Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[74x12]

So how do you explain away "and there was evening, and there was morning"'s?

No need to explain a fact away.

 

[gnostic]

The 7 days were by the Light of Genesis 1:3; it was not solar days. Therefore we don't know. I'm not saying it was a long time or a short time. Just God's time. The Light was a supernatural Light. It was essentially the Light of God. So all things are made in 7 periods of the Light of God shining; inter-spaced by darkness in-between (called night).

These 7 periods of Light and darkness symbolize all the ages of the world to come. Ending in rest which is going to be eternal rest in God's finished creation. The creation of God is not finished yet because God has not yet rested in the new Jerusalem. This final rest of God was symbolized in the 7th day and when Solomon built the temple of God in Zion. They said "Arise, O Jehovah, to Thy rest, Thou, and the ark of Thy strength,"

But God said of Solomon's temple "Thus saith Jehovah, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?"

So it became evident that no physical temple could give rest to a God like Jehovah who the skies could not even contain.

So, the new Jerusalem is what God is building. Jesus said "I go to prepare a place for you" what He did not say there is that this place is us. Yes, those who are the elect are the new Jerusalem. God will only rest in us because altogether as a great house for God with incarnate Jesus as the chief cornerstone we can express all the nature of the unfathomable and infinite God. So He will have rest in us. As it is written "Jehovah thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing."

So the rest(the 7th day) is the whole reason God made the world. Because God is love (1 John 4:8) and love must have something to love or it may not rest.

And if we want we can join His rest also. He says "Behold I make all things new". So we can be made new. Those who are saved in Jesus are the true new Jerusalem when we are made new. As God said "But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy."

It will be a glorious rest. (Isaiah 11:10)

So how do you explain away "and there was evening, and there was morning"'s?

No need to explain a fact away.

That’s actually evasion, not explanation or clarification that sealchan is asking for.

 

[74x12]

That’s actually evasion, not explanation or clarification that sealchan is asking for.

Fine, although I find his post slightly annoying because he's implying that I am explaining things away. (Not my intention.) Yet, he needs to explain exactly how he thinks that the mention of evenings and mornings refutes what I posted. Then maybe I'll respond.

 

[gnostic]

Fine, although I find his post slightly annoying because he's implying that I am explaining things away. (Not my intention.) Yet, he needs to explain exactly how he thinks that the mention of evenings and mornings refutes what I posted. Then maybe I'll respond.

The “evening and morning” give a very specific context of time period of what a “day” is.

To ignore it mentioning “evening and morning” to each time it say “day” is poor scholarship and being terribly dishonest.

If Genesis omitted “evening and morning” to verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 & 31, then you and other creationists can put any number to what day could possibly mean.

But the “evening and morning” are mention 6 times in 6 different verse, and each time in connections to each creative day.

The “evening and morning” make it one solar day; those 6 verses do not say one year, not a century, not a thousand years, not a million years, and not a billion years...

...not unless you want to redefine what is a “evening” and what is a “morning”.

 

[74x12]

The “evening and morning” give a very specific context of time period of what a “day” is.

To ignore it mentioning “evening and morning” to each time it say “day” is poor scholarship and being terribly dishonest.

If Genesis omitted “evening and morning” to verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 & 31, then you and other creationists can put any number to what day could possibly mean.

But the “evening and morning” are mention 6 times in 6 different verse, and each time in connections to each creative day.

The “evening and morning” make it one solar day; those 6 verses do not say one year, not a century, not a thousand years, not a million years, and not a billion years...

You're saying thousands, millions and billions of years. I did not say that. I said I do not know how long these days were.

But, how can they be solar days; when the sun is not even created until day 4? (Genesis 1:14-19) Logically we must deduce that at the very least; the first 3 days are not solar days and they all have evenings and mornings.

...not unless you want to redefine what is a “evening” and what is a “morning”.

Are you trying to define an ancient text written in an ancient language by a modern English dictionary?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're saying thousands, millions and billions of years. I did not say that. I said I do not know how long these days were.

But, how can they be solar days; when the sun is not even created until day 4? (Genesis 1:14-19) Logically we must deduce that at the very least; the first 3 days are not solar days and they all have evenings and mornings.

Are you trying to define an ancient text written in an ancient language by a modern English dictionary?

That argues for massive ignorance on the part of the writers of Genesis. But the they would not be the only people that did not tie the Sun to daylight.

