Mature Universe Theory

[The Barbarian]

On 11/3/2024 at 6:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

Indeed.  Just because the word "sphere" didn't exist until the 14th century is no excuse not to mention it in writings dating to 500 BC.

 

You've been misled...

from Greek sphaira "globe, ball, playing ball, terrestrial globe," a word of unknown origin.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/sphere

Notice that the ancient Greeks used it to describe the Earth as a sphere.  But more to the point...

Kadur (ball) was the ancient Hebrew word for "sphere."   

Khug was for "circle."

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

That IS what I said.  

Nope.  See above.

 

[Indentured Servant]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

We may view those words differently, but at least I haven't seen you distort them like some do.

Thank you for that comment. I don't wish to debate or argue, but I thank you for allowing me to contribute to this thread. God bless you.

[FreeGrace]

On 11/12/2024 at 12:14 PM, Indentured Servant said:

RV_Wizard said:

Scroll, yes, Bible, no.

So, as it seems you're saying, that we should not read the scripture in English... The word Bible is the word "scroll."

I had to chuckle with this response!  In fact, RV PREFERS an English translation of Gen 1:2 RATHER than what the Hebrew words actually mean, as seen by how they are used elsewhere in Scripture.  

 

[FreeGrace]

On 11/12/2024 at 12:30 PM, Indentured Servant said:

RV_Wizard said:

If your opinion cannot withstand scrutiny, perhaps you should re-think it.  One day ALL of our actions will be questioned.  Are your positions Biblical or non-Biblical?  Do they support or contradict Scripture?  I say prove it.  If it's real you can prove it.  If it's flawed you can IMPROVE it.  I was raised to believe in an old earth.  I have NEVER found support for it in the Bible without distorting the text text or taking verses out of context.  The older I get, the more I believe in the inerrant nature of the Bible as written.

I don't believe in what you refer to as "old earth." I do not try to get along with unbelievers with this topic, and I think it's very judgemental to pigeonhole me with that erroneous statement.

My position is that the earth is simply much older than Adam.  

On 11/12/2024 at 12:30 PM, Indentured Servant said:

I said iny first response that I believe life started on this planet approximately 6000 years ago, a little more than 4000 years before Christ. That's all the narrative of scripture expects of us to consider. 

I agree, when "life" refers to human life.  ie:  Adam.

On 11/12/2024 at 12:30 PM, Indentured Servant said:

Tell me, please, I do want to know your thoughts on this... 

If God created the planet in verse one, why in verse two was it formless and void? Why did He not just create a planet that was what He had to alter it to become? 

Verse two specifically depicts the planet as dark, and completely under water. God had to remove some of the water and create an atmosphere. Why didn't He just do that to begin with?

According to YEC theory, He created an inadequate planet and had to immediately "fix"it. Seems counter-productive.

These are excellent questions for the YECers.  They are forced to believe that the planet wasn't "quite right".  Or they simply dismiss the "tohu wabohu" (formless/void) as the "first step" in the "process" of creating the planet.  Which means they have to deny Psa 33:6 and 9 that tells us plainly that God creates by speech.  And we actually see that in the narrative of Genesis 1.  But because of how "tohu wabohu" is used in Jeremiah 4 and isa 34, where both contexts are about the total destruction of the land, v.2ff describe a restoration, which makes much more sense.

On 11/12/2024 at 12:30 PM, Indentured Servant said:

Incidentally, verse one used to be accepted as a "title," much like, "this is the account of..." and "this is the genealogy of..." There are 13, (maybe 14),of such opening phrase in the book we call Genesis.

If, in verse one He created the heavens, why in verse nine did it actually detail how He created the heavens?

God gave no details about how the earth "became an uninhabitable wasteland" (v.2).  Because the narrative in Genesis 1 includes "the heavens", seems that more than just the earth was involved when the earth was destroyed and needed restoration.

But we won't know anything until eternity.

[Indentured Servant]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

My position is that the earth is simply much older than Adam.  

I agree, when "life" refers to human life.  ie:  Adam.

