theory in science any more credible than "In the beginning, God."

[BeyondET]

23 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

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."

 

Actually you twisted the mathematics for your own opinion with the 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.

The only difference between one or the other. Is one hypothesis has one species giving rise in a couple of categories. Which still even computer models can't go back any farther than the rock impressions of ancient microfossils.

The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.

 

But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are "just astronomically enormous," he said. "The number's so big, it's kind of silly to say it"—1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

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

No, you just make the exact same argument they do.

Based on the SAME FACTS.  How 'bout that!  Regardless, your charge that I "quoted" others is just as bogus as your young earth theory.  All you have for "evidence" is a faulty English translation that ignores how the same words in other passages were used.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  of course, they lived many years before you were born and their stated intent was to discredit the Bible.  What's yours?

If any of these guys you are referring to used the "same arguments" that I am, then NONE of those guys were trying to discredit the Bible.

But since you believe such nonsense, tell me, please, what part of the Bible my arguments discredit?  Can you do that?

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I admit it HAS been a while since I've heard the God of the Gaps Fallacy proclaimed to be something someone actually believes.  Mostly, it's just considered faulty reasoning.

Reasoned by faulty thinkers.  Those who ignore the original and what the words really mean.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Yes, which every Bible in America seems to agree with. 

The validity of God's Word isn't determined by democracy, since your statement suggests it does.  It is based on the original, not by ANY translation into any other language.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Amazingly, none of them seem to agree with you.  Why should anyone believe you when the Hebrew scholars do not?

Well, gots news for youse.  The scholars who translated the Hebrew into Koine Greek, translated Gen 1:2 as, "BUT the earth was UNSIGHLY".  How does that fit your "creation theory"?

And why can't you defend the contradiction between the English translation of Gen 1:2 with the Hebrew of Isa 45:18?

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 Relying on a Russian translation wouldn't do much good in England or the US, now would it?

It seems you love to make irrelevant comments.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You can't measure the length of a board without knowing where both ends are.

Just more irrelevancy.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You can't measure the amount of radioactive decay in a rock without knowing the radiation level to begin with.  You can't tell how much water has leaked out of a beaker without knowing the initial amount, and you can't measure the age of a planet if you can't point to the moment of its origination.  Since the origination of anything is a scientific impossibility, there is no theory in science any more credible than "In the beginning, God."

All I need is how certain words in Gen 1:2 were used where they occur in other passages, and the meaning is very clear.

Tohu wabohu cannot be used to describe original and perfect creation.

It can, however, be used to describe the total destruction of the land, as it was in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.

You got nothing.

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

But since you believe such nonsense, tell me, please, what part of the Bible my arguments discredit?  Can you do that?

Yep.
Question 1: Does a belief in the gap theory mean no one understood the biblical account of creation until secular geologists figured it out for us (the popular belief in millions of years)?

Questions 2: According to the popular version of the gap theory the geologic ages and the fossil record occurred in the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. If this is true then what effect did the Genesis Flood have?

Question 3: Since most fossils are found in sediments laid down by water does this mean there was a catastrophic flood in the gap that was responsible for the fossil record? If so, then why does the Bible spend three chapters teaching about the Genesis Flood and none about the gap flood?

Question 4: If the gap theory is true, why does the Bible spend two chapters in Genesis teaching about the “re-creation” and none about the “original” creation before the gap?

Question 5: Did God’s judgment during the gap also destroy the sun, moon and stars? If not, then why did God have to create them again on day 4 of the “re-creation”? 

Question 6: Why did God take so long as millions or billions of years (the supposed length of the gap) before He re-created everything? 

Question 7: Proponents of the gap theory, as well as many other supporters of long ages, claim they do not believe in evolution. However, long ages (billions of years) is the very foundation for evolution. 

Question 8: Romans 5:12 teaches that “…through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin…). However, the gap theory allows for death, disease and struggle before sin.... Does this mean Romans 5:12 is wrong?

Question 9: Genesis 1:31 states that God declared all that He had made (created) was “very good” or perfect. Does this mean God called all the dead things from the gap “very good”?