 

[74x12]

That argues for massive ignorance on the part of the writers of Genesis. But the they would not be the only people that did not tie the Sun to daylight.

But the writer does know this if you read Genesis 1:14-19. However the point is that the original 7 days of creation are something more extraordinary than sunlight. It's God's own Light in Genesis 1:3.

Genesis 1:3 poses another problem for those who think these are solar days. Why did God need to say "Let there be light" if the sun was already providing light?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But the writer does know this if you read Genesis 1:14-19. However the point is that the original 7 days of creation are something more extraordinary than sunlight. It's God's own Light in Genesis 1:3.

Genesis 1:3 poses another problem for those who think these are solar days. Why did God need to say "Let there be light" if the sun was already providing light?

Really? It does not look that way to me. It does not say that the Sun is the origin of the light, rather that it "rules the light". Worse yet they were totally confused about the Moon since half of the time the Moon is up in the day time.

 

[74x12]

Really? It does not look that way to me. It does not say that the Sun is the origin of the light, rather that it "rules the light". Worse yet they were totally confused about the Moon since half of the time the Moon is up in the day time.

Verse 17 says they are to give light on the earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Verse 17 says they are to give light on the earth.

Possibly. What is rather laughable is the verse about "he made the stars also". As if the stars were almost an afterthought. But then it is a mythical account.

 

[Native]

f your alternative approach produced any results then you would have a valid reason for advocating it. But it doesn't. It is mere worthless handwaving and wild "donkeyed" speculation .

My reasons for advocating alternative ideas origin from the cosmological confusion and it´s contradictions and failed predictability. This is called "critical thinking".

Don´t you think this is a valid reason enough?

 

[Native]

The word you wanted to use was "refuted". Einstein corrected Newton, he did not refute him. Newton's Law was accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back. And you can't refute Newton's Law. You cannot refute that which you do not understand.

Thanks for the "refuted" correction Sometimes I forget to use google translation.

You don´t need Newtons ideas in order to launch a spacecraft. (Lots of people thinks that mans walk on the Moon was/is pure PhotoShopping,) Never mind, but I believe that spacecrafts have been there.

The motion of the planets was known long before Newton was a blink in his parents eyes. So was the geometric calculations and even the calculations of sending something up in the air. What Newton did was just to set calculations on some empirical known motions, and he never explained the factual force of his gravity.

This was all just assumptions and if you cannot explain "what gravity is dynamically and causally" you don´t understand it yourself. Which is why you also cannot refute alternative ideas automatically.

 

[Native]

Deeje said
↑
The Genesis account does not state the timeframe between the creation of the "heavens and the earth" and the events that prepared the earth for habitation.

Genesis 1:1....."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
This is a singular statement.....a time when God created matter...the physical universe with all that it contains.

Then in verse 2 it speaks about the state of the planet before God began to work on it.....

"2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters."

The creative 'days' were not 24 hour periods, but could have been epochs of perhaps millions of years, wherein God accomplished by increments, all the creative processes he had planned.
--------------------------

Genesis 1 and 2 is misunderstood.

The time frame isn´t "days" but "stages of creation".

In Genesis 1 earth is confused for "soil" as in "the first firm formed matter". Earth was not even created in this stage.
Genesis 2 speaks of the real Earth and the Solar system.

This is known as the problem of "the two times creation of Earth" because the story of creation isn´t taken cosmologically seriously by scholars and scientists.

If you mean to re-define day, why not open the whole story to such re-definitions? Why use it as a basis of understanding at all?

Some definitions really needs re-definitions, yes, But the general story doesn´t need this if interpreted into modern terms. The entire story of creation deals with the ancient known part of the observable Universe. That is: Our Solar System and the Milky Way in which our Solar System is an integrated part of the orbital motion and formation.

If just taking "god" as a scientific force of creation, this is taking place in a center where light is made by the assembling of clouds of gas and dust, mentioned in ancient myths as "primordial rivers in the Sky". When these "rivers" come together, gas and dust are heated up and this creates the prime light in the formation center. It is in this stage of the formation/creation where the first firm soil is made, also mentioned as "mud" in several cultural stories of creation.

The light (electromagnetic force) assembles and sort out gas and dust in the center into a primary large hot glowing sphere from where planets and their moon were created (out from their mother planets) via the centrifugal force when all objects still were gloving hot. In my conviction, this center of the creation was/is the Milky Way center, believe it or not.