These are excellent questions for the YECers.  They are forced to believe that the planet wasn't "quite right".  Or they simply dismiss the "tohu wabohu" (formless/void) as the "first step" in the "process" of creating the planet.  Which means they have to deny Psa 33:6 and 9 that tells us plainly that God creates by speech.  And we actually see that in the narrative of Genesis 1.  But because of how "tohu wabohu" is used in Jeremiah 4 and isa 34, where both contexts are about the total destruction of the land, v.2ff describe a restoration, which makes much more sense.

God gave no details about how the earth "became an uninhabitable wasteland" (v.2).  Because the narrative in Genesis 1 includes "the heavens", seems that more than just the earth was involved when the earth was destroyed and needed restoration.

But we won't know anything until eternity.

I just like to know what, and how, people think. I ask questions or share an insight and people act as if I'm trying to upend their whole system of belief. People get so defensive about their doctrine.

I honestly don't feel very welcome with the manner in which people respond to an innocent inquiry or an insight.

[Indentured Servant]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I had to chuckle with this response!  In fact, RV PREFERS an English translation of Gen 1:2 RATHER than what the Hebrew words actually mean, as seen by how they are used elsewhere in Scripture.  

 

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, unfortunately, many people, teachers, preachers, theologians, and even scientists, (Christians in the various scientific fields), seem to depend more on an English translation rather than the original meanings of the ancient languages.

I've addressed this with a staff scientist from one of the better known YEC research and teaching organizations, but he went silent on me when I contrasted the modern definition of an English word with the meaning of the ancient text.

It's kind of hard to get that point across to people who have no understanding of the ancient languages. (I often wish I didn't, haha)

[FreeGrace]

39 minutes ago, Indentured Servant said:

I just like to know what, and how, people think. I ask questions or share an insight and people act as if I'm trying to upend their whole system of belief. People get so defensive about their doctrine.

I got involved in forums in order to see why Christians believe what they do.  Over 2 decades of a number of doctrines and concepts, and it's just amazing how defensive so many are.  It seems they have no objectivity.

39 minutes ago, Indentured Servant said:

I honestly don't feel very welcome with the manner in which people respond to an innocent inquiry or an insight.

I know what you mean.  When I learned what Acts 17:11 is about, and began asking for verses that SAY what they SAY, it was amazing how many got offended.  

[FreeGrace]

13 minutes ago, Indentured Servant said:

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, unfortunately, many people, teachers, preachers, theologians, and even scientists, (Christians in the various scientific fields), seem to depend more on an English translation rather than the original meanings of the ancient languages.

I've addressed this with a staff scientist from one of the better known YEC research and teaching organizations, but he went silent on me when I contrasted the modern definition of an English word with the meaning of the ancient text.

It's kind of hard to get that point across to people who have no understanding of the ancient languages. (I often wish I didn't, haha)

You're welcome.  

I guess when the English translation more closely fits their agenda, is why.  

[Indentured Servant]

11 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I know what you mean.  When I learned what Acts 17:11 is about, and began asking for verses that SAY what they SAY, it was amazing how many got offended.  

Oh yes, people do get offended...

Ha, I've actually been insulted by a nationally known teacher/radio host when I mentioned the etymology of English an word used in the Bible. He, very defensively, (and insultingly) ordered me to use the "same language" as the people on his online forum or leave. I gladly left, because there was no real biblical exchange on his forum... It seemed to exist for everyone to say how great and humble a speaker he is. 

On his radio call in show, he always says people can publicly "disagree with the host,"  ... I found that he didn't have that same policy for his personal followers.

I think many individuals have that same attitude, 'you can speak with me, but only if you agree.'

[The Barbarian]

Further looking into the etymology of "kosmos" shows that in Attic Greeek, it was first used in the sense of an orderly system.    It derives from the verb "kosmein" meaning "to put in order" or "arrange."    From it, comes the word "cosmetics."

κόσμος • (kósmos) m (genitive κόσμου); second declension (Epic, Attic, Ionic, Doric, Koine)

1. order
2. lawful order, government
3. mode, fashion
4. ornament, decoration
5. honour, credit
6. ruler
7. world, universe, the earth
8. mankind