Question 10: Is God’s Word complete or should we allow for the discovery of new scientific knowledge (“new revealed knowledge”) to be inserted into Scripture?

Both Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23 speak of a future judgment on Israel by God. Just because these words point to judgment does not mean they always indicate judgment when used elsewhere in Scripture. This is a common error by many who hold to long ages. Since a word means something in one passage it must mean the same in other verses. However, using the rules of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), words are to be defined by the context where they are used. In Genesis 1 we need to look at God’s ultimate purpose.

source

 

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

But since you believe such nonsense, tell me, please, what part of the Bible my arguments discredit?  Can you do that?

Yep.

Nope.  Now for the proof.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Question 1: Does a belief in the gap theory mean no one understood the biblical account of creation until secular geologists figured it out for us (the popular belief in millions of years)?

There is no theory about age of earth.  What Moses wrote is clear enough when one has the objectivity to see how tohu wabohu was used in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 to describe total destruction of the land.  The question is full of bias.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Questions 2: According to the popular version of the gap theory the geologic ages and the fossil record occurred in the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. If this is true then what effect did the Genesis Flood have?

There is no theory.  Once you rid yourself of bias, you may have a better understanding of what the Bible says.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Question 3: Since most fossils are found in sediments laid down by water does this mean there was a catastrophic flood in the gap that was responsible for the fossil record? If so, then why does the Bible spend three chapters teaching about the Genesis Flood and none about the gap flood?

From Gen 1:2 we know that the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters (plural).  Explains why the surface of the earth was so dark.  

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Question 4: If the gap theory is true, why does the Bible spend two chapters in Genesis teaching about the “re-creation” and none about the “original” creation before the gap?

There is no theory.  God gave us only what is applicable to the human race.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Question 5: Did God’s judgment during the gap also destroy the sun, moon and stars? If not, then why did God have to create them again on day 4 of the “re-creation”?

God didn't tell us.  And I don't subscribe to theories.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 Question 6: Why did God take so long as millions or billions of years (the supposed length of the gap) before He re-created everything? 

He didn't tell us why.  Ask Him yourself.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Question 7: Proponents of the gap theory, as well as many other supporters of long ages, claim they do not believe in evolution. However, long ages (billions of years) is the very foundation for evolution. 

There is no theory.  Of course evolution DEMANDS a very old earth.  So what?  An old earth doesn't need evolution and you KNOW very well my view rejects evolution totally.  Why don't you just admit it?

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Question 8: Romans 5:12 teaches that “…through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin…). However, the gap theory allows for death, disease and struggle before sin.... Does this mean Romans 5:12 is wrong?

Yes, Adam's sin brought death to the restored earth.  Man's time on earth is on a restored earth.  We have no idea what occurred to the earth so that it became an uninhabited wasteland.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Question 9: Genesis 1:31 states that God declared all that He had made (created) was “very good” or perfect. Does this mean God called all the dead things from the gap “very good”? 

Really silly question.  There is no reason to ASSUME God created anything during the time gap.  What He created (Gen 1:1) was good.  What happened that resulted in an earth that became tohu wabohu is unknown.  That was God's choice.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Question 10: Is God’s Word complete or should we allow for the discovery of new scientific knowledge (“new revealed knowledge”) to be inserted into Scripture?

There is no reason to.  God's Word is complete.  Meaning, God has given mankind everything needed to understand who God is what what He wants man to know in order to have an eternal relationship with Him.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Both Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23 speak of a future judgment on Israel by God.

Are you kidding?  Both describe events that already happened, a long time ago.  Where are you getting your "material" from anyway?

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

\]Just because these words point to judgment does not mean they always indicate judgment when used elsewhere in Scripture.

The Hebrew words do NOT "talk about judgment", but rather CONDITION OF THE EARTH.  Your biased hangup doesn't permit objectivity when you read my posts or the Bible.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

This is a common error by many who hold to long ages. Since a word means something in one passage it must mean the same in other verses.

Words don't magically mean something totally opposite in other passages, as you seem to fantasize.  The Hebrew words describe total destruction.  Period.

Case closed.  Your 9 questions failed.  I answered all of them without breaking a sweat.