Note: Contrary to the modern cosmological science, the ancient cultures didn´t speak of a creation of the entire Universe, just the local part of it. Ancient cultures didn´t have a linear time line perception of the creation, byt a cyclical one where everything eternally changes between formation, dissolution and re-formation. No Big Bangs here at all, but rather a "Steady State Universe".

 

[Native]

74x12 said: ↑
Verse 17 says they are to give light on the earth.

Possibly. What is rather laughable is the verse about "he made the stars also". As if the stars were almost an afterthought. But then it is a mythical account.

The key here is whether an interpreter takes "earth" for the Earth instead of "earth" as the first formed matter as in "soil". The lacking of a capital word in "earth" points forward to the correct understanding as "soil". The first interpreters of Genesis obviously didn´t understand the cosmological implications - which is the cause for modern misunderstandings too.

When "he", "the god of light" gives light to "earth", the Earth and the stars, this light = electromagnetic force is of course a central source and force which creates everything in the ancient known part of the Universe.

There is nothing laughable in these ancient tellings of the creation. The largest laugh is on those who are unable to take these stories seriously and unable to compare this ancient knowledge with their own modern theories, which in deed is interesting and highly thought provoking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My reasons for advocating alternative ideas origin from the cosmological confusion and it´s contradictions and failed predictability. This is called "critical thinking".

Don´t you think this is a valid reason enough?

your confusion is an insufficient excuse. You can't name a contradiction. All you can demonstrate is your ignorance.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the "refuted" correction Sometimes I forget to use google translation.

You don´t need Newtons ideas in order to launch a spacecraft. (Lots of people thinks that mans walk on the Moon was/is pure PhotoShopping,) Never mind, but I believe that spacecrafts have been there.

The motion of the planets was known long before Newton was a blink in his parents eyes. So was the geometric calculations and even the calculations of sending something up in the air. What Newton did was just to set calculations on some empirical known motions, and he never explained the factual force of his gravity.

This was all just assumptions and if you cannot explain "what gravity is dynamically and causally" you don´t understand it yourself. Which is why you also cannot refute alternative ideas automatically.

Your continued refusing to learn from your mistakes is why you cannot get passed an eighth grade, at best, Once again,quit while you are behind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

74x12 said: ↑
Verse 17 says they are to give light on the earth.

The key here is whether an interpreter takes "earth" for the Earth instead of "earth" as the first formed matter as in "soil". The lacking of a capital word in "earth" points forward to the correct understanding as "soil". The first interpreters of Genesis obviously didn´t understand the cosmological implications - which is the cause for modern misunderstandings too.

When "he", "the god of light" gives light to "earth", the Earth and the stars, this light = electromagnetic force is of course a central source and force which creates everything in the ancient known part of the Universe.

There is nothing laughable in these ancient tellings of the creation. The largest laugh is on those who are unable to take these stories seriously and unable to compare this ancient knowledge with their own modern theories, which in deed is interesting and highly thought provoking.

This sort of nonsense is just more of the same. Instead of spewing utter trite inanities why not try to learn for just one time? Why do you even bother to pretend?

 

[Native]

your confusion is an insufficient excuse. You can't name a contradiction. All you can demonstrate is your ignorance.

Try again.

This is not a factual reply but just an emotional one. In fact I was talking of yours and of the confusion of modern scientific circles in general.

If you like to read about unsolved matter i modern cosmology and all its contradictions, just read here. If this isn´t enough just look for and notice the huge amount of articles in where cosmological scientists are contradicted and therefore "surprised".

This method is called "critical research". You should try this for a change.

Edit: I also recommend you to read this article of Physical Paradoxes. This should make you more humble in your critique af critical thinkers.

 

[Native]

Your continued refusing to learn from your mistakes is why you cannot get passed an eighth grade, at best, Once again,quit while you are behind.

To your record, my entire approach here is based on the scientific mistakes and bad theories. And I don´t give anything for any educational grades as long as they misses a teaching of critical sense and logical thinking.

 

[Native]

This sort of nonsense is just more of the same. Instead of spewing utter trite inanities why not try to learn for just one time? Why do you even bother to pretend?

So just don´t read it as it obviously is far beyond your restrictive realm of understanding.