Elements of this have appeared in various posts and threads, so let's see if we can bring them all together.

My working hypothesis is that there is no conflict between scientific estimates of the age of Earth and the Bible. Give your thoughts and prepare to defend them with something of substance. I will be defending the Biblical position, with help from all interested parties.

We may not arrive at consesus, but maybe it should be interesting. Good will to all!

See, I cannot disagree with your thoughts. If God did as he says it is perfectly logical that the earth is as old as the mad scientists of the world want us to believe. Between Ge 1:1 and Ge 1;31 there is no actual time line listed except that God did it in six days. So the question has to be what is a day to God?

See, I cannot disagree with your thoughts. If God did as he says it is perfectly logical that the earth is as old as the mad scientists of the world want us to believe. Between Ge 1:1 and Ge 1;31 there is no actual time line listed except that God did it in six days. So the question has to be what is a day to God?

Scripture in Genesis says that it consists of the passage of one evening and one morning - nothing more.

Often people take the reference that a day is as a thousand years out of context and apply it to this, but if you look at that passgae, it is solely an analogy regarding God's long suffering towards the lost.

2 Peter 3:8-9
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
NKJV

I believe that there is a time gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:3 that could have been of ANY length. Beginning with verse 3 we have the record of God re-creating life on this planet, and it would have been 6 literal days.

This accounts for all ancient fossils and does not show any evidence of Biblical error.

I may get flack from two sides on this, but it makes sense to me.

I believe that there is a time gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:3 that could have been of ANY length. Beginning with verse 3 we have the record of God re-creating life on this planet, and it would have been 6 literal days.

This accounts for all ancient fossils and does not show any evidence of Biblical error.

I may get flack from two sides on this, but it makes sense to me.

First, it is important that we establish doctrine based upon what scripture does say, not on silence.

Second, there are several issues with this theory.

- Death on earth started when sin entered the world. To suggest that there was death beforehand would be a denial of the gospel, and minimizing the importance of Jesus' defeat of death.

- Scripture is clear that creation from start to end took only six days - that includes heavens and earth. This is clear not just from Genesis but elsewhere in scripture:

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
NKJV

- There was no land prior to Gen 1:2

Gen 1:2-3
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
NKJV

Without land, the gap theory falls apart since those who promote the gap theory suggest that this explains what they believe to be age, fossils etc. of land animals and plants.

The word "was" in verse 2 is:

a primitive root [compare 1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):

KJV-- beacon, X altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, X use.

Indicates that the "void and without form" is somehing that happened.

When God created (or re-created) things, each time the phrase is that God saw that it was good. It's not likely that God would have created an Earth in the condition of verse 2.

I knew there would be disagreement on this. I'm waiting for the evolutionists to weigh in.

The word "was" in verse 2 is:

a primitive root [compare 1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):

KJV-- beacon, X altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, X use.

Indicates that the "void and without form" is somehing that happened.

When God created (or re-created) things, each time the phrase is that God saw that it was good. It's not likely that God would have created an Earth in the condition of verse 2.

I knew there would be disagreement on this. I'm waiting for the evolutionists to weigh in.

This does not address the points that I raised. The word "was" must be taken in context. Note that it can mean either to exist or to become, so to take one meaning of that and to interpret it out of the wider context would be inappropriate. Here is a more detailed definition:

to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out

1. (Qal)
1. to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
2. to come about, come to pass
3. to come into being, become
4. to arise, appear, come
5. to become
6. to become
7. to become like
8. to be instituted, be established
9. to be
10. To exist, be in existence
11. To abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
12. To stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
13. To accompany, be with
2. (Niphal)
1. to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
2. to be done, be finished, be gone
(Source: Hayah - Hebrew Lexicon (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01961))

The condition of the earth was an interim state and to say that God would not have created it in that state and continued to work on it is a judgment that I don't think that we are qualified to make.

The points that I made before still stand.

I believe that there is a time gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:3 that could have been of ANY length. Beginning with verse 3 we have the record of God re-creating life on this planet, and it would have been 6 literal days.

This accounts for all ancient fossils and does not show any evidence of Biblical error.

I may get flack from two sides on this, but it makes sense to me.


I agree with this idea..



The condition of the earth was an interim state and to say that God would not have created it in that state and continued to work on it is a judgment that I don't think that we are qualified to make.

The points that I made before still stand.

Tom, just to add to what galveston has opened the mind for in possible history: if we consider the verse ( Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ) Stop...


Then consider the thought of ( Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. )

This may or may not be what anyone else has ever come up with in understanding. But what we can acknowledge that it is not one verse but the entire book of scripture that tells all.


We know there was a big tremble between satan, plus satan's fall angels, and God. What was here once before man was created, could have been the land of dinosour and an ape simliar to man of flesh. An exsistence of that was brought forth from a big destruction between satan and God then could be ( Genesis 1:2 And the earth (became) without form, and void; and darkness (became) upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. )

Then begins the earth we know today.. ( Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.)

To open the mind to what is written in scripture as being possibly different then what man has taught over the years, is to permit what science holds possible, and what scripture tells us in truth.

Another point that could add to this in interest, was the flood of Naoh, and how differently the occurance of this earth was after God destroyed man and the earth. The word destroy leads most to think one way. Where I feel the earth did not perish at that time, but rather was wash of it's evil and cleaned.

Note the meaning of destroy as: go to ruin, decay, to pervert, corrupt

( Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. )

So when you read the scripture to (2 Peter 3:8- 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.)

AND

(2 Peter 3: 5-6-7) 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: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

ASK yourself if the heaven was also affected by Noah's flood.. Not to my knowledge, right?
These verses are speaking of a time that the earth perished...became void! It brings the possilbe second idea of water used twice, once done before Noah, in the destruction of what evil brought...noted the promise of God there after never to use flood again.

And I will add that dinosours bones have been found under the ice of years, being possible of frozen water that covered over the earth(upon the face of the deep), that caused evertyhing to perished beneath the surface of what later God did in divided water.

sndbay,

Much of what you have posted falls into the category of speculation, what might have been, but you have not addressed the points that I raise before regarding what scripture does say:

-----------------------

there are several issues with this theory.

- Death on earth started when sin entered the world. To suggest that there was death beforehand would be a denial of the gospel, and minimizing the importance of Jesus' defeat of death.

- Scripture is clear that creation from start to end took only six days - that includes heavens and earth. This is clear not just from Genesis but elsewhere in scripture:

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
NKJV

- There was no land prior to Gen 1:2

Gen 1:2-3
to the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
NKJV

Without land, the gap theory falls apart since those who promote the gap theory suggest that this explains what they believe to be age, fossils etc. of land animals and plants.

--------------------

I would be interested in what you have to say regarding these specific points.

sndbay,

Much of what you have posted falls into the category of speculation, what might have been, but you have not addressed the points that I raise before regarding what scripture does say:

-----------------------

there are several issues with this theory.

- Death on earth started when sin entered the world. To suggest that there was death beforehand would be a denial of the gospel, and minimizing the importance of Jesus' defeat of death.

No take it further in depth, because I do not see life in flesh of man as scripture stated that would be in the image of God by the sixth day.. At this beginning man with spirit in = soul + flesh . And also able to speak words oral. (noting the importance of The Word then given to follow) the calling of God.

Death started just as the gospel says, because it starts from what was void and perished. Thus the world begins with flesh to communicate by Word, and in a called ability to listen to God, and answer that calling, and continue that calling.

(2 Peter 3:5-6 ) Creation in eternity past, to which all fossils and remains belong.



- Scripture is clear that creation from start to end took only six days - that includes heavens and earth. This is clear not just from Genesis but elsewhere in scripture:

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
NKJV


Yes at Genesis 1:3-5 began the light and dark first day .. Yes Genesis 1:6-8 was the creation of heaven as (firmament) .. Yes Genesis 1:9-13 was the water moved as being the surface opened of the water's deep to allow dry land of earth, then grass and fruit in growth of seed.



- There was no land prior to Gen 1:2

Gen 1:2-3
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
NKJV

Without land, the gap theory falls apart since those who promote the gap theory suggest that this explains what they believe to be age, fossils etc., of land animals and plants.

--------------------

I would be interested in what you have to say regarding these specific points.

Earth and heaven ages are known to be 3. Which are we in now? Example each being 3 individuals in count, where did 1 started, and where is 3 ? Then where is the existance of satan begin?

I believe in the gap theory making the earth over the age of the creation.

I believe that there is a time gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:3 that could have been of ANY length. Beginning with verse 3 we have the record of God re-creating life on this planet, and it would have been 6 literal days.

This accounts for all ancient fossils and does not show any evidence of Biblical error.

I may get flack from two sides on this, but it makes sense to me.

Never heard of the Gap theory before, but with any theory it is always a possibility.

No take it further in depth, because I do not see life in flesh of man as scripture stated that would be in the image of God by the sixth day.. At this beginning man with spirit in = soul + flesh . And also able to speak words oral. (noting the importance of The Word then given to follow) the calling of God.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.



Death started just as the gospel says, because it starts from what was void and perished. Thus the world begins with flesh to communicate by Word, and in a called ability to listen to God, and answer that calling, and continue that calling.

Death started when Adam and Eve sinned, according to the Bible.

Rom 5:14-15
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
NKJV

There are other [passages that state this also. To say that death started before that is to deny the gospel and God's word.



(2 Peter 3:5-6 ) Creation in eternity past, to which all fossils and remains belong.

2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
NKJV

Agreed- the worldwide flood recorded in Genesis.


Yes at Genesis 1:3-5 began the light and dark first day.. Yes Genesis 1:6-8 was the creation of heaven as (firmament).. Yes Genesis 1:9-13 was the water moved as being the surface opened of the water's deep to allow dry land of earth, then grass and fruit in growth of seed.


You cannot alter meanings of words to make them fit a theory created by what you perceive to be silence of scripture regarding a gap.

Gen 1:1
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
NKJV

So the heavens were created in verse 1. And throughout, including the reference that I gave from Exodus says that the entire time from creation of the heavens to the end of creation was 6 days. That starts at verse 1.


Earth and heaven ages are known to be 3

Scripture reference?

sndbay,

Much of what you have posted falls into the category of speculation, what might have been, but you have not addressed the points that I raise before regarding what scripture does say:

-----------------------

there are several issues with this theory.

- Death on earth started when sin entered the world. To suggest that there was death beforehand would be a denial of the gospel, and minimizing the importance of Jesus' defeat of death.

- Scripture is clear that creation from start to end took only six days - that includes heavens and earth. This is clear not just from Genesis but elsewhere in scripture:

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
NKJV

- There was no land prior to Gen 1:2

Gen 1:2-3
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
NKJV

Without land, the gap theory falls apart since those who promote the gap theory suggest that this explains what they believe to be age, fossils etc., of land animals and plants.

--------------------

I would be interested in what you have to say regarding these specific points.

Well, you keep saying that there was no land mass prior to Gen. 1:2, and that may be so, but it is hard to prove.

Consider this word:
4390 male' (maw-lay');

or mala' (Esth. 7:5) (maw-law'); a primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively):

KJV-- accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) full (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.

This was spoken to Adam and wouod seem to say that Adam was to fill the Earth again after it was destroyed.
We don't have to guess what it means because the same word is used again to Noah (Gen. 9:1) and there can be no doubt about what was to be done. The Earth was to be repopulated.

The thought is that Satan, before his rebellion and fall, ruled the Earth which was populated. That brought total destruction, affecting the heavens also.

If true, that would certainly explain the hatred that Satan has for mankind.

My point in advancing this is to show that there can never be a conflict between the Bible and science. There can only be conflict if scientific facts are misunderstood, or if the Bible is misunderstood. Science is, after all, only the search for facts.

Never heard of the Gap theory before, but with any theory it is always a possibility.

I grew up on the "gap" theory. It wasn't until I started going to a new church that I even heard of the earth being relatively young. I don't know>>... I admit. So I guess I will sit back and Listen... err I mean read.

Well, you keep saying that there was no land mass prior to Gen. 1:2, and that may be so, but it is hard to prove.

Not hard to prove at all. Scripture says so:

Gen 1:1-10
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. To the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7 Thus 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. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
NKJV



Consider this word:
4390 male' (maw-lay');

or mala' (Esth. 7:5) (maw-law'); a primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively):

KJV-- accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) full (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.

This was spoken to Adam and wouod seem to say that Adam was to fill the Earth again after it was destroyed.
We don't have to guess what it means because the same word is used again to Noah (Gen. 9:1) and there can be no doubt about what was to be done. The Earth was to be repopulated.

Notice that even your quoted definition say "to fill", so it would be hard to argue that it means that Adam was to re-fill the earth.

Death started when Adam and Eve sinned, according to the Bible.

Rom 5:14-15
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
NKJV

There are other [passages that state this also. To say that death started before that is to deny the gospel and God's word.



Tom, In explaining sometimes we might not have the same meanings in our words used in the explanation. Perhaps first the meaning of death should be determined.

Death

1. Separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body

2. With the implied idea of future misery in hell, the power of death

3. Since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, region of thickest darkness

4. in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin

When reading the verse in Roman (Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses ) It is satan that reigned from Adam to Moses. Satan's ability to beguile man from the simplicity of Life . " Life or Death" "God or satan"

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The gap... Here is the suspected earth and heaven that was before what we acknowledge today.

The dinosours and an ape like beast that walked the earth. Yet as science proved by the new research released in DNA. The beast is unable to communicate by oral words. The brain did not hold that capability of speech.

Refer: The Language of God by Francis S Collins

Agree or not that is what I offer, in what could be some idea to what we have in evidence to this world being years older then is agreed upon.

***********
Genesis 1:2And 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 became without form and void, and darkness became upon the face of the deep.

Suspected destruction of an earth that was (gap frame of time) perished

Jeremiah speaks of perished, made void. We have nothing detectable because there is darkness of the deep of water. And the Spirit moved upon that water.

Think of it being all gone and what was, is now, unknown. The existence is gone, because satan and God had the shaken earth (Job 9:6)

Job 9:5 Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger.

Job 9:7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The gap... Here is the suspected earth and heaven that was before what we acknowledge today.

The dinosours and an ape like beast that walked the earth. Yet as science proved by the new research released in DNA. The beast is unable to communicate by oral words. The brain did not hold that capability of speech.

Refer: The Language of God by Francis S Collins

Agree or not that is what I offer, in what could be some idea to what we have in evidence to this world being years older then is agreed upon.

***********
Genesis 1:2And 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 became without form and void, and darkness became upon the face of the deep.

Suspected destruction of an earth that was (gap frame of time) perished

Jeremiah speaks of perished, made void. We have nothing detectable because there is darkness of the deep of water. And the Spirit moved upon that water.

Think of it being all gone and what was, is now, unknown. The existence is gone, because satan and God had the shaken earth (Job 9:6)

Job 9:5 Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger.

Job 9:7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.

You can keep claiming that there is a gap, but scripture is clear that there is six days from the creation of the heavens and earth through to the end of creation.

6 Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7 Thus 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. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
NKJV

.

Let's note that the firmament is heaven (Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. )

So we see in Genesis 1:6-8 God has let the firmament of heaven be surrounding of all that He has created.


Genesis 1:9-10 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. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

We read in these scriptures how that the face of water and it's depth is being divided. And once heaven is put in place, then God allows the dry land to appear calling it earth, and the waters called seas, and God saw it was good.

Let's note that the firmament is heaven (Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. )

So we see in Genesis 1:6-8 God has let the firmament of heaven be surrounding of all that He has created.


Genesis 1:9-10 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. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

We read in these scriptures how that the face of water and it's depth is being divided. And once heaven is put in place, then God allows the dry land to appear calling it earth, and the waters called seas, and God saw it was good.

Genesis 1:1 says "heavens", just as Exodus 20:11 says "heavens" - Ex 20 tells us that everything was made in 6 days.

All scripture needs to be taken in context.

You can keep claiming that there is a gap, but scripture is clear that there is six days from the creation of the heavens and earth through to the end of creation.

The creation of what we live on and in as earth today was created in 6 days. The unknown and perish of what was before is exactly that, NOT reality of existence.

Genesis 1:1 says "heavens", just as Exodus 20:11 says "heavens" - Ex 20 tells us that everything was made in 6 days.

All scripture needs to be taken in context.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. KJV

Exd 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. KJV

Heaven in hebrew is plural, and I trust that it is because of the existence in understand that the hebrew accent gives enphasis and pause on "GOD" as being Himself the great worker, separate the worker from His work.

(Deu 4:26) shows the existence of God Himself being heaven and .

The creation of what we live on and in as earth today was created in 6 days. The unknown and perish of what was before is exactly that, NOT reality of existence.

The root pro0blem that I see with this theory is that there is absolutely nothing in scripture telling us this. It is entirely based upon speculation and assumed silence of scripture between two verses, and the theory was developed simply as an attempt to harmonize between what some saw as a problem existing between the Bible and scientific findings.

We need to base our beliefs upon what the Bible says, not on what it does not say.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. KJV

Heaven in hebrew is plural, and I trust that it is because of the existence in understand that the hebrew accent gives enphasis and pause on "GOD" as being Himself the great worker, separate the worker from His work.

Actually, the reason is more simple. The Hebrew word is an all encompassing word meaning anything which is above the earth. Therefore the heavens refers to the sky, the stars, the galaxies, everything above earth which has been cretaed.


Deu 4:26) shows the existence of God Himself being heaven and .

I am reading the verse but I don't see where it says that God is heaven. But if you weish to pursue that line of reason, I could provide you with numerous issues, not the least of which are the various references throughout scripture to the heavens being created, whereas God is not.

The root pro0blem that I see with this theory is that there is absolutely nothing in scripture telling us this. It is entirely based upon speculation and assumed silence of scripture between two verses, and the theory was developed simply as an attempt to harmonize between what some saw as a problem existing between the Bible and scientific findings.

We need to base our beliefs upon what the Bible says, not on what it does not say.

I see no violence to the scriptures in this idea at all.

We have a time line beginning with Adam and that was about 6,000 years ago, according to most chronologists. We DO NOT have a time line from Gen. 1:1.

If the fromer world was covered by water as a result of judgment, you would have exactly the state described by Moses. As to whether the command to Adam meant something other than that spoken to Noah, it would be hard to prove as it is the same word.

Remember, sin did not originate on Earth, but in Heaven. We have NO idea how long ago this happened, or exactly what Lucifer's duties were, but we do know that there has been war between God and Satan for a very long time. (Our time, that is.)

Meanwhile, there is at least some credible evidence that Earth is much older than 6,000 years.

Remember, there was a time when belief in a globe Earth was heresy.

I accept all the Scriptures say.

I see no violence to the scriptures in this idea at all.

We have a time line beginning with Adam and that was about 6,000 years ago, according to most chronologists. We DO NOT have a time line from Gen. 1:1.

We do - Many places - I gave one example of Exodus 20:11 which says that from genesis 1:1 to the end of creation was 6 days.


Meanwhile, there is at least some credible evidence that Earth is much older than 6,000 years.

There is also credible evidence that it is not.

We do - Many places - I gave one example of Exodus 20:11 which says that from genesis 1:1 to the end of creation was 6 days.

Exod 20:11
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD
(KJV)

6213 `asah (aw-saw');

a primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows):

KJV-- accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fighting-] man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.

As you can see, the word made has a very wide range of possibilities. I highlighted some simply to show that it is possible to see something other than original creation in this passage. And of course, the context here is the giving of the Sabbath observance.


There is also credible evidence that it is not.

True.

The root pro0blem that I see with this theory is that there is absolutely nothing in scripture telling us this. It is entirely based upon speculation and assumed silence of scripture between two verses, and the theory was developed simply as an attempt to harmonize between what some saw as a problem existing between the Bible and scientific findings.

We need to base our beliefs upon what the Bible says, not on what it does not say.

Absolutely nothing in scripture when we neglect to accept Job 9:6, 2 Peter 3:5, and Jeremiah 4:23 teaching. There was an existence that is now unknown to us. (void, perished, and without form)

The speculation would account for what is written in Job, and Jeremiah, yet that same speculation permits the 6 days in (Exd 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth) Speculation yes it is....

However that speculation does not change my belief which is based on Christ the corner stone. Everything else reaches out from HIM who has shown the way.

The translation from what was written as you and I both known, is an important aspect in identity to all that is written. I thank God that we have the works of Massorah. = The word Massorah is from the root masar, to deliver something into the hand of another, so as to commit it to his trust. Hence the name is given to the small writing referred to, because it contains information necessary to those who trust the Sacred Text was committed, so that they might transcribe it, and hand it down correctly.
cc
http://www.biblestudysite.com/massorah.htm

Originally Posted by Tj3 #29 Quote
We do - Many places - I gave one example of Exodus 20:11 which says that from genesis 1:1 to the end of creation was 6 days.

Exod 20:11
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD
(KJV)

6213 `asah (aw-saw');

a primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows):

KJV-- accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fighting-] man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.

As you can see, the word made has a very wide range of possibilities. I highlighted some simply to show that it is possible to see something other than original creation in this passage. And of course, the context here is the giving of the Sabbath observance.


There is also credible evidence that it is not.
**************************************************

Tj3

Exd 20:11 examples labour mentioned in Exd 20:9

made H-6213 asah

To do, fashion, accomplish, make

a) (Qal)

1) to do, work, make, produce

a) to do

b) to work

c) to deal (with)

d) to act, act with effect, effect

2) to make

a) to make

b) to produce

c) to prepare

d) to make (an offering)

e) to attend to, put in order

f) to observe, celebrate

g) to acquire (property)

h) to appoint, ordain, institute

I) to bring about

j) to use

k) to spend, pass

b) (Niphal)

1) to be done

2) to be made

3) to be produced

4) to be offered

5) to be observed

6) to be used

c) (Pual) to be made

2) (Piel) to press, squeeze


KJV

Actually, the reason is more simple. The Hebrew word is an all encompassing word meaning anything which is above the earth. Therefore the heavens refers to the sky, the stars, the galaxies, everything above earth which has been cretaed.
.

As I had shown you the version of King James did not plural the word heaven . Yet I supposed that you were reading from another version which gave the idea that heaven had to be heavens. I offered the reason why your translation might have heavens verse the KJV of heaven.

The Hebrew people understood the meaning heaven as plural in the same manner as God is the creator of all heaven and earth. I am The hebrew did accent and give enphasis and pause on "GOD" as being Himself the great worker, separate the worker from His work.
And God HIMSELF is plural as written in Genesis 1:26.

Off thread...

We must have a different King James then.

There are approximately 133 references to the heavens.

Genesis 2:1 (KJV) "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."

Genesis 2:4 (KJV) "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."


Tj is right
The first heaven is considered our atmosphere.
The second is the galaxies
etc...

How Many Heavens Are There (http://www.workersforjesus.com/16-hmhat.htm)

As far as the age of the earth
I want to answer this according to the gap theory but I really don't have the time right now to look up the original words and meaning

My apologies to Tom. I intended to break his response and place my response in the middle and at the end. It wound up looking like he said some things that I said.
I'll try not to let that happen again.

Absolutely nothing in scripture when we neglect to accept Job 9:6, 2 Peter 3:5, and Jeremiah 4:23 teaching. There was an existence that is now unknown to us. (void, perished, and without form)

Let's look at these:

Job 9:6
6 He shakes the earth out of its place,
And its pillars tremble;
NKJV

Earthquakes are well known.

2 Peter 3:5-8
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
NKJV

Genesis tells us about the flood.

Jer 4:23
23 I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void;
And the heavens, they had no light.
NKJV

Genesis 1:1

These says nothing about a world which was not known - scripture tells us about all three and we certainly still experience the first.

My apologies to Tom. I intended to break his response and place my response in the middle and at the end. It wound up looking like he said some things that I said.
I'll try not to let that happen again.

No problem. No offense taken. I had noted what happened, and understood.

Originally Posted by Tj3 #29 Quote
We do - Many places - I gave one example of Exodus 20:11 which says that from genesis 1:1 to the end of creation was 6 days.

Exod 20:11
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD
(KJV)

6213 `asah (aw-saw');

a primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows):

KJV-- accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fighting-] man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.

As you can see, the word made has a very wide range of possibilities. I highlighted some simply to show that it is possible to see something other than original creation in this passage. And of course, the context here is the giving of the Sabbath observance.

What is your point? Are you suggesting that God did not make the heavens and earth?

sndbay,

We have, in scripture, a second overview of what happened in creation, and it starts with this passage:

Gen 2:4-5
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;
NKJV

Please note that the start of creation was when the heavens and earth were made in the same day. That was the first day. This is not the creation of the firmament.

Note that Exodus 2);11 is quite specific that the heavens and earth were part of they 6 day creation:

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
NKJV

What is your point? Are you suggesting that God did not make the heavens and earth?

Please reframe from this type of question. Neither you or I would suggestion this, and I would not even question anyone's integrity in this manner.

Let's look at these:

Job 9:6
6 He shakes the earth out of its place,
And its pillars tremble;
NKJV

Earthquakes are well known.

Yes we have earthquakes, however, have those earthquarkes ever seal up the stars or cause the sun not to rise. (Job 9:7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. )



2 Peter 3:5-8
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
NKJV

Genesis tells us about the flood.

Yes again Genesis does tell of a flood. However, can we read somewhere in Noah's flood that the heavens perished? The world perished compared to the destroy man and beast in Naoh's flood. God destroyed the corrupt flesh verse 6:13.
(Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. )

Take reference of verse (2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word) And I realize should you remain doubtful to this flood of water being different then Noah's, then it makes no difference in the outcome. However I view this as heavens and earth was a new creation from what was and now unknown to us.




Jer 4:23
23 I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void;
And the heavens, they had no light.
NKJV

Genesis 1:1

These says nothing about a world which was not known - scripture tells us about all three and we certainly still experience the first.

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Question: the land desolate yet will I make a full end?

Jeremiah 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

We must have a different King James then.

there are approximately 133 references to the heavens.

Genesis 2:1 (KJV) "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."

Genesis 2:4 (KJV) "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."


Tj is right
the first heaven is considered our atmosphere.
the second is the galaxies
etc.....

How Many Heavens Are There (http://www.workersforjesus.com/16-hmhat.htm)

as far as the age of the earth
I want to answer this according to the gap theory but I really don't have the time right now to look up the original words and meaning

Nohelp4u,

(heaven)
There are in the KJV Concordance
occurs 583 times in 551 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 23 (Gen 1:1 - Gen 27:28)

AND

(heavens)
KJV Concordance
occurs 133 times in 127 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 6 (Gen 2:1 - Job 35:5)

Both verses you posted Genesis 2:1 2:4 do reference to heavens in the KJV Concordance

As for the ages: "Thus" in Genesis 2:1 is an example of new age beginning in generations of The Heavens and Earth mention in 2:4.


Genesis 1:1 says "heavens", just as Exodus 20:11 says "heavens" - Ex 20 tells us that everything was made in 6 days.

All scripture needs to be taken in context.

As the quote from Tj3 shows we were speaking of Genesis 1:1. What does your KJV have in Genesis 1:1?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. KJV

Please reframe from this type of question. Neither you or I would suggestion this, and I would not even question anyone's integrity in this manner.

That is the problem - the point that you were making was not clear, and U was trying to trigger you to provide a clarification because this was all that I could dioscern from what you said. I did not think that this was what you meant, but after reading it several times, that was what came across.

Yes we have earthquakes, however, have those earthquarkes ever seal up the stars or cause the sun not to rise. (Job 9:7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. )

First, note these references must be after the 6 day creation because neither the sun nor the stars existed beforehand.

We do have a reference to the sun stopping:

Josh 10:13
13 So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped,
Till the people had revenge
Upon their enemies.
NKJV

And to a description of exactly what you suggest:

Matt 24:29-30
29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
NKJV

Keep in mind that we do find some prophecy in the book of Job, so this may have been speaking about this future event, or Job may simply have been describing God's Almighty power. Nothing in these passages would even suggest a previous existence of man on earth.


Yes again Genesis does tell of a flood. However, can we read somewhere in Noah's flood that the heavens perished? The world perished compared to the destroy man and beast in Naoh's flood. God destroyed the corrupt flesh verse 6:13.
Let's look at it again:

2 Peter 3:5
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
NKJV

Note that this is referring to the world, and says nothing about the heavens perishing. It does say that the heavens were of old, and the description given in scripture, and what we know of scientific findings is that the climate on earth prior to the flood was dramatically different and this the indiaction is that the sky was much different, probably due to a permanent cloud layer, similar to what we now call global warming which keep a great deal of moisture in the atmosphere, and caused the warmth to go across the worl;d, including even the poles (which scientists have found to be once tropical).

So once again, complete agreement with the flood timeframe, and nothing to even suggest a prior existence on earth.


Question: the land desolate yet will I make a full end?

Jeremiah 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

Read the full context. This passages tells you specifically what the context is. First of all, God refers here to the land of "my people", and there whole land shall be destroyed. Who does God refer to consistently as "my people"? The land of Israel, so this is referring to a judgment to come upon Israel. This is confirmed if you read on a bit further (keeping in mind that chapter divisions were added later and are not inspired):

Jer 5:1
"Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem;
See now and know;
And seek in her open places
If you can find a man,
If there is anyone who executes judgment,
Who seeks the truth,
And I will pardon her.
NKJV

This goes on quite a ways further, and once again God says that He will not make a complete end of her:

Jer 5:18-22
18 "Nevertheless in those days," says the LORD, "I will not make a complete end of you. 19 And it will be when you say, 'Why does the LORD our God do all these things to us?' then you shall answer them, 'Just as you have forsaken Me and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve aliens in a land that is not yours.'

20 "Declare this in the house of Jacob
And proclaim it in Judah, saying,
21'Hear this now, O foolish people,
Without understanding,
Who have eyes and see not,
And who have ears and hear not:
22 Do you not fear Me?' says the LORD.
'Will you not tremble at My presence,
Who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea,
By a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass beyond it?
And though its waves toss to and fro,
Yet they cannot prevail;
Though they roar, yet they cannot pass over it.
NKJV

Just read the context of this who portion of scripture and it is very clear that it has do with a prophecy of Jeremiah against Israel.

What does your KJV have in Genesis 1:1?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. KJV

Sndbay,

It does not matter, because, as I pointed out before, scripture refers to many things as heavens. The Hebrew word refers to anything which is above us.

Sndbay,

It does not matter, because, as I pointed out before, scripture refers to many things as heavens. The Hebrew word refers to anything which is above us.

Yes we both have made that point. God and all HIS creation of the heavens and earth, as the creator offers the unlimited vision of what HIS greatness holds.

I did not want to appear uninterested in what Nohelp4u was saying in her post. I am interesting in everyone thoughts.

First, note these references must be after the 6 day creation because neither the sun nor the stars existed beforehand.

Unless there was a first age of the heaven and earth before the 6 day creation. And as I have said we have signs that give speculation of a first earth age.



We do have a reference to the sun stopping:

Josh 10:13
13 So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped,
Till the people had revenge
Upon their enemies.
NKJV

And to a description of exactly what you suggest:

Matt 24:29-30
29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
NKJV

Keep in mind that we do find some prophecy in the book of Job, so this may have been speaking about this future event, or Job may simply have been describing God's Almighty power. Nothing in these passages would even suggest a previous existence of man on earth.

.

Agree nothing in the verses of Matthew or Josh suggest a previous existence. That would be your speculation that Job 9:6-7 would compares to them not mine .

Unless there was a first age of the heaven and earth before the 6 day creation. And as I have said we have signs that give speculation of a first earth age.

We are not to go beyond what is written. To suggest that God created something before what is recorded in Genesis 1:1 is pure and absolute speculation at best. We cannot establish doctrine on what scripture does not say, or one can end up with all sorts of very strange doctrines by simply saying that the Bible doesn't say otherwise.

I could tell you that you must have green hair and 4fours eyes because scripture doesn't say that you don't! I don't believe that for a moment, but if we go beyond what scripture says, then that point would have as much validity.

Regardless, there are many reasons the gap theory falls apart, and I mentioned several. And let's not forget the fact that what God created was perfect and only became imperfect when man sinned. According to the gap theory, scripture is wrong when it says that occurred at the time of Adam's sin. So, the gap theory not only is based upon speculation of what scripture does not say, but it also goes contrary to scripture.

Read the full context. This passages tells you specifically what the context is. First of all, God refers here to the land of "my people", and there whole land shall be destroyed. Who does God refer to consistently as "my people"? the land of Israel, so this is referring to a judgment to come upon Israel. This is confirmed if you read on a bit further (keeping in mind that chapter divisions were added later and are not inspired):

Jer 5:1
"Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem;
See now and know;
And seek in her open places
If you can find a man,
If there is anyone who executes judgment,
Who seeks the truth,
And I will pardon her.
NKJV

This goes on quite a ways further, and once again God says that He will not make a complete end of her:

Jer 5:18-22
18 "Nevertheless in those days," says the LORD, "I will not make a complete end of you. 19 And it will be when you say, 'Why does the LORD our God do all these things to us?' then you shall answer them, 'Just as you have forsaken Me and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve aliens in a land that is not yours.'

20 "Declare this in the house of Jacob
And proclaim it in Judah, saying,
21'Hear this now, O foolish people,
Without understanding,
Who have eyes and see not,
And who have ears and hear not:
22 Do you not fear Me?' says the LORD.
'Will you not tremble at My presence,
Who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea,
By a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass beyond it?
And though its waves toss to and fro,
Yet they cannot prevail;
Though they roar, yet they cannot pass over it.
NKJV

Just read the context of this who portion of scripture and it is very clear that it has do with a prophecy of Jeremiah against Israel.

Let's go back to what I had referenced. Jeremiah 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. (Where does God ever suggest a full end other then in this paining heart of hurt that God is speaking concerning the lack of knowledge and obedience?)

Start with where God is clearly saying HIS people have no knowledge and their are foolish, and do no know HIM. God is pained in the heart, and could not hold HIS peace. Jeremiah 4:22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

God saw the earth and it was without form, and no light in heaven
Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

God saw the mountains and they trembled, this is at the same time that God saw the earth become void, and heaven without light in the previous verse.
Jeremiah 4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

God continues to clearly tell us of a time that HIS heart was in pain, and the earth trembled, and lo there was no man and all birds fled. Can we see what is taking place as the earth trembled to move mountains, as the earth became void and without form. The heaven had no light.
Jeremiah 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

Jeremiah 4:26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, [and] by his fierce anger.

Jeremiah 4:47 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

God made a full end, and the earth mourn, and the heaven above was black? no but it was desolute. Meaning of desolute? waste

Jeremiah 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.



Speculation YES or NO?

We are not to go beyond what is written. To suggest that God created something before what is recorded in Genesis 1:1 is pure and absolute speculation at best..

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth became without form, and void; and darkness became upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

********
New 6 day creation begins: New Age

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Speculation? YES we agree on that...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth became without form, and void; and darkness became upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

********
New 6 day creation begins: New Age

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Speculation? YES we agree on that...

I am glad that we agree on speculation.

We don't agree on the start of the 6 days.

Let's go back to what I had referenced. Jeremiah 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. (Where does God ever suggest a full end other then in this paining heart of hurt that God is speaking concerning the lack of knowledge and obedience?)

Large portion cut for sake of brevity


Speculation YES or NO?

Again, the portion of scripture has nothing to do with the topic. The portion of scripture specifically identifies it as a judgment against Jerusalem.

Again, the portion of scripture has nothing to do with the topic. The portion of scripture specifically identifies it as a judgment against Jerusalem.


Jeremiah 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

So you see the earth void as being a predestination of a full end to Jerusalem, the earth, and no man left, and the heaven will be black.

I don't agree !

Jeremiah 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

So you see the earth void as being a predestination of a full end to Jerusalem, the earth, and no man left, and the heaven will be black.

I don't agree !

Where did He say that He would make a "full end" of it?

Jer 4:27
27 For thus says the LORD:

"The whole land shall be desolate;
Yet I will not make a full end.
NKJV


Jer 5:10
10 "Go up on her walls and destroy,
But do not make a complete end.
NKJV

And where does this say that this is a prophecy of the earth?

Speculation, true. But we still have that problem of the dinosauers, along with man, being present on earth at the same time as evidenced by tracks found at Glen Rose, Texas.

Look at this:

"created" in Gen 1:1 is defined as follows.

1254 bara' (baw-raw');

a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): -choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

"made" as in Ex 20:11 is defined as:

6213 `asah (aw-saw');

a primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows):

KJV-- accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fighting-] man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.

They are two distinctly different words. Shouldn't we at least consider that something might be different in the two works of God?

Where did He say that He would make a "full end" of it?

Jer 4:27
27 For thus says the LORD:

"The whole land shall be desolate;
Yet I will not make a full end.
NKJV


Jer 5:10
10 "Go up on her walls and destroy,
But do not make a complete end.
NKJV

And where does this say that this is a prophecy of the earth?

Okay not a full end, which permits the new age. AND it is not speaking of Jerusalem's fall either.. Can we agree?

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.



Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Question: the land desolate yet will I make a full end?

Jeremiah 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

Okay not a full end, which permits the new age. AND it is not speaking of Jerusalem's fall either.. Can we agree?

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

We could discuss exactly what this is referring to, but that is not the topic of this thread. What is clear is that it is not referring to any gap in Genesis, but is a prophecy of a judgment to come upon Jerusalem.

I really do not want to get sidettracked onto something which is not going to address the topic.

Speculation, true. But we still have that problem of the dinosauers, along with man, being present on earth at the same time as evidenced by tracks found at Glen Rose, Texas.

I see no problem with that - it fits nicely into the YEC understanding of creation.


Look at this:

"created" in Gen 1:1 is defined as follows.

1254 bara' (baw-raw');

a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): -choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

"made" as in Ex 20:11 is defined as:

6213 `asah (aw-saw');

a primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows):

KJV-- accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fighting-] man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.

They are two distinctly different words. Shouldn't we at least consider that something might be different in the two works of God?

"Make" or "create"? I see no reason to think that these are two entirely different things. Something can be both made and created at the same time.

Nohelp4u,

(heaven)
There are in the KJV Concordance
occurs 583 times in 551 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 23 (Gen 1:1 - Gen 27:28)

AND

(heavens)
KJV Concordance
occurs 133 times in 127 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 6 (Gen 2:1 - Job 35:5)

Both verses you posted Genesis 2:1 2:4 do reference to heavens in the KJV Concordance

As for the ages: "Thus" in Genesis 2:1 is an example of new age beginning in generations of The Heavens and Earth mention in 2:4.



As the quote from Tj3 shows we were speaking of Genesis 1:1. What does your KJV have in Genesis 1:1?


Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. KJV

So what are you meaning by an example of new age beginning in generations if chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis are referring to one one week creation of ALL things?

Yes it says heaven in 1:1

So what are you meaning by an example of new age beginning in generations if chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis are referring to one one week creation of ALL things?

Yes it says heaven in 1:1

Post #49

There was an age of dinosours and beasts with no communication skills that were created, and this would be the speculation of the earth that became void and unknown to man.(Perished)

(Genesis 1:3) begins the new creation. The heaven and earth age we know today. The six day creation that God offered man dominion over all the earth. (Genesi 1:26)

Post #49

There was an age of dinosours and beasts with no communication skills that were created, and this would be the speculation of the earth that became void and unknown to man.(Perished)

Except, as another person noted, we have evidence that dinosaurs and men existed together.


(Genesis 1:3) begins the new creation. The heaven and earth age we know today. The six day creation that God offered man dominion over all the earth. (Genesi 1:26)

Except for the issues that I have raised a number of times which show that there can be no gap because the 6 days started in verse 1:1 and that for a gap to have existed would be a denial of the gospel.

Except, as another person noted, we have evidence that dinosaurs and men existed together.

Yes, but it was a ape like man. The ape like men were unable to communication in speech.

God made man in the 6 day creation able to communicate and hear HIS word. (speculation)

Post #49

There was an age of dinosours and beasts with no communication skills that were created, and this would be the speculation of the earth that became void and unknown to man.(Perished)

(Genesis 1:3) begins the new creation. The heaven and earth age we know today. The six day creation that God offered man dominion over all the earth. (Genesi 1:26)

Okay so you do believe in the gap theory?
I haven't had time to read through all this. I was thinking you were one that believed that not even the angels existed before the six day creation.

Yes, but it was a ape like man. The ape like men were unable to communication in speech.

God made man in the 6 day creation able to communicate and hear HIS word. (speculation)

What is the basis for this claim?

Good question cause the only ape man unable to communicate with words I know of would be evolution teaching.
I do not believe in evolution.

Good question cause the only ape man unable to communicate with words I know of would be evolution teaching.
I do not believe in evolution.

Neither do I believe in evolution. Man today was created in the image of God during the 6 day creation. God was pleased with all He created. Man was the righteousness of God's image, and had dominion over the earth until Adam and Eve took from the tree of knowledge (evil knowledge).

What some believe is that Eve is the mother of all human life, which is false. Eve was the mother of all living, because through the seed line of Seth which would come the tribes of Israel. Christ Jesus is sent by the Father through that seed line in Mary, and the "Key of David", giving HIM the throne on earth. Allowing us the Tree of Life..(from which comes the idea mother of all living)

The speculation that an ape like, which lived during the age of dinosaurs, were as beasts without the ability to speech, similar to apes today. There was no human man before the 6 day creation.

Your distinctions are confusing me.
So either they were apes or they were man.
What do they have to do with humans?

Either Eve bore Seth or she didn't. So what do you mean by that?
What do you mean by mother of all living?
What are you saying?

Neither do I believe in evolution. Man today was created in the image of God during the 6 day creation. God was pleased with all He created. Man was the righteousness of God's image, and had dominion over the earth until Adam and Eve took from the tree of knowledge (evil knowledge).

What some believe is that Eve is the mother of all human life, which is false. Eve was the mother of all living, because through the seed line of Seth which would come the tribes of Israel. Christ Jesus is sent by the Father through that seed line in Mary, and the "Key of David", giving HIM the throne on earth. Allowing us the Tree of Life..(from which comes the idea mother of all living)

The speculation that an ape like, which lived during the age of dinosaurs, were as beasts without the ability to speech, similar to apes today. There was no human man before the 6 day creation.

Again, what is your source for this claim?

Either Eve bore Seth or she didn't. so what do you mean by that?
What do you mean by mother of all living?
What are you saying?

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.


Eve was the mother of all living because, through the seed line of Seth

Eve bore Seth


Your distinctions are confusing me.
So either they were apes or they were man.
What do they have to do with humans?



The speculation that an ape like, which lived during the age of dinosaurs, were as beasts without the ability to speech, similar to apes today.

Science speculated that an ape like man existed along with dinosaurs.

My speculation is that dinosaurs did live, and the ape like man was not a man, but similar as a beast type ape that lived at that same time frame. And as apes do not have the ability to communicate by speech neither could these beasts. Do you really think this speculation is so far off any path of teaching that it could not balance the questions of what science has taught?

I hope that answered your question. Confusion comes by satan and man wanting to believe the delusion they have been given by God in their own choice.

This is the way I understand it.

Apparently there is good evidence to indicate that Jeremiah 4 was stripped from the book of Genesis and placed in Jeremiah. This is how the book of Genesis really reads. The words in Jeremiah are in blue. See how smoothly it fits in. It really supports the gap theory. Maybe that is why they removed it in the first place. Also the word "was" (hayah) is a mistranslation. It should be "Became."

1961 hayah (haw-yaw);
a primitive root [compare 1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):
KJV-- beacon, X altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, X use.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.The earth was (became) without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void; and the heavens, they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled, and all the hills moved back and forth. I beheld, and indeed there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled. I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land was a wilderness, and all its cities were broken down at the presence of the LORD, by His fierce anger. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."

"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: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Pet 3:5-7

In 2 Pet.3:6-7 we have a definite statement that there was a social world before Adam, which is called, "the world that then was." The Greek word for world is 'kosmos,' meaning social system.

This social order had to be before this one we now know, or it could not be called "the social order that then was." That it was one which existed before our social order since Adam, is clear from the next statement about "the heavens and the earth, WHICH ARE NOW." The two statements, "the world THAT THEN WAS" and "the
heavens and the earth, WHICH ARE NOW" prove there were two separate social systems on Earth. One was BEFORE the one WHICH IS NOW, and the other, AFTER the one THAT THEN WAS.

If it can be definitely proved that "THE WORLD THAT THEN WAS" refers to a social order on Earth before the present heavens and the Earth WHICH ARE NOW, then it would be forever settled that there were inhabitants before Adam.

1. THAT IS WHAT 2 PET.3:6-7 SAYS. It could not be expressed more clearly in human language than it is here, "By the word of God the heavens WERE OF OLD, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. Whereby the world [social order] THAT THEN WAS [of old, and BEFORE the heavens and the Earth WHICH ARE NOW], being overflowed with water perished: But the heavens and the earth, WHICH ARE NOW [AFTER the world THAT THEN WAS], by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
The Gap Theory (http://www.stargods.org/GapTheory.html)

Jesus said he saw Satan cast out of heaven
If satan was Lucifer the angel and then he was tempting Eve where is the timeline with all this in relation to Gen. 1 and 2?

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Eve bore Seth

Science speculated that an ape like man existed along with dinosaurs.

If you mean evolutionists, they deny that dinosaurs existed at the same time as any type of man.

This is the way I understand it.

Apparently there is good evidence to indicate that Jeremiah 4 was stripped from the book of Genesis and placed in Jeremiah. This is how the book of Genesis really reads. The words in Jeremiah are in blue. See how smoothly it fits in. It really supports the gap theory. Maybe that is why they removed it in the first place. Also the word "was" (hayah) is a mistranslation. It should be "Became."

Where is the evidence? I have never heard this claim by any credible scholar who has researched the history of the Bible.

I went to that page to find out who these "scholars" were who found this evidence and what the evidence was. The source is "stargods.org". They give no names, but they do give a statement of faith which reads like this:

-----------------------------
1. The creator of this world (the Demiurge) is demented.
2. The world is not as it appears, in order to hide the evil in it, a delusive veil obscuring it and the deranged deity.
3. There is another, better realm of God, and all our efforts are to be directed toward
1. returning there
2. bringing it here
4. Our actual lives stretch thousands of years back, and we can be made to remember our origin in the stars.
5. Each of us has a divine counterpart unfallen who can reach a hand down to us to awaken us. This other personality is the authentic waking self; the one we have now is asleep and minor. We are in fact asleep, and in the hands of a dangerous magician disguised as a good god, the deranged creator deity. The bleakness, the evil and pain in this world, the fact that it is a deterministic prison controlled by the demented creator causes us willingly to split with the reality principle early in life, and so to speak willingly fall asleep in delusion.
6. You can pass from the delusional prison world into the peaceful kingdom if the True Good God places you under His grace and allows you to see reality through His eyes.
7. Christ gave, rather than received, revelation; he taught his followers how to enter the kingdom while still alive, where other mystery religions only bring about amnesis: knowledge of it at the "other time" in "the other realm," not here. He causes it to come here, and is the living agency to the Sole Good God (i.e. the Logos).
8. Probably the real, secret Christian church still exists, long underground, with the living Corpus Christi as its head or ruler, the members absorbed into it. Through participation in it they probably have vast, seemingly magical powers.
9. The division into "two times" (good and evil) and "two realms" (good and evil) will abruptly end with victory for the good time here, as the presently invisible kingdom separates and becomes visible. We cannot know the date.
10. During this time we are on the sifting bridge being judged according to which power we give allegiance to, the deranged creator demiurge of this world or the One Good God and his kingdom, whom we know through Christ.
(Source: Statement of Belief (http://stargods.org/Belief.html))
-----------------------------

I would be careful of using this as a resource.

If you mean evolutionists, they deny that dinosaurs existed at the same time as any type of man.

Professor of Biomaterials and of Basic Science and Craniofacial Biology:

Man's earliest direct ancestors looked more apelike than previousl...( Modern mans earliest known close ance...) (http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-3/Mans-earliest-direct-ancestors-looked-more-apelike-than-previously-believed-2260-1/)

off thread

I went to that page to find out who these "scholars" were who found this evidence and what the evidence was. The source is "stargods.org".

(Source: Statement of Belief (http://stargods.org/Belief.html))
.

Tj3,

Thanks for the "knowledge" you posted, being a source to Gnosticism. I had never heard of the religion of knowledge before.

However I did look further in to the idea of this knowledge: Revolution! Free your mind!

1. I refuse to live in fear by living in a state of love.

2. I will not be controlled by fear produced by religion and New World Order (NWO) groups.

3. I will learn and practice love which casts out fear.

4. I realize that the New World Order is gaining on us fast, but I will refuse to acknowledge it and realized they are very desperate and are becoming confused as the people of earth are spiritually waking up. As we grow in love, they are losing their control over us. The NWO was set to take over in the year 2000, but the people were far more aware of what they were up to, and the NWO plan for the ages got placed on hold.

5. As I learn love, I will abhor violence, because love is a higher frequency that is very powerful, and is proven to change reality. Soon the world will change as we draw closer to the year 2012.

6. I will not be controlled by a fear of what people think of me. I will make it clear to all people what I believe and refuse to live in fear of what they may think. I will believe in what I believe, and will never be intimidated by threats of hell, and the Lake of fire, for not conforming to religious mind control. I will not pretend to be something that I am not in order to please people. I will not go along just to get along.

7. We are free thinking individuals that have the right to believe in whatever we decide is truth.

8. Truth comes from within, and not from outside. In other words, so called truth outside of us can be manipulated, altered, and filled with lies.

9. Love is the only truth.


10. I refuse to debate doctrines of men because love is the only doctrine. Anything or anyone that teaches or preaches anything else other than love is deception from the ultimate truth. Any religion or God that promotes love is a true faith. Any religion or God that promotes fear, is false religion.

11. I refuse to label and condemn people because we are all one. I will never confuse ignorance with evil.

12. I will never condone any nation or world leader that endorses war. I must oppose war by being very vocal against it. I will not condone any church, pastor, religion, world leader, holy scripture, or God that condones war or violence.


We will be who we will be. Change the world with our minds and not violence.

EMPOWERMENT not GOVERNMENT
http://stargods.org/Revolution.html
***********************************
Discussion off thread

This is the way I understand it.

The Gap Theory

Everything in which you posted by scripture reference, is the same evidence of scripture that has been posted previously. AND I look for the evidence in scripture as my source.

In what is written there is speculation needed to acknowledge that Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 was teaching of an earth and heaven that became void. And speculation in the understand that Genesis 1:3 goes forward from that perished, and unknown time frame, to the creation of what life is today. I just had never heard it called the Gap Theory. The specualtion is there because we do have to reference further into scripture for the obvious answers. I feel the answers are there...



Jesus said he saw Satan cast out of heaven
If satan was Lucifer the angel and then he was tempting Eve where is the timeline with all this in relation to Gen. 1 and 2?

IN understanding what you mean by this question, could you reference scripture?

Professor of Biomaterials and of Basic Science and Craniofacial Biology:

Man's earliest direct ancestors looked more apelike than previousl...( Modern mans earliest known close ance...) (http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-3/Mans-earliest-direct-ancestors-looked-more-apelike-than-previously-believed-2260-1/)

off thread

That was my point - evolutionists deny that man co-existed with dinosaurs. Evolutionists says that dinosaurs died out before this:

Study: Dinosaurs Died Within Hours After Asteroid Hit Earth 65 Million Years Ago | News Center | University of Colorado at Boulder (http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2004/168.html)

That was my point - evolutionists deny that man co-existed with dinosaurs. Evolutionists says that dinosaurs died out before this:

Study: Dinosaurs Died Within Hours After Asteroid Hit Earth 65 Million Years Ago | News Center | University of Colorado at Boulder (http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2004/168.html)

NOTED REFERENCE: shows a 1.9 million-year-old skull belonging to Homo rudolfensis, the earliest member of the human genus, with a surprisingly small brain and distinctly protruding jaw, features commonly associated with more apelike members of the hominid family living as much as three million years ago.


Tell me something Tom, Do you think all of this happened before 6 day creation? Did either one take place before or after? There is definite and sufficient proof that both did exist.

I am not claiming to be the smartest brain at science, or biology, but these things are shown as being evident by men that have done a great deal of study. Tell me what your point is?

Reference:
http://www.genome.gov/10001772

http://www.genome.gov/10000779

NOTED REFERENCE: shows a 1.9 million-year-old skull belonging to Homo rudolfensis, the earliest member of the human genus, with a surprisingly small brain and distinctly protruding jaw, features commonly associated with more apelike members of the hominid family living as much as three million years ago.


Tell me something Tom, Do you think all of this happened before 6 day creation? Did either one take place before or after? There is definite and sufficient proof that both did exist.

I do believe that all of creation occurred in the 6 day period, yes.

Do I necessarily agree with evolutionists as to the process that they believe occurred? No, but neither do many other highly qualified and respected scientists. Keep in mind that these claims regarding what occurred have numerous assumptions built into them. Even the existence of some of these being has been extrapolated from relatively little evidence. Probably one of the best known examples was a supposed "early man" which subsequently turned out to have been exptrapolated from a piece of a jawbone of an animal.


I am not claiming to be the smartest brain at science, or biology, but these things are shown as being evident by men that have done a great deal of study. Tell me what your point is?

None of this is proven. Men of equal study have arrived at varying conclusuions. Scientists even today are still m odifying their theories. But the one thing that we do know for certain is what God told us in His word.



Reference:
genome.gov | All About The Human Genome Project (HGP) (http://www.genome.gov/10001772)

genome.gov | Former Director Francis S. Collins (http://www.genome.gov/10000779)[/QUOTE]

I am not sure what your point is with the links to the Human Genome Project. This is simply a project to map the genetic code of human DNA.

I am not sure what your point is with the links to the Human Genome Project. This is simply a project to map the genetic code of human DNA.

It was just a point of reference for Francis S Collins who wrote the book I spoke of "The Language of God" base on a scientist presenting evidence of belief.

NOTED REFERENCE:

Tell me something Tom, Do you think all of this happened before 6 day creation? Did either one take place before or after? There is definite and sufficient proof that both did exist.


Reference:
genome.gov | All About The Human Genome Project (HGP) (http://www.genome.gov/10001772)

genome.gov | Former Director Francis S. Collins (http://www.genome.gov/10000779)

Basically what I was getting at about Satans fall. I believe that and the dinosaurs happened before the six day creation.
Beginning
Beginning of what?
Creation
Creation of what?

Like if you take play dough it is an object
Then you create it into something
Then later you can take it and create something else with it
Then you have the beginning of that 'creation'

Basically what I was getting at about Satans fall. I believe that and the dinosaurs happened before the six day creation.
Beginning
beginning of what?
Creation
Creation of what?

Like if you take play dough it is an object
then you create it into something
then later you can take it and create something else with it
then you have the beginning of that 'creation'

Yes this is the speculation in which I believe is possible as well. (noted that it is a speculation resourced by what scripture gives us)

An earth age that existed before this earth age, that went on for years before the creation of man in God's image known as ( 6 day creation). And yes speculation includes that satan was at that time frame, the Lucifer who is referenced in (Isa:14:16) as the man who will come, and does today still attempt to imprison men with the worm of material lusts, and not spiritual heart of love. Lucifer's (fall the division of assigned bondage) from heaven is referenced in (Isa 14:12) That fall caused the earth to tremble, and did shake kingdoms and made the world a wilderness. The same Lucifer who of pride within his heart was recognized by God, to exalt himself above God the MOSY HIGH.

*********
Speculation includes reference of scientic resource, and studies being done that show evidence to the age of this world, and the covered age of what once was.

The wonders of God's Creation. One of those wonders is a dinosaur recently discovered frozen in Antarctica, thought to be quite ancient. This dinosaur is thought to be 190 million years old.

Dinosaur Found Frozen in Antarctica (http://ezinearticles.com/?Dinosaur-Found-Frozen-in-Antarctica&id=886772)

Yes this is the speculation in which I believe is possible as well. (noted that it is a speculation resourced by what scripture gives us)

An earth age that existed before this earth age, that went on for years before the creation of man in God's image known as ( 6 day creation). And yes speculation includes that satan was at that time frame, the Lucifer who is referenced in (Isa:14:16) as the man who will come, and does today still attempt to imprison men with the worm of material lusts, and not spiritual heart of love. Lucifer's (fall the division of assigned bondage) from heaven is referenced in (Isa 14:12) That fall caused the earth to tremble, and did shake kingdoms and made the world a wilderness. The same Lucifer who of pride within his heart was recognized by God, to exalt
himself above God the MOSY HIGH.

*********
Speculataion includes reference of scientic resource, and studies being done that show evidence to the age of this world, and the covered age of what once was.

The problem is that, as I pointed out previously, there are numerous problems with the gap theory, and there is a much simpler theory which takes scripture at face value and which does not suffer from those problems.


The wonders of God's Creation. One of those wonders is a dinosaur recently discovered frozen in Antarctica, thought to be quite ancient. This dinosaur is thought to be 190 million years old.

Dinosaur Found Frozen in Antarctica (http://ezinearticles.com/?Dinosaur-Found-Frozen-in-Antarctica&id=886772)

First, I went to this link and there are no details or references regarding this finding. Do have a better link for information on this claim?

There are many many findings similar to this which evolutuionists struggle with but which are easily explained by the Young Earth theory.

The problem is that, as I pointed out previously, there are numerous problems with the gap theory, and there is a much simpler theory which takes scripture at face value and which does not suffer from those problems.
Simplier theory in the age of years, and satan's fall from his assigned bondage? I would like to hear..




First, I went to this link and there are no details or references regarding this finding. Do have a better link for information on this claim? not without joining and wanting donation to the research. The research comes from a team of countries with the USA included.



There are many many findings similar to this which evolutuionists struggle with but which are easily explained by the Young Earth theory.

The Young Earth theory? Does this prove to be that the earth is not as old as these other studies say, I am guessing?

Simpler theory in the age of years, and satan's fall from his assigned bondage? I would like to hear..

Tell me where you find problems with the YEC approach, and let's discuss.


not without joining and wanting donation to the research. The research comes from a team of countries with the USA included.

I may do some research of my own later and see if I can come up with more information. It would be a very interesting finding if it can be validated, just like animal that they dragged up in a Japanese fishing trawler in 1977 (a picture is on my website in the Creation section at discern.ca if you have not see it previously)


The Young Earth theory? Does this prove to be that the earth is not as old as these other studies say, I am guessing?

The YEC takes scripture literally with respect to the Genesis account. Keep in mind that the claims of age are all based on multiple assumptions because, without observation, it is impossible to actually prove the age. Some assumptions bear greater validity than others, but all in all, many of the claims would only need one assumption to be slightly in error to make a dramatic change in dates.

my website in the Creation section at discern.ca

Interesting. So that is your website? I ask because you claimed here awhile back that it was not yours but that you simply provided a link to it.

Interesting. So that is your website? I ask because you claimed here awhile back that it was not yours but that you simply provided a link to it.

No, that was a completely different website that Joe claimed was mine and it is not.

You are not going to start that line of false accusations again are you?

Interesting. So that is your website? I ask because you claimed here awhile back that it was not yours but that you simply provided a link to it.

Akoue,

What is your point? Are you suggesting tj3 is being deceitful? I try hard to give you the benefit of the doubt when I read your posts but it is getting exceedingly hard to believe you have the best intentions...

Akoue,

what is your point? are you suggesting tj3 is being deceitful? I try hard to give you the benefit of the doubt when i read your posts but it is getting exceedingly hard to believe you have the best intentions.....

That's okay. I won't hold it against you.

Here is additional information on the dinosaur fossils found in the Antarctic.

Two New Dinosaurs Discovered in Antarctica (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0309_040309_polardinos.html)

Again, this is entirely in line with YEC, if you realize that the age estimates are based upon a pretty significant number of assumptions.

Tell me where you find problems with the YEC approach, and let's discuss.

.

Tj3, you certain gave me some home work..

However I have done some research on the ideas of YEC.

First let me say that I would accept scripture in saying God has created us, and according to HIS measure, has gifted each of us to doctors, teachers, ect.. and that would include scientists. Because without science where would we be to aid by doctor's the sick. And I read nothing as to whether the YEC would accept this as fact or speculation.

Second would be that everything I have given in reference has included the scriptures, and has held confimed in a 6 day creation that follows by Genesis 1:5 in the 24 hour day known as night and morning was established. This sets the time clock of what we confirm today in our calendars.
a.) So YECs are fundamentally opposed to any explanation for the origins of anything which replaces God as the universal creator as stated in the Bible. I have not done that, and would also be opposed that.
b.) Most YEC organizations reject the gap theory, and say it is unscriptural, unscientific, and not necessary, in its various forms. It is asserted that the entire universe is only thousands of years old. Well I am not sure whether this gap theory has speculated on all the scripture references that I have, but it does appear on the surface of being the same as what I noted by scripture. AND the speculation does certainly give allowance to science reasearch.

Third is the very idea that God does exist, and was, is, and always will be. At what point in age and time does the YEC give allowance to what was before the 6 day creation? The very existence of God, and what was more then just possibly, more then speculation, and very evident. Perhaps you can tell me? Is that not biblical or not necessary to the YEC?

Fourth is that most YECs today argue that Adam did not have a navel, the Omphalos hypothesis . It is purely speculation on my part, but I have always thought Adam would indeed have a navel just as we today. And the reference of cord of life would be with Eve and the female womb. And the silver cord within the flesh body that releases when our bodies die. Somehow my specualtion says the YEC as shown their Omphalos hypothesis as being unscriptural, unscientific, and not necessary.

My evening of research..

I am not auguing for or against the YEC. I only submitted the OP for the purpose of showing that Bible believers can, and do, have different thoughts about our origens. Neither YEC or gap theory deny inspiration of scripture.

The gap theory does give a defence against those who ridicule the Bible record.

Tj3, you certain gave me some home work..

However I have done some research on the ideas of YEC.

First let me say that I would accept scripture in saying God has created us, and according to HIS measure, has gifted each of us to doctors, teachers, etc.. And that would include scientists. Because without science where would we be to aid by doctor's the sick. And I read nothing as to whether the YEC would accept this as fact or speculation.

I don't know what you are saying. No YEC that I know of would disagree with disagree. Indeed the YEC beliefs are based upon science. Maybe you don't know, but my background is scientific. I used to hold to belief in evolution, to the extent that I would defend using some of the same arguments not used againt my position. It was a combination of the facts from science and the facts from the Bible which convinced me. At first, I tried coming to a compromise position - theistic evolution, and found that to be the hardest position to defend. As I continued to research, I found that there was actually nothing in science which is contrary to the YEC position, and in fact there is much in the way of scientific findings which validated YEC positions.

The reason that many people seem to think that science and YEC are at odds, is that they look at the timeframes given as being proven facts. That is not true. They are conclusions based upon numerous assumptions combined with the findings. Minor changes in the assumptions can make dramatic changes in the timeframes.

the biggest issue that I have with some scientists, and this tends to be the died in the wool evolutionists, is that they do not separate fact from assumption, and tell us that they assumptions are fact. Fortunately there are a large number of scientists both secular and Christian who are willing to state what is and is not proven and what is and is not an assumption.


Second would be that everything I have given in reference has included the scriptures, and has held confimed in a 6 day creation that follows by Genesis 1:5 in the 24 hour day known as night and morning was established. This sets the time clock of what we confirm today in our calendars.

But you have redefined heaven to try to re-set when the 6 days started and have re-interpreted Jeremiah by ignoring the fact that it specifically states that it is a prophetic pronouncement about Jerusalem.


a.) So YECs are fundamentally opposed to any explanation for the origins of anything which replaces God as the universal creator as stated in the Bible. I have not done that, and would also be opposed that.

By definition, a creationist of any sort would agree.


b.) Most YEC organizations reject the gap theory, and say it is unscriptural, unscientific, and not necessary, in its various forms. It is asserted that the entire universe is only thousands of years old. Well I am not sure whether this gap theory has speculated on all the scripture references that I have, but it does appear on the surface of being the same as what I noted by scripture. AND the speculation does certainly give allowance to science reasearch.

The point is that speculation is not fact and must be validated to be considered anything other than speculation. Speculation is not science. Speculation combined with observation may lead to an hypothesis which could be tested, and that would lead to a scientific finding. Now as for proving the history of the world by pure science, that is almost impossible by definition since not all factors can be tested, therefore assumptions will always exist.

However, if we combine scripture (using the one eyewitness that we have - God), we have the avility to look at the findings in a different way, and to modify the assumptions while staying within the realm of feasibility to see if we have a match.


Third is the very idea that God does exist, and was, is, and always will be. At what point in age and time does the YEC give allowance to what was before the 6 day creation? The very existence of God, and what was more then just possibly, more then speculation, and very evident. Perhaps you can tell me? Is that not biblical or not necessary to the YEC?

Again, I am not clear on what your question is. As for what was before the 6 days, scripture tells us that it was nothing other than Him (the trinity), and as far as we can tell, the angels.


Fourth is that most YECs today argue that Adam did not have a navel, the Omphalos hypothesis . It is purely speculation on my part, but I have always thought Adam would indeed have a navel just as we today. And the reference of cord of life would be with Eve and the female womb. And the silver cord within the flesh body that releases when our bodies die. Somehow my specualtion says the YEC as shown their Omphalos hypothesis as being unscriptural, unscientific, and not necessary.

This whole thing about a navel is a matter of speculation for certain and is not by any means something that adds to our knowledge of creation. I know no YECs who see such speculation as important and only rare ones who even have an interest in discussing it. It is not relevant.

But you have redefined heaven to try to re-set when the 6 days started and have re-interpreted Jeremiah by ignoring the fact that it specifically states that it is a prophetic pronouncement about Jerusalem.

No the intention was not to dismiss the facts that this was written to example the remorse God would want the men of Judah and Jerusalem to feel. But that it was the pain of heart God felt that they had not circumcised their hearts in righteousness and love.

Jeremiah 4:14 O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee?

God's heart is in the depth of pain when HIS words says: (Jeremaih 4:19 My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war. )

"Destruction upon destruction is cried"

"How long shall I see the standard"

"hear the sound of the trumpet? "

"My people are foolish"

"They are sottish children"

"They are wise to do evil"

Note God says :
I (saw= pass tense) seen the earth void and without form and the heaven without light. I have seen the mountains tremble and hills removed.

This is what I claim is the void earth and heaven that Genesis 1:2 shows written in saying the earth (became) void and without form.



Again, I am not clear on what your question is. As for what was before the 6 days, scripture tells us that it was nothing other than Him (the trinity), and as far as we can tell, the angels.


Where does scripture tell us that? ALSO If nothing other then God and the angels existed..where? was there a heavenly realm before Genesis 1:1?
My point is that Genesis 1:1 say the heaven and earth were created.

But then you want me to believe without the verse of Genesis 1:2 where it became void, that God began a day by day creation after saying it was created. Where do you or YEC set the time frame and location of satan's fall from his assigned bondage?

No the intention was not to dismiss the facts that this was written to example the remorse God would want the men of Judah and Jerusalem to feel. But that it was the pain of heart God felt that they had not circumcised their hearts in righteousness and love.

Good. Okay we agree on that point - this is about Jerusalem.


Note God says :
I (saw= pass tense) seen the earth void and without form and the heaven without light. I have seen the mountains tremble and hills removed.

This is what I claim is the void earth and heaven that Genesis 1:2 shows written in saying the earth (became) void and without form.

A few problems here:

1) Why would God suddenly slip a completely off topic remark in the middle of a prophecy about Jerusalem?

2) The fact that it was past tense means nothing. Often in the middle of the prophecy, the text will speak of the future in the past tense, as though the observer of the vision is actually there when the events are occurring. Read the book of Revelation. There are many such examples. It is the context which is important and this is clearly a prophetic vision about Jerusalem.

3) The fact that similar wording is used does not mean that it is speaking abiout the same thing. In this case the scope of the topic is limited to Jerusalem (as we have agree), and as I said above, it would make no sense for God to slip a verse about a completely different topic and a completely different discussion in the middle of a prophecy about a future event regarding something else. The fact that after massive destruction has occurred following a battle or an earthquake, or another catastrophic event does not mean that it must be speaking about the time of creation.



Where does scripture tell us that? ALSO If nothing other then God and the angels existed..where? was there a heavenly realm before Genesis 1:1?

Again, we can only speculate as to what it was like before space and time and the universe existed.

[QUOTE]My point is that Genesis 1:1 say the heaven and earth were created.

We all agree on that. But if the heavens were created in Gen 1:1 then the firmament is not the heaven that was created in Gen 1:1.

Good. Okay we agree on that point - this is about Jerusalem.

1) Why would God suddenly slip a completely off topic remark in the middle of a prophecy about Jerusalem?

It was more then just Jerusalem. It was the men of Judah and then again about how man is foolish. It was a God's paining heart concerning the continued error of their ways. It was their abominations that God wanted out of HIS sight. The same errors going on and on and on again. How long must the trumpets(alert) sound is blood shed and wickedness. God was speeching of man being foolish from as far back as the beginning ....

The depth of what God's heart and words speak go beyond one moment or one location.



Again, we can only speculate as to what it was like before space and time and the universe existed.

Agree but what I have speculated is that God is endless, From beginning to HIS plan for eternal Life



We all agree on that. But if the heavens were created in Gen 1:1 then the firmament is not the heaven that was created in Gen 1:1.


Lost me on this, Why would you say this? Remember what is written about firmament .

Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

http://levendwater.org/companion/append5.html

It was more then just Jerusalem. It was the men of Judah and then again about how man is foolish. It was a God's paining heart concerning the continued error of their ways. It was their abominations that God wanted out of HIS sight. The same errors going on and on and on again. How long must the trumpets(alert) sound is blood shed and wickedness. God was speeching of man being foolish from as far back as the beginning...

The point is that it is a specific location.


The depth of what God's heart and words speak go beyond one moment or one location.

True, but God does give specific prophecies such as this for a specific location.


Agree but what I have speculated is that God is endless, From beginning to HIS plan for eternal Life

If you mean God is eternal, we don't need to speculate about that. But that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.




That is your claim and assumption, but that is not what scripture says.

[quote]Genesis 1:8 [/B]And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

This is verse 8, not verse 1 and is the second day not the first.

The point is that it is a specific location.


The point is much more then that..

The point is much more then that..

Nope.

A friend sent me a slide show of photos made through the Hubble telescope.

They were totally AWSOME, and I can not fully grasp the beauty and scope of our God's handiwork!

And then it hit me.

I was looking at those stars and nebulae as they existed thousands of years before Adam. To my mind, that comfirms a gap between Gen 1:1 and vs 2.

What do you say Tom?

John

A friend sent me a slide show of photos made through the Hubble telescope.

They were totally AWSOME, and I can not fully grasp the beauty and scope of our God's handiwork!

And then it hit me.

I was looking at those stars and nebulae as they existed thousands of years before Adam. To my mind, that comfirms a gap between Gen 1:1 and vs 2.

What do you say Tom?

John

No one doubts the beauty of the heavens. However, what in those photos proves that the stars existed thousands of years before Adam?

No one doubts the beauty of the heavens. However, what in those photos proves that the stars existed thousands of years before Adam?

The speed of light.

The speed of light.

I understand the speed of light - go on, please explain the rest of your assumptions.

I understand the speed of light - go on, please explain the rest of your assumptions.

Umm, unless you have evidence that these heavenly bodies are NOT more than 6,000 light years away, then they existed before Adam, by differing amounts of time. If it takes 10,000 years for light to reach us from some point in the universe, then we are presently looking at what was there 10,000 years ago.

I don't think I have ever head anyone argue against that idea.

Umm, unless you have evidence that these heavenly bodies are NOT more than 6,000 light years away, then they existed before Adam, by differing amounts of time. If it takes 10,000 years for light to reach us from some point in the universe, then we are presently looking at what was there 10,000 years ago.

I don't think I have ever head anyone argue against that idea.

Actually, there are a couple of arguments against that idea, both scientific and Biblical. First, God made light, so why would you think that he would wait for the light to reach us to show us His creation? Second, have you ever looked into the assumptions that are made to determine the distance that the stars are from us? There are only two ways to know the distance for sure, and those are (1) to travel and measure the distance, which is impossible, or (2) triangulate on the object with another object far enough from earth to be significant - which is also impossible.

So what is done is described in this document:

Estimating Distances across our Galaxy (http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/hr/hr.html)

I won't try to go into this in detail, but just to point out a couple of assumptions made with this approach which may or may not be true:

1) They establish the temperature of the star by the colour. The problem with this is that the colour varies according to the speed of the star relative to us. Unless we know the speed, we cannot be certain of the colour. This change in colour is commonly known as the "red shift". Often this red-shift is also used to determine the speed and direction of travel of the star relative to us, using additional assumptions, again, with respect to the colour of the star.

2) They say that the size of the star is related to the temperature, so they can determine the size and thus the distance by the brightness. Well, the assumption in the first comment above is one issue which can cause errors in that estimate, but also dust and other small objects in space can alter the apparent brightness, or possibly even the colour, thus causing further inaccuracies in the estimated distance.

This just gives you a bit of the flavour, but clearly even these two assumptions can cause significant differences in distance. Nonetheless, even with greater distances, that does not prove that the universe is older unless you can prove that God chose not to create light when he created heavens.

Keep in mind that in verse 3, God created light. It was not until verses 14-17 that the stars were created and then God set them in the firmament. The nearest star is 4 light years away, yet this light appeared in a day, not 4 years, so it was instantaneous. We have no reason to believe that God put the stars out there and then said let's let them wait billions of years to see the glory of the heavens. That is contrary to what God said in His word.

Now you can never again say that you have never heard anyone argue against that idea. ;)

Here's my problem, what has anyone offered as a result to the K-T extinction, when many species, including the dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and large marine reptiles, disappeared?

We acknowledge they did exist.. but when? If there is question in the years of age, then what does the opposed offer for answers?

I have offered my speculation. What else is possible?

Tom, thanks for the info.

Aren't we glad that none of this has anything to do with the plan of redemption?

Your reply suggests another theory, that of a universe centered around the Earth. That would make all the stars much closer to us than currently thought, as the triangulation would be based on Earth's diameter rather than its orbit.

There is some scripture to support this idea too.

Here's my problem, what has anyone offered as a result to the K-T extinction, when many species, including the dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and large marine reptiles, disappeared?

K-T?

The scientific evidence points to the flood. Read the literature and see how often the scientists say that the fossils which have been preserved died suddenly in a deluge such as a flood or similar massive disaster.

Tom, thanks for the info.

Aren't we glad that none of this has anything to do with the plan of redemption?

Amen.


Your reply suggests another theory, that of a universe centered around the Earth. That would make all the stars much closer to us than currently thought, as the triangulation would be based on Earth's diameter rather than its orbit.

There is some scripture to support this idea too.

The stars may be closer, but even if not, it would not be an issue. I do agree though, that the problems in getting an accurate estimate are immense. All it takes is one erroneous assumption to make a huge difference. And because all of our observations are from this relative timny grain of dust in the universe, we have very little hope of validating the assumptions.

Just think of all that science has learned in the past 50-100 years. I have a science book from the around the year 1900 which gave an overview of scientific understanding at that time in various areas of research. So much of what they believed to be true based upon what they had found at that time plus assumptions has had to be revised. How much more have we yet to discover?

K-T??

The scientific evidence points to the flood. Read the literature and see how often the scientists say that the fossils which have been preserved died suddenly in a deluge such as a flood or similar massive disaster.

Okay, then your speculation of dinosaurs and ape like man were the creation of Noah's time. Which would also put them in amoung life created on the sixth day.

Where I speculate that it was an existence before, and became void by the distruction caused in the trembled fall of satan's bondage from God.

Some people believe dinosaurs existed after the creation of the earth. One of their evidences is dinosaurs and mans footprints side by side dated the same eras.
If that is so, I think it would be that we can not understand this due to Hollywoods image of them in great abundance and violent. I am sure they were not something easily lived with but you know Hollywood.

Some people believe dinosaurs existed after the creation of the earth. One of their evidences is dinosaurs and mans footprints side by side dated the same eras.

That just tells me that indeed an apelike man walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. But I still don't think the apelike man was as man is today.

I would like to know what God meant by beast? I have searched alittle concerning the beast which is referenced like a companion to man.



If that is so, I think it would be that we can not understand this due to Hollywoods image of them in great abundance and violent. I am sure they were not something easily lived with but you know Hollywood.

Yeah, but I still think their size was enough to say Wow that's huge... and Sure isn't an animal I want to play ball with...

Why does it tell you an apelike man walked the earth. My point didn't have anything to do with ape or apeman. My point is that some believe that the dinosaur did exist after six day creation. That there may have only been a few hundred across certain areas of the earth but not an abundance that would have made man extinct.

why does it tell you an apelike man walked the earth. My point didn't have anything to do with ape or apeman. My point is that some believe that the dinosaur did exist after six day creation. That there may have only been a few hundred across certain areas of the earth but not an abundance that would have made man extinct.

Again science saying there was an existence of apelike man. Would the man's footprints mean man as we understand man of today? ( One of their evidences is dinosaurs and mans footprints side by side dated the same eras)

So do you have any idea what (beast of the earth after his kind) would mean? (Genesis 1:25)

I don't understand your point I am saying that some people believe dinosaurs and man existed after the six day creation.
You keep talking about the apeman. I do not believe Adam and Eve were apeman which is what you seem to be asking about.
But isn't the point I am making.

I don't understand your point I am saying that some people believe dinosaurs and man existed after the six day creation.

Which was the discuss that posted speculation between Tj3 and what I had said.



You keep talking about the apeman. I do not believe Adam and Eve were apeman

I don't either





But isn't the point I am making.

mans footprints side by side dated the same eras ... Noted as your point..

Okay, then your speculation of dinosaurs and ape like man were the creation of Noah's time. Which would also put them in amoung life created on the sixth day.

First, It is not my speculation, but the clear word of God taken literally. Second, they were the creation of the 6 days not Noah's time.


Where I speculate that it was an existence before, and became void by the distruction caused in the trembled fall of satan's bondage from God.

Now that is speculation. We know scripture says that everything was created in 6 days. Scripture nowhere says that there is a gap.

That just tells me that indeed an apelike man walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. But I still don't think the apelike man was as man is today.

So you believe in a modified form of evolution where there were different species of man - is that right?

Again science saying there was an existence of apelike man.

They have some evidence of apelike creatures. We have apelike creatures today. They are monkeys, apes, baboons, etc. Apelike does not mean that they were men. They could have been a species of ape if they were apelike. Further, you should examine carefully the actually findings and the assumptions upon which they creatures were extrapolated.

Even if mans stature was more ape appearance that does not mean they were ape like or even hairy. If their brain and skeleton was not exactly like ours today that doesn't make man any less man nor does it make him any more closer to the ape.

I do not believe in ape like man at all.
Ape like is just the evolutionists image.

So you believe in a modified form of evolution where there were different species of man - is that right?

I do not believe in the evolution.. If that was so then today as well it would be taking place. And I do not see any kind of monkey families being modified into men through generation growth.

Neither do I believe there was ever man prior to the 6 day creation of man.

I do not believe in the evolution.. If that was so then today as well it would be taking place. And I do not see any kind of monkey families being modified into men through generation growth.

Neither do I believe there was ever man prior to the 6 day creation of man.

Then when do you think that these so-called ape-men existed?

Even if mans stature was more ape appearance that does not mean they were ape like or even hairy. If their brain and skeleton was not exactly like ours today that doesn't make man any less man nor does it make him any more closer to the ape.

I do not believe in ape like man at all.
Ape like is just the evolutionists image.

Indeed! We see all sorts and shapes of people even today. Some diseases (i.e. ricketts) can cause deformities also that could make it appear that you were dealing with a person with a different skeletal structure. There was a show that I saw earlier this week about a disease that alters the skeleton.

Then when do you think that these so-called ape-men existed?


This goes back to some of the original posting. I reference them as beast/animal without communication skills of speech. And that sciene called them apelike men...

I speculate that they lived at the same time frame as the dinosaurs. Making both species years before the 6 day creation @ a time that was before the tremble of the earth which destroyed and made void what was before this earth age.

Have a good day...

Indeed! We see all sorts and shapes of people even today. Some diseases (i.e. ricketts) can cause deformities also that could make it appear that you were dealing with a person with a different skeletal structure. There was a show that I saw earlier this week about a disease that alters the skeleton.

Oh yeah I remember seeing a program on that years ago.

They may have been prehistoric and not knowledgeable as man after Adam and Eve
If they even existed at such a time but I still believe they were man and not ape type creatures.

I believe in the gap theory but I really do not believe that anything that existed from the pre creation was able to survive to the creation time.

This goes back to some of the original posting. I reference them as beast/animal without communication skills of speech. And that sciene called them apelike men...

I speculate that they lived at the same time frame as the dinosaurs. Making both species years before the 6 day creation @ a time that was before the tremble of the earth which destroyed and made void what was before this earth age.

Have a good day...

Ah yes, but now that adds in many assuptions:

- It adds the assumption that there was a gap
- It adds in the assumptions that this apelike beast was based upon (by evolutionist scientists)
- It assumes that dinosaurs existed before the 6 day creation.

And, I might add, though you suggest that this comes from scientific findings, it disagrees with what scientists currently conclude. Scientists currently conclude that apelike creatures first existed about 30millions years ago. while dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. If you are attributing the combined footprints to your apelike creatures, it won't fly because the timeframes, according to scientific assumptions, are wrong.

We could also look at the difference between ape and human footprints which I suspect would further hamper your theory.


The straight reading of the Bible regarding creation in 6 days addresses all the points and shows how dinosaurs would exist concurrently with humans.

Yeah I was thinking the ape like foot prints would be different than apes foot prints


I agree too much assumptions when it comes to evolution or ape like man stuff.

Ah yes, but now that adds in many assuptions:

- It adds the assumption that there was a gap

Yes I suppose it does from what has been said about the theory. However until this thread, I was not familiar with the gap theory.




- It adds in the assumptions that this apelike beast was based upon (by evolutionist scientists)

No, because as I said the existence was destroyed/void. What we have from the distruction is buried remains from the trembled earth. And what appears to be further washed over by water. From what scripture speaks of it was just water the spirit moved over in depth @ the beginning of creation.



- It assumes that dinosaurs existed before the 6 day creation.

Yes an earth age before 6 day creation




And, I might add, though you suggest that this comes from scientific findings, it disagrees with what scientists currently conclude. Scientists currently conclude that apelike creatures first existed about 30millions years ago., while dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. If you are attributing the combined footprints to your apelike creatures, it won't fly because the timeframes, according to scientific assumptions, are wrong.

We could also look at the difference between ape and human footprints which i suspect would further hamper your theory.

Here I can not agree or disagree, the scientic facts are where I fail to follow details. I was not aware that science research had them determined at different time periods. As for the impression of the foot print, it would be interesting to see it.

And it obviously means some type of human looking foot did existed at the same time frame correct? or is that just what Nohelp4u said? It would be the flip side of what you said was determine not possible by millions of year?



The straight reading of the Bible regarding creation in 6 days addresses all the points and shows how dinosaurs would exist concurrently with humans.

Reference please, I would like to read it

No, because as I said the existence was destroyed/void. What we have from the destruction is buried remains from the trembled earth. And what appears to be further washed over by water. From what scripture speaks of it was just water the spirit moved over in depth @ the beginning of creation.

Maybe you mis-understood what I was saying. Since you base your belief in this "apelike" beast upon what scientists have found, you also inherently bring into your theory the assumptions upon which these scintists have based their conclusion that there was an apelike man (whether destroyed or not).

Some of these assumtpions are huge. In one case an "apelike" man was concluded to exist based upon what later turned out to be a piece of the jawbone of a pig. In another it was based upon nothing more than a tooth. So just because a scientist may tell you that he believes that such a creature existed, the very existence of that creature is subject to a serious of sometimes incredible assumptions, the validty of which affects the validity of your theory regarding the source of these footprints.


Here I can not agree or disagree, the scientic facts are where I fail to follow details. I was not aware that science research had them determined at different times. As for the impression of the foot print, it would be interesting to see it.

I am not at home right now, but if I remember, I can post a link to a picture of it later.


And it obviously means some type of human looking foot did existed at the same time frame correct? Or is that just what Nohelp4u said? It would be the flip side of what you said was determine not possible by millions of year?

That is ciorrect. A human clearly existed at the same time as a dinosaur. If they were created in the 6 day timeframe that we find in Genesis, then they would co-exist because their creation would have been at the same time.



Reference please, I would like to read it

Why don't we discuss the descriptions of leviathan and behemoth found in scripture and see if these describe any known animal other than a dinosaur.

Random thoughts:

If Lucifer ruled before Gen 1, why would the inhabitants have to be inferior to men today?

Levithian could possibly be the crocodile, and behemoth could be the mammoth.

Mere possibilities.

I still think the words "created" and "made" signify two different things. Created would be to bring into existence something from nothing, while made would be to take materials arleady in existence and make something from that. We know that God made man from earth or red clay, which was already created at some previous time. The same could be said for Sun, Moon, and stars.

Random thoughts:

If Lucifer ruled before Gen 1, why would the inhabitants have to be inferior to men today?

And why would scripture tells us that death and sin began with Adam rather than earlier?

Rom 5:14-15
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
NKJV

1 Cor 15:22-23
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
NKJV

And why would God have abandoned all who came before, and only send His Son to die for the second round of mankind?


Levithian could possibly be the crocodile, and behemoth could be the mammoth.

Let's examine those possibilities:


Leviathan

Job 41:7-10
7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons,
Or his head with fishing spears?
8 Lay your hand on him;
Remember the battle--
Never do it again!
9 Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false;
Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him?
10 No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.
NKJV

Yes, one can fill his skin with harpoons, and yes men can overcome him. Ever watch the crocodile hunter?

Ps 104:26
26 There the ships sail about;
There is that Leviathan
Which You have made to play there.
NKJV

Isa 27:1
In that day the LORD with His severe sword, great and strong,
Will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent,
Leviathan that twisted serpent;
And He will slay the reptile that is in the sea.
NKJV

Crocs in the open sea?

Behemoth

Job 40:15-24
15 "Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar;

Tail like a cedar? Even seen the tail of a mammoth or elephant? They are tiny.

Mammoths: Giants of the Ice Age - Google Book Search (http://books.google.ca/books?id=_6WBlUwYPa8C&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=mammoth+tail&source=bl&ots=vbyfLKWNyk&sig=CHKk2iWQ18RCstO_u4X1kr-2GZ8&hl=en&ei=NgYOSsv-IImctgOfuLWKAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA86,M1)


The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.

We cannot speak directly with respect to the mammoth, but an elephant can be hunted and killed by men, and there is evidence that primitive men living in the far north did just that with the mammoths.



20 Surely the mountains yield food for him,
And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.

A mammoth hides in the reeds and marsh? Really?

22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;
The willows by the brook surround him.
23 Indeed the river may rage,
Yet he is not disturbed;
He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,
24 Though he takes it in his eyes,
Or one pierces his nose with a snare.
NKJV

The mammoth was wooly because it needed that insulation to survive in the extreme cold. It would be unlikely to exist in a tropical climate.

Mammoths: Giants of the Ice Age - Google Book Search (http://books.google.ca/books?id=_6WBlUwYPa8C&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=woolly+mammoth+tropics&source=bl&ots=vbyfLKWQsk&sig=rLhPitUL7bRoe1t7mBSUxbkBqXQ&hl=en&ei=JgcOSta9GJGKtgPGpqT6Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3)


I still think the words "created" and "made" signify two different things. Created would be to bring into existence something from nothing, while made would be to take materials arleady in existence and make something from that. We know that God made man from earth or red clay, which was already created at some previous time. The same could be said for Sun, Moon, and stars.

That would mean that God did not create the firmament:

Gen 1:7-8
7 Thus 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.
NKJV

Or the sun, moon and the stars:

Gen 1:16-17
16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
NKJV

Or the animals:

Gen 1:25
25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
NKJV

Or the heavens and the earth:

Gen 2:4
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
NKJV

And why would scripture tells us that death and sin began with Adam rather than earlier?



Because it is referring to THIS creation. If the earth existed prior to the 6 day creation sin before Eve is a different topic. But as I said, I really don't believe if man existed prior to the 6 day creation that that man survived to this creation.
Man and sin could not have come from the old to the new since it would not have been recreated in any sense.

Because it is refering to THIS creation. If the earth existed prior to the 6 day creation sin before Eve is a different topic. But as I said, I really don't believe if man existed prior to the 6 day creation that that man survived to this creation.
Man and sin could not have come from the old to the new since it would not have been recreated in any sense.


Let's look at one passage that I think has bearing on this question:

Rom 8:19-22
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
NKJV

So, if ALL creation groans because of sin, and if the prior civilization had to be destroyed because of sin, then sin was already in all creation prior to the 6 day creation.

That being the case, Adam and Eve were born into a universe which was not "good" as God declared it, but already corrupted by sin.

If not, then how was it cleared of sin the first time around? If Jesus died for the sins of those prior to the "gap", then why were they all exterminated? That would be inconsistent with what we see with God in the flood.

If Jesus died for their sins and cleansed all creation, then why would He need to die a second time for all creation? Was His first death not sufficient?

Do you see what I am getting at? One of my key concerns is that the gap theory strikes at the heart of the gospel message.

As for the impression of the foot print, it would be interesting to see it.
I am not at home right now, but if I remember, I can post a link to a picture of it later.

Here are some pictures for you:

Dinosaur and Human Co-existence: FOOTPRINTS (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm)

Here are a couple of particularly good examples:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/new-mexico-problematica-close-up-th.jpg
I tried posting the second image in this post and another, but dfor some reason, it does not show up - so here is the link to it:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/bur-track.htm

Deleted

Tom, your quptes from Job are well taken. We probably can't know what these animals were.
They weren't preserved on the ark for sure.

I am going to sum up what I think, and then unless someone presents some new idea, I probably won't come back to this, since we have begun to re-hash.

I base what I think on 3 words.

1. Created
2. Made

I believe that God is very specific in the words He uses, and the two words are different.

3. Replenish. God told Adam to replenish, and He told Noah to replenish. I can't believe it meant one thing to Adam and something different to Noah.

Now as to the plan of redemption.

There is no plan of redemption for the fallen angels, so why should we assume there would be for any pre-Adamites who were involved with Satan's rebellion?

I don't think I am any better because I think the gap theory has merit, nor do I think you are any worse for not thinking so.

I hope those visiting this discussion have found it interesting.

Tom, your quptes from Job are well taken. We probably can't know what these animals were.
They weren't preserved on the ark for sure.

What is your basis for saying that they were not preserved on the ark?

I am going to sum up what I think, and then unless someone presents some new idea, I probably won't come back to this, since we have begun to re-hash.


I base what I think on 3 words.

1. Created
2. Made

I believe that God is very specific in the words He uses, and the two words are different.

I dealt with this previously, and to say "amde" means something different causes other doctrinal issues.


3. Replenish. God told Adam to replenish, and He told Noah to replenish. I can't believe it meant one thing to Adam and something different to Noah.

This is a translation found only in a couple of translations, the KJV being one. The key problem with the KJV is that the language is obsolete and mis-understandings can result. It would be better to look at an updated translation also based on the Textus-Receptus manuscript, for instance the NKJV, which reads:

Gen 1:27-28
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
NKJV

Fill is a more accurate translation of the word in Hebrew. Here is the definition of the word "replenish"

================================================== =====
replenish
One entry found.

Main Entry:
re·plen·ish Listen to the pronunciation of replenish
Pronunciation:
\ri-ˈple-nish\
Function:
verb
Etymology:
Middle English replenisshen, from Anglo-French repleniss-, stem of replenir to fill, from re- + plein full, from Latin plenus — more at full
Date:
14th century

transitive verb1 a: to fill with persons or animals : stock barchaic : to supply fully : perfect c: to fill with inspiration or power : nourish2 a: to fill or build up again <replenished his glass> b: to make good : replaceintransitive verb: to become full : fill up again
================================================== ======

My source is Webster's Dictionary. Note that the archaic meaning (i.e. from the KJV) is to "supply fully", NOT to fill up again. Even today, both to fill OR to fill again are acceptable definitions.

So, since we are dealing with the archaic language, the proper translation, even not considering the context, would be "to supply fully" which negates the idea of a gap. This is in concert with the Hebrew word's meaning.


Now as to the plan of redemption.

There is no plan of redemption for the fallen angels, so why should we assume there would be for any pre-Adamites who were involved with Satan's rebellion?

The two problems that I mentioned still remain:

1) Inconsistency of God.

We God never changes but that theory requires that God changes.

John 3:15-19
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
NKJV

Did God NOT so love mankind beforehand and only so love mankind now? The argument about the angels is a different issue because the angels are a different creation, and I might add, not created in the image of God.

2) The Problem of Sin

If sin and death pre-existed Adam, then sin was already permeating all creation, thus it was not good as God declared it to be. A Holy God cannot abide sin, therefore a creation with sin in it could not be said to be good by God.

Scripture records a change in nature after Adam's sin, because sin and death entered, but the gap theory requires that both of those pre-existed Adam

To get sin out of nature would require a perfect sacrifice (Jesus), and if He died for the creation before to remove sin, then why would they all have been condemned? Why would that perfect sacrifice not have covered either that prior creation, nor us? And I say it did not cover us because Jesus, according to the gap theory, would have had to have died a second time.

Okay can you explain
Some say NOTHING existed before the 6 day creation, not even the angels. If nothing existed before 6 day creation when did God create the angels? And when and where was Satan cast?

Some say that heaven and the angels existed before 6 day creation and then Lucifer rebelled and was cast out of heaven. In Luke Jesus says, ''behold I saw Satan cast out of heaven''. They say before the 6 day creation happened the form of what became the earth was where satan was cast. If this is not true where was Satan cast?

Okay can you explain
some say NOTHING existed before the 6 day creation, not even the angels. If nothing existed before 6 day creation when did God create the angels? And when and where was Satan cast?

Some say that heaven and the angels existed before 6 day creation and then Lucifer rebelled and was cast out of heaven. In Luke Jesus says, ''behold I saw Satan cast out of heaven''. They say before the 6 day creation happened the form of what became the earth was where satan was cast. If this is not true where was Satan cast?

We have very little direct information from scripture on this point. Here is what we do have:

1) It appears that all creation took place in the 6 days. It appears that angels would be amongst that which was created during that timeframe, though I can see an argument against that point.

2) It appears from the book of Job that the angels were there when the earth was created:

Job 38:4-7
4 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
NKJV

That being the case, if the angels were created during the 6 days that heavens and earth were created (which seems probable, they were created on the 1st day.

As for when the rebellion occurred, that appears to have happened following the 6 day creation, and the reason that I say that is:

Rev 12:7-9
7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
NKJV

The earth existed at this time. It is not possible to state anything else about the timing because scripture does not tell us anything more. All we can see if that the rebellion occurred somewhere in the timeframe between Gen 1:1 and Gen 3:1.

As to leviathian and behemoth:

My mind was running in the idea of dinasaurs when I made the comment about not being on the ark. I was thinking that God could have been talking about some creatures that existed before Noah's flood, that Job could well have known of.

Of course, your are right, that could be a completely false assumption.

But then we have to accept that they existed in Job's day. As we have no record of any creatures of such size and importance becoming extinct duroing the last 4,000 years, they must still be with us. What do you think they might be?

When do you think the dinosaurs disappeared?

Satan was obviously already a fallen creature when he met Eve, and Eve and Adam had not yet sinned, so sin DID exist before Adam's time. How much before we don't know.

Actually, and this is only MY own theory, Sin originated in eternity past when Lucifer allowed pride to cause him to launch rebellon against God.

As long as it existed in eternity, it could not be eradicated, so God created a world system with a finite time frame in which to finally and toatlly eradicate sin from all the universe. We are a part of that plan. (I'm not asking you to buy this, it is just what I think)

You are asking us to believe that God created the heavens, Earth, angels, and then the arch angel rebelled, lost his position in heaven and was prepared to meet Eve in the garden all BEFORE she and Adam sinned withoug there being a gap between vs1 and vs2.

I doubt it.

But then we have to accept that they existed in Job's day. As we have no record of any creatures of such size and importance becoming extinct duroing the last 4,000 years, they must still be with us. What do you think they might be?


When do you think the dinosaurs disappeared?

First, there are likely many animals which have gone extinct, large and small, for which we have no record. Up until the last hundred or so years, there would not have been a lot of tracking of endangered species, nor would it have been possible to have known whether an animal no longer present in NA, for example, was present elsewhere. So the lack of a record of extinction really does not tell us anything.

As to what they may be, there are a number of possibilities, one of which may in be that they are still around. For example:

http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo/pictures/thing.gif

There are also on-going mysteries about the Loch Ness "monster". There are also large areas in Africa that remain unexplored. In one such area the local natives have told researchers about a large reptilian animal that sounds much like a dinosaur. They periodically find one and have occasion killed and eaten them.


You are asking us to believe that God created the heavens, Earth, angels, and then the arch angel rebelled, lost his position in heaven and was prepared to meet Eve in the garden all BEFORE she and Adam sinned withoug there being a gap between vs1 and vs2.

I doubt it.

There are many other things in scripture which, ignoring the supernatural, would be hard to believe. Yet we know that these things are true.

No. Satan was fallen before he met Eve. You cannot deny that.

Therefore, sin existed before Adam's fall.

No. Satan was fallen before he met Eve. You cannot deny that.

Therefore, sin existed before Adam's fall.

I did not say otherwise.

No. Satan was fallen before he met Eve. You cannot deny that.

Therefore, sin existed before Adam's fall.

Yep that is ONE reason why I believe there is more before the creation days.

Yep that is ONE reason why I believe there is more before the creation days.

And why does that suggest that there must be more time that a simple reading reading of scripture would suggest? I don't understand the reasoning. Please clarify.

Some people here claim that nothing existed before creation. They say God created the angels during the 6 day creation.
Others say there were the angels and satan's fall. They say satan was cast down and lived on what we now know as earth but it was in a prior form. God can recreate something so they believe that the earth existed in basic form where satan and the dinosaurs lived and the pyramids were made, until he did the 6 day creation.
He says he takes us who were sin and cast away or sin so why couldn't he take a basic rock form and regenerate it into what we now know as the earth?

Some people here claim that nothing existed before creation.

Remember - time itself is a creation, so how can we talk about "before"? That is on the timeline. God is not on our timeline.


They say God created the angels during the 6 day creation.
Others say there were the angels and satan's fall. They say satan was cast down and lived on what we now know as earth but it was in a prior form.

When we are speaking about things where scripture is not explicit, we cannot be dogmatic.


God can recreate something so they believe that the earth existed in basic form where satan and the dinosaurs lived and the pyramids were made, until he did the 6 day creation.
He says he takes us who were sin and cast away or sin so why couldn't he take a basic rock form and regenerate it into what we now know as the earth?

Whether he "coul;d" or not is not the question. The question is did he?

Also, I still don't see why, if Satan fell before Eve, that is a problem with a 6 day creation. That what the specific question that I was asking right now.

[QUOTE=Tj3;1753646]Remember - time itself is a creation, so how can we talk about "before"? That is on the timeline. God is not on our timeline.

Not saying God is on our timeline. But either the angels existed before creation and time or they did not. My point was that some people here have said that absolutely nothing existed before creation other than God himself so when and where did the angels come in?
Before Gen 1:1 or after?

When we are speaking about things where scripture is not explicit, we cannot be dogmatic.

Whether he "coul;d" or not is not the question. The question is did he?

I'm not trying to be dogmatic or questioning I just like picturing what might it been like


Also, I still don't see why, if Satan fell before Eve, that is a problem with a 6 day creation. That what the specific question that I was asking right now.

I am not saying there is a problem with Satan falling before Eve because obviously he did.
Not sure what you are saying you are asking on that one.

Not saying God is on our timeline. But either the angels existed before creation and time or they did not. My point was that some people here have said that absolutely nothing existed before creation other than God himself so when and where did the angels come in?
Before Gen 1:1 or after?

I already responded to that in an earlier post with a detailed answer of what we find in scripture. I am not entirely clear on what this has to do with the topic at hand, though.


I am not saying there is a problem with Satan falling before Eve because obviously he did.
Not sure what you are saying you are asking on that one.

This was brought up by someone else claiming that this was a reason for believing in the gap theory. I don't understand why. And if that was not the reason for raising this point, then how does it relate to the topic at hand?

I agree with you there is no conflict, but you have to agree something unique happened six thousand years ago to cause mankind to emerge from darkness. Whether it took a long time or a short time to bring the Earth to what we know now, God tells us he took the dust of the Earth to make man, he didn't tell us what form that dust took, think seriously about it, there is evidence the Earth has existed for a long time but there is no real evidence mankind has been around for very long

I agree with you there is no conflict, but you have to agree something unique happened six thousand years ago to cause mankind to emerge from darkness. Whether it took a long time or a short time to bring the Earth to what we know now, God tells us he took the dust of the Earth to make man, he didn't tell us what form that dust took, think seriously about it, there is evidence the Earth has existed for a long time but there is no real evidence mankind has been around for very long

Modern man has been around from 100,000 to 250,000 years. That's longer than your 10,000 year Adam and Eve fairytale.

Modern man has been around from 100,000 to 250,000 years. That's longer than your 10,000 year Adam and Eve fairytale.

Really, where did you get that "fact" from? There are some who would say it started in Africa over one million years ago but I haven't heard your theory. The Australian Aborigine is said to have been in Australia for 40,000 years but we have no evidence that large populations existed anywhere even that long ago. The reality is we have only theory about what existed before man began recording history and the rate of development since then is astronomical, so the question remains; what could possibly have been going on for eons? The Earth is not such a harsh place that development couldn't have taken place. We are expected to believe that mankind is essentially lazy and did nothing for hundreds of thousands of years. It beggars belief!

My working hypothesis is that there is no conflict between scientific estimates of the age of Earth and the Bible.

This is a bold statement so perhaps we should hear your theories which reconcile the biblical creationist view and the scientific view. And please let's stick to facts not theory.:)

This is a bold statement so perhaps we should hear your theories which reconcile the biblical creationist view and the scientific view. And please let's stick to facts not theory.:)

Most have been addressed already in this thread.

My contention is that true science cannot disagree with the Bible, because the Bible is true, understanding that we do have to get to the original meaning of various details.

If you have something specific in mind, we can discuss that.

Most have been addressed already in this thread.

My contention is that true science cannot disagree with the Bible, because the Bible is true, understanding that we do have to get to the original meaning of various details.

If you have something specific in mind, we can discuss that.

As I though theory

As I though theory

If you disagree, state your case and we will debate it.

Now don't take everything at once, but name the specific place where you feel there is a disagreement between the Bible and science, (not theories).

If you disagree, state your case and we will debate it.

Now don't take everything at once, but name the specific place where you feel there is a disagreement between the Bible and science, (not theories).

I'm not making the running for you, buddy, you made a statement and you need to defend it with evidence but let's start with Genesis Chapter 1 and obvious difference The Bible does not assume a creation period of millions of years

I'm not making the running for you, buddy, you made a statement and you need to defend it with evidence but let's start with Genesis Chapter 1 and obvious difference The Bible does not assume a creation period of millions of years

That's true. How do you answer the evidence for more than 6,000 years of history?

You will say that God created everything with that evidence built in. I would not argue against that because I know that He can do what He pleases.

But if something IS demonstrated as fact, and it seems to contradict our UNDERSTANDING of what Scripture says, then we should ba able to re-think. If our re-thinking conflicts with other Scripture, then obviously what was assumed to be fact is not fact. On the other hand, maybe we have THOUGHT the Bible said something that it did not really say.

Here is an example from a different Scripture that may illustrate what I am talking about.

Heb 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(KJV)

This is an accurate statement from a scientific viewpoint.

Since we have learned that the visible universe is made up of atomic and sub-atomic particles, we now know that this Scripture is literally true.

As to the gap theory, TJ3 and I debated that pretty fully earlier in this thread.

Really, where did you get that "fact" from? There are some who would say it started in Africa over one million years ago but I haven't heard your theory. The Australian Aborigine is said to have been in Australia for 40,000 years but we have no evidence that large populations existed anywhere even that long ago. the reality is we have only theory about what existed before man began recording history and the rate of development since then is astronomical, so the question remains; what could possibly have been going on for eons? The Earth is not such a harsh place that development couldn't have taken place. We are expected to believe that mankind is essentially lazy and did nothing for hundreds of thousands of years. It beggars belief!

I rely on what the best science has to offer, which is as I said an age of modern man of 100,000 -250,000 years. Sorry if this doesn't fit with your pathetic little adam and eve fairytale and 6 day creation myth. You've embraced mythology and are trying to modernize it and make it fit when science is proving it wrong. It is obvious. You might as well be reading the Book of Mormon.

I rely on what the best science has to offer, which is as I said an age of modern man of 100,000 -250,000 years. Sorry if this doesn't fit with your pathetic little adam and eve fairytale and 6 day creation myth. You've embraced mythology and are trying to modernize it and make it fit when science is proving it wrong. It is obvious. You might as well be reading the Book of Mormon.

Present your evidence that the Bible record of Adam and Eve is a "fairytale".

After you have done that, explain Hebrews 11:3. How did the author know that bit of scientific fact?

I'm not going to let you tiptoe around this. You can either present your evidence, or show that you are full of hot air.

I rely on what the best science has to offer, which is as I said an age of modern man of 100,000 -250,000 years. Sorry if this doesn't fit with your pathetic little adam and eve fairytale and 6 day creation myth. You've embraced mythology and are trying to modernize it and make it fit when science is proving it wrong. It is obvious. You might as well be reading the Book of Mormon.

Do you even read what is written? Who said anything about Adam and Eve? What I said is that the myth that man has been around for thousands even millions of years is unsubstantiated by the facts of what man is. Intelligent, inventive, adaptive and a builder. Where are all the buildings, the indications of even rudamentary civilisation, they aren't there, so it is possible, and not unscientific, to suggest something else was going on.

You really do need to get off your anti-Christian gig and realise that there are others who also don't think as you do. In fact, I would say, about 98% of all the people who have ever lived, and the majority can't be wrong

Present your evidence that the Bible record of Adam and Eve is a "fairytale".

After you have done that, explain Hebrews 11:3. How did the author know that bit of scientific fact?

I'm not going to let you tiptoe around this. You can either present your evidence, or show that you are full of hot air.

I'm not going to read some bible quote. No thanks. The bible proves nothing. Even if I had a bible in the house I'd toss it in the garbage.

Let me put it another way. I don't think it is fair to ask me to explain quotes from a book I don't accept as true. It would be like a Mormon asking you to explain something in the Book of Mormon. You're not going to run out and find a Book of Mormon and then try to analyze some passage you don't accept as true to begin with. You can explain yourself without asking me to read something from the bible.

I'm not going to read some bible quote. No thanks. The bible proves nothing. Even if I had a bible in the house I'd toss it in the garbage.

Let me put it another way. I don't think it is fair to ask me to explain quotes from a book I don't accept as true. It would be like a Mormon asking you to explain something in the Book of Mormon. You're not going to run out and find a Book of Mormon and then try to analyze some passage you don't accept as true to begin with. You can explain yourself without asking me to read something from the bible.

You're heavy on this Book of Mormon thing eh? Did the Mormons tell you some facts you didn't like? If you don't want to hear what you do not like, why are you debating the issues? You know we won't change our opinion, because we can't, to do so would be to deny God's word. You kick against the goad, instead of taking yourself out of range.. The Bible isn't garbage because it expresses views you don't like, God judged Sodom and Gamorrah, that should tell you something. It should tell you he is radically opposed to homosexual practices and corrupt lifestyles. There are not many cities he destroyed outright. What the Bible tells you is this happened and no amount of continuing as they were saved them, they were not even given the opportunity to repent even though Abraham pleaded for the city. It doesn't say that people with homosexual tendencies cannot be used by God. Jehu used eunics to destroy Jezabel, but that the lifestyle isn't on, no matter what the people think. So you know this is what we believe. That is the way it is

you're heavy on this Book of Mormon thing eh? did the Mormons tell you some facts you didn't like? If you don't want to hear what you do not like, why are you debating the issues? you know we won't change our opinion, because we can't, to do so would be to deny God's word. you kick against the goad, instead of taking yourself out of range.. The Bible isn't garbage because it expresses views you don't like, God judged Sodom and Gamorrah, that should tell you something. It should tell you he is radically opposed to homosexual practices and corrupt lifestyles. There are not many cities he destroyed outright. What the Bible tells you is this happened and no amount of continuing as they were saved them, they were not even given the opportunity to repent even though Abraham pleaded for the city. It doesn't say that people with homosexual tendencies cannot be used by God. Jehu used eunics to destroy Jezabel, but that the lifestyle isn't on, no matter what the people think. So you know this is what we believe. That is the way it is

First, there was no Sodom and Gomorrah. That's a fable. There's no proof that these mythical places ever existed let alone that your god destroyed them, or that he even exists. So get over it. You are living in la-la-land.

Next, the Book of Mormon is a nice example of a made-up religious text. It's a lot like the bible, but since it's of more recent origin it's seems to many to be easier to disprove. Nonetheless, both the bible and the Book of Mormon are just man-made fairy tales. There might be bits and pieces of historical truth in either but they are just made up for the most part and phony.

Just as I thought.

Caddie has no proof, not even a respectable argument, so he spouts vitriolic nonsense and evades any issues.

Way to go!

Just as I thought.

Caddie has no proof, not even a respectable argument, so he spouts vitriolic nonsense and evades any issues.

Way to go!

Well, if you are going to tell me that Sodom and Gomorrah existed, not to mention that your god destroyed them, who has the burden of proof? I don't have any reason to believe any of this is true. You cannot just pull your King James bible out and call that proof. And if you do (and when you do) who's really evading the argument?

Do you feel the need to disprove the Book of Mormon? I don't and I doubt very much you do. The bible is no different in this respect.

Actually, there are a couple of arguments against that idea, both scientific and Biblical. First, God made light, so why would you think that he would wait for the light to reach us to show us His creation? Second, have you ever looked into the assumptions that are made to determine the distance that the stars are from us? There are only two ways to know the distance for sure, and those are (1) to travel and measure the distance, which is impossible, or (2) triangulate on the object with another object far enough from earth to be significant - which is also impossible.

So what is done is described in this document:

Estimating Distances across our Galaxy (http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/hr/hr.html)

I won't try to go into this in detail, but just to point out a couple of assumptions made with this approach which may or may not be true:

1) They establish the temperature of the star by the colour. The problem with this is that the colour varies according to the speed of the star relative to us. Unless we know the speed, we cannot be certain of the colour. This change in colour is commonly known as the "red shift". Often this red-shift is also used to determine the speed and direction of travel of the star relative to us, using additional assumptions, again, with respect to the colour of the star.

2) They say that the size of the star is related to the temperature, so they can determine the size and thus the distance by the brightness. Well, the assumption in the first comment above is one issue which can cause errors in that estimate, but also dust and other small objects in space can alter the apparent brightness, or possibly even the colour, thus causing further inaccuracies in the estimated distance.

This just gives you a bit of the flavour, but clearly even these two assumptions can cause significant differences in distance. Nonetheless, even with greater distances, that does not prove that the universe is older unless you can prove that God chose not to create light when he created heavens.

Keep in mind that in verse 3, God created light. It was not until verses 14-17 that the stars were created and then God set them in the firmament. The nearest star is 4 light years away, yet this light appeared in a day, not 4 years, so it was instantaneous. We have no reason to believe that God put the stars out there and then said let's let them wait billions of years to see the glory of the heavens. that is contrary to what God said in His word.

Now you can never again say that you have never heard anyone argue against that idea. ;)

Regarding your scientific argument against the idea presented by galveston.

Firstly, your assertion that triangulation is impossible is plainly false. Stellar parallax were first calculated by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 and with the planned GAIA and SIM missions, distances of up to 100 000 light years will be accurately determined.

Parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax)
Limits to Parallax (http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/parallaxlimits.html)

Secondly, the redshift of a star is easily determined by observing the absorption lines in the optical spectrum of the star. This is then used to correct the colour of the star and therefore establish its temperature.

Redshift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift)

Thirdly, your assertion about dust implies that scientists cannot determine that there is any dust between us and the star we are looking at. This is plainly false as dust clouds can easily be detected. They are called Nebulae.

Nebula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula)

Fourthly, galveston made a poor choice using 10 000 light years as his example. This is too close to 6000 which leads to the impression that maybe inaccuracies in calculations can account for this. In reality the size of the universe is estimated by scientists to be over 14 billion (14 000 million) light years. This is over 200 000 000 % more that 6000. Surely you are not suggesting that scientists could be this far out in their calculations?

Finally all of the above is academic given that there is one undeniable and irrefutable proof that the universe is far bigger than 6000 light years suggested by YEC. SN 1987A was a supernova in the outskirts of the Tarantula Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a nearby dwarf galaxy which was observed on February 23, 1987. There was nothing unusual about the supernova until about 8 months later when the expanding shockwave of light hit rings of gas surrounding it causing the rings to glow.

Given that scientists know exactly how long it took for the light to reach the gas rings and can measure the rings' angular size accurately, simple triangulation is possible which places SN1987A 168,000 light-years away!

SN1987A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A)

This leaves only the Biblical argument that God made the light from a distant star appear instantaneously, but even this argument is seriously flawed!

Once again, let us consider SN1987A. According to YEC the star that became SN1987A was created 6000 years ago. Tj3 suggests that God made the light from this star instantly appear to be visible on Earth. To do this God must have created a light wave 168,000 light-years long stretching from Earth all the way back to the star in the Large Magellanic Cloud.

Now let us ‘freeze’ this light wave at the moment of its creation so as to enable us to look more closely at it. Starting from the Earth’s end imagine travelling two light days along this wave away from the Earth. At this point in space we see the light that Adam would see when he was created two days later.

Continuing along the wave we travel a further 1700 light years. At this point in space we see the light that Noah would see sometime after the Flood. Travelling a further 2300 light years we reach the point in space where the light that Mary would see the night Jesus was born, is found.

Another 1987 light years along this path we reach a point in space where the light no longer is that of a star but of a supernova. This is the light that astronomers saw on February 23, 1987. A further 8 light months along this path we reach the point where the light now shows three rings around the supernova suddenly brighten. A further 22 light years along brings us to the place where the light we see today is.

So far we have travelled only along 6000 light years out of the 168,000 light years to where the star is so let us continue right to the end of this light wave and travel 168,000 light years from Earth. What do we find at this point in space? Nothing! The star is not here. The supernova is not here! At this place is the light that will reach the Earth in 162,000 AD, and by that time the rings will have expanded greatly away from this point.

What does this all mean? It means that the star never existed in the first place as too the supernova. All of what we are seeing never happened! God did not create the star, but merely the phantom of a star.

Psalm 19.1: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

What glory is there for God who doesn’t create the real thing but only an imaginary one?

Either God is a trickster who deceives his creation or He did not instantaneously create the light from distant stars to be visible on Earth.

Well, if you are going to tell me that Sodom and Gomorrah existed, not to mention that your god destroyed them, who has the burden of proof? I don't have any reason to believe any of this is true. You cannot just pull your King James bible out and call that proof. And if you do (and when you do) who's really evading the argument?

Do you feel the need to disprove the Book of Mormon? I don't and I doubt very much you do. The bible is no different in this respect.

Why do you think ancient profane history is any better supported than Biblical history?

Regarding your scientifc argument against the idea presented by galveston.

Firstly, your assertion that triangulation is impossible is plainly false. Stellar parallax were first calculated by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 and with the planned GAIA and SIM missions, distances of up to 100 000 lightyears will be accurately determined.

Parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax)
Limits to Parallax (http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/parallaxlimits.html)

Secondly, the redshift of a star is easily determined by observing the absorption lines in the optical spectrum of the star. This is then used to correct the colour of the star and therefore establish its temperature.

Redshift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift)

Thirdly, your assertion about dust implies that scientists cannot determine that there is any dust between us and the star we are looking at. This is plainly false as dust clouds can easily be detected. They are called Nebulae.

Nebula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula)

Fourthly, galveston made a poor choice using 10 000 light years as his example. This is too close to 6000 which leads to the impression that maybe inaccuracies in calculations can account for this. In reality the size of the universe is estimated by scientists to be over 14 billion (14 000 million) light years. This is over 200 000 000 % more that 6000. Surely you are not suggesting that scientists could be this far out in their calculations?!

Finally all of the above is academic given that there is one undeniable and irrefutable proof that the universe is far bigger than 6000 light years suggested by YEC. SN 1987A was a supernova in the outskirts of the Tarantula Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a nearby dwarf galaxy which was observed on February 23, 1987. There was nothing unusual about the supernova until about 8 months later when the expanding shockwave of light hit rings of gas surrounding it causing the rings to glow.

Given that scientists know exactly how long it took for the light to reach the gas rings and can measure the rings' angular size accurately, simple triangulation is possible which places SN1987A 168,000 light-years away!

SN1987A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A)

This leaves only the Biblical argument that God made the light from a distant star appear instantaneously, but even this argument is seriously flawed!

Once again, let us consider SN1987A. According to YEC the star that became SN1987A was created 6000 years ago. Tj3 suggests that God made the light from this star instantly appear to be visible on Earth. To do this God must have created a light wave 168,000 light-years long stretching from Earth all the way back to the star in the Large Magellanic Cloud.

Now let us ‘freeze’ this light wave at the moment of its creation so as to enable us to look more closely at it. Starting from the Earth’s end imagine travelling two light days along this wave away from the Earth. At this point in space we see the light that Adam would see when he was created two days later.

Continuing along the wave we travel a further 1700 light years. At this point in space we see the light that Noah would see sometime after the Flood. Travelling a further 2300 light years we reach the point in space where the light that Mary would see the night Jesus was born, is found.

Another 1987 light years along this path we reach a point in space where the light no longer is that of a star but of a supernova. This is the light that astronomers saw on February 23, 1987. A further 8 light months along this path we reach the point where the light now shows three rings around the supernova suddenly brighten. A further 22 light years along brings us to the place where the light we see today is.

So far we have travelled only along 6000 light years out of the 168,000 light years to where the star is so let us continue right to the end of this light wave and travel 168,000 light years from Earth. What do we find at this point in space? Nothing! The star is not here. The supernova is not here! At this place is the light that will reach the Earth in 162,000 AD, and by that time the rings will have expanded greatly away from this point.

What does this all mean? It means that the star never existed in the first place as too the supernova. All of what we are seeing never happened!! God did not create the star, but merely the phantom of a star.

Psalm 19.1: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

What glory is there for God who doesn’t create the real thing but only an imaginary one?

Either God is a trickster who deceives his creation or He did not instantaneously create the light from distant stars to be visible on Earth.

Thank you for the post. Interesting reading.

Why do you think ancient profane history is any better supported than Biblical history?

I find no reason to believe biblical history to be true and that was the premise you were operating under.

I find no reason to believe biblical history to be true and that was the premise you were operating under.

The Way of the Master (http://www.wayofthemaster.com/evolution.shtml)

Hi Gal,

In response to your OP, my favorite source is the works of Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of "Genesis & The Big Bang". I will link you to his article regarding the Age of the Universe.

Please note, however, that his perspective is Orthodox Jewish as well as being that of a physicist and earth scientist with PhDs from MIT. He also has a chemical engineering degree from MIT. So the article references both Jewish sources and scientific sources.

Gerald Schroeder - Age of the Universe (http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx)

His basic thesis is that when science determines the age of the universe to be roughly 15 million years, and the Bible determines the age of the universe to be 5770 years (in the Jewish Calender), BOTH of these are true. And he has a convincing argument for the fact that both can be true... depending on your perspective at the time of creation.

It's a great article. Let me know what you think of it.

Caddilac, you might also enjoy the article, whether you agree with it or not. I recommend it highly.

Have fun.

Elliot

You're right, Elliot, great article. I'll admit that I don't have the background to fully understand it.

My OP is based on the fact that I do believe that the Bible is accurate in all points.

For Caddie's info, when the Dead Sea dries up, we will find the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Way of the Master (http://www.wayofthemaster.com/evolution.shtml)

What is that website, some kind of joke? Intelligent design? That's a laugh.

Another thought:

Eve was created out of the "rib" of Adam. The Hebrew word could just as easily have been translated "cell", which makes sense to us now although not at the time it was translated.

On this basis, we will learn that it is possible to obtain female dna from male dna.

As a Christian and a scientist, I have found myself in the middle of many debates about The Bible versus science. In my experience I have found that people fall into four different groups. The first two groups are on opposite ends of the spectrum and are generally impossible to hold any reasonable discussion with as they are so convinced that they are right that they are unwilling even to listen to another point of view. While the last two groups hold positions in the middle.

The first group are the Creationists. They believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and thus in a 6000 year old Earth and absolutely reject any scientific theory or evidence which suggests otherwise.

The second group are the "Evolutionists" as called by the Creationists. They believe in the Big Bang, evolution and accept only that which can be scientifically tested. They reject the Bible as a mere story which contains nothing of value.

The third group, which takes in middle position are the "Theistic Evolutionists", those that believe that God is the creator but that he created the universe according to the theories of science, i.e. the Big Bang and Evolution. They see the Bible as containing moral and religious truths but no scientific truth.

The fourth group, which I once thought that I was the only member, I called the "Creation Evolutionists". We believe that both the Biblical account of Creation in the Bible and the scientific account i.e. the Big Bang and evolution are both correct. We have no trouble accepting that the universe is both 6000 years old and 15 billion years old. Einstein's theories of relativity enables this apparent contradiction to be true!

When I read Dr. Gerald Schroeder's book "Genesis and the Big Bang" I knew that I was correct about The Bible and science both describing the same reality, just from a different perspective.

As stated in a previous posting Dr. Gerald Schroeder quotes from Jewish Biblical scholars who wrote their commentaries on the Old Testament between the 11th and 13th century. The following is a list of some of the “facts” about the universe that they determined solely based and what was in the Bible. The date in brackets represents when modern science determined these “facts”.

The universe has a beginning (1940’s)
The universe was created out of nothing (1940’s)
Space is expanding (1940’s)
The universe is 11 dimensional (1990’s)
Into the Eleventh Dimension (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dimens.htm)


If the above are not convincing enough that the Bible is not merely a fairy tale written by ignorant people consider the following.

Genesis 1:3-4
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

Light was the first thing to be created but it was tangled with the darkness, God then separated the light from the darkness.

This is exactly what scientists describe the initial moments of the Big Bang to be! In the instant after the Big Bang there existed only two things in the universe photons of light and electrons/positrons, but because the universe was so dense with these the photons and electrons were constantly interacting and so the universe was dark. A short moment later when the universe had expanded some more photons and electron decoupled (separated) and from that moment onwards light could be seen in the universe!

As a Christian and a scientist, I have found myself in the middle of many debates about The Bible versus science. In my experience I have found that people fall into four different groups. The first two groups are on opposite ends of the spectrum and are generally impossible to hold any reasonable discussion with as they are so convinced that they are right that they are unwilling even to listen to another point of view. While the last two groups hold positions in the middle.

The first group are the Creationists. They believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and thus in a 6000 year old Earth and absolutely reject any scientific theory or evidence which suggests otherwise.

The second group are the "Evolutionists" as called by the Creationists. They believe in the Big Bang, evolution and accept only that which can be scientifically tested. They reject the Bible as a mere story which contains nothing of value.

The third group, which takes in middle position are the "Theistic Evolutionists", those that believe that God is the creator but that he created the universe according to the theories of science, ie the Big Bang and Evolution. They see the Bible as containing moral and religious truths but no scientific truth.

The fourth group, which I once thought that I was the only member, I called the "Creation Evolutionists". We believe that both the Biblical account of Creation in the Bible and the scientific account ie the Big Bang and evolution are both correct. We have no trouble accepting that the universe is both 6000 years old and 15 billion years old. Einstein's theories of relativity enables this apparent contradiction to be true!

When I read Dr. Gerald Schroeder's book "Genesis and the Big Bang" I knew that I was correct about The Bible and science both describing the same reality, just from a different perspective.

As stated in a previous posting Dr. Gerald Schroeder quotes from Jewish Biblical scholars who wrote their commentaries on the Old Testament between the 11th and 13th century. The following is a list of some of the “facts” about the universe that they determined solely based and what was in the Bible. The date in brackets represents when modern science determined these “facts”.

The universe has a beginning (1940’s)
The universe was created out of nothing (1940’s)
Space is expanding (1940’s)
The universe is 11 dimensional (1990’s)
Into the Eleventh Dimension (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dimens.htm)


If the above are not convincing enough that the Bible is not merely a fairy tale written by ignorant people consider the following.

Genesis 1:3-4
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

Light was the first thing to be created but it was tangled with the darkness, God then separated the light from the darkness.

This is exactly what scientists describe the initial moments of the Big Bang to be!! In the instant after the Big Bang there existed only two things in the universe photons of light and electrons/positrons, but because the universe was so dense with these the photons and electrons were constantly interacting and so the universe was dark. A short moment later when the universe had expanded some more photons and electron decoupled (separated) and from that moment onwards light could be seen in the universe!

Elscarta, I have never heard the term "Creation Evolutionist" before, but it is a good description of the position that I favor... that both the biblical account and the scientific account of creation are true.

Furthermore, it would seem that Maimonides (1135 -1204) held the same basic opinion. Maimonides was a Jewish Rabbi, scholar and biblical/talmudic comentator of Spanish origin, though he moved to Morocco in the 1140s. He was also a scientist and physician. He was a member of the royal court in Egypt, and was the personal physician of Sultan Saladin and then the Sultan's family.

In one of his writings called "Moreh Nevuchim" ("Guide to the Perplexed"), Maimonides explained that science and the Bible are in complete agreement with regard to the nature of "the genesis of the universe", and that where science seems to disagree with the Biblical account, it is because we either do not correctly understand the science or because we do not properly understand the Bible. Maimonides was very much a rationalist who believed that BOTH accounts, the scientific and the biblical, are true and in complete agreement with each other.

I guess that makes Maimonides one of the earliest examples of a "Creation Evolutionist" as you call it.

I happen to fit the bill myself, and I know many others who seem to agree with that position. Dr. Schroeder is probably the most highly scientifically trained Orthodox Jew with that opinion, but he is far from the sole holder of that opinion among the Jewish people. There have been quite a few Jewish scholars and Jewish scientists throughout history that have held that position. Nahmanides, who lived shortly after Maimonides and was also a physician, actually seems to describe the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe in his commentaries on the Bible. Gershonides, an astronomer, also seemed to be reconciling the biblical account with the scientific understanding of his time. The list is long.

You are not alone...

Elliot

Finally some believable information from persons of great intellect and reason.

I Have a few concerns with elscarta's account of:-
(a) The universe has a beginning (1940's)
(b) The universe was created out of nothing(1940's
(c) Space is expanding (1940's)
(d) The universe is 11 dimensional (1990's)

Is that (d) preclude (a) and (b)

The problem with saying that the universe started with The Big Bang is that (d) String Theory does away with the need for The Big Bang.

Elscarta's account (a through to d ) is a history of science account. A religious account should not be paradigmatic.

The other problem is that it is possible that all accounts(a through to d ) may turn out to be incorrect.

I would be interested in elscarta's thoughts on the matter, or anyone else for that matter... Thanks Tut

elscarta quote
As stated in a previous posting Dr. Gerald Schroeder quotes from the Biblical Scholars who wrote their commentaries on the Old Testament between the 11th and 13th century.
The following is a list of "facts" about the universe that they determined solely based on what was in the Bible. The date in brackets represents when modern science determined these facts.

(a) The universe has a beginning (1940's)
(b) The universe was created out of nothing(1940's)
(c) Space is expanding (1940's)
(d) The universe is 11 dimensional (1990's)
My use of letters a,b,c,d.

As there has been no reply to my previous post I will attempt to expand on the matter.
The problem is that (a) and (b) don't sit comfortably together. If (d) is correct (which it may or may not be) then there are problems. The reason being is that in String Theory there is no beginning of the universe and no first cause. String Theory suggests that time and space have always existed in one dimension or another. There was a Big Bang but this is more a collision of dimensions. If (d) turns out to be true then we have to discard (a) and (b).

If (a) and (b) turn out to be true then we have to discard (d). But this won't solve the problem. As far as science is concerned there have always been competing theories. The classical example is Einstein's Relativity versus Quantum Mechanics. This is not a problem because one theory will be favored over the other. The other possibility is that the two theories will merge and form a new theory.
While this is not a problem for science it a problem for religion.
If we want to say the two theories parallel each other then we have to say that religion like science has gone through a paradigm shift (a to d)
Clearly this will not do because if we say that the Biblical account is also a paradigm shift then the Bible is reduced to nothing more than an outdated text ( which it is not).

Any suggestions.. Tut

Regarding Tut's concerns. Firstly let me clarify a few things. Since God is Truth then His Word, The Bible is also Truth and the Universe (Creation) His Work, is also Truth too. So I do not see any conflict between God's Word and His Work.

On the other hand, science is man's attempt to understand God's Work, and, as it is based on imperfect humans, is capable of being flawed. Theology is man's attempt to understand God's Word, and, as it is also based on imperfect humans, is capable of being flawed!

Tut's concern about paradigm shifts are unfounded as they do not apply to The Bible, rather our interpretation of the Bible, just as paradigm shifts in science do not apply to the Universe, rather our understanding of the Universe. Points (a) to (d) in my previous post were 11th - 13th century Jewish scholars interpretation of the Bible, not direct quotes out of the Bible!

My understanding of M-Theory (which is the 11-D thoery which encompasses all 5 competing Superstring theories) is that our current Universe started when two branes collided. Also that no information regarding what was in the "previous" universe can pass through the colliding branes into our Universe, even to the point that the "previous" universe could have had different values for physical constants such as the speed of light etc.

My question is therefore how do we know if there were any previous collisions? Our Universe may have been the first!

I have to admit that I am completely ignorant of quantum mechanics, string theory and quantum connectedness theory. I have read some stuff on these subjects, but they have always made my head spin. I think that the guys who work on quantum mechanics must either be insane themselves or they must be trying to drive everyone ELSE insane. I just simply cannot understand the concepts without resorting to psychtropic drugs that I have no interest in experimenting with.

Can someone explain... in terms that a 3 year old could understand... how string theory works, how it applies to creation/genesis theory, and how it would preclude the Big Bang theory of creation/genesis?

Thanks.

Elliot

Hi Elliot

First of all I think it is important to understand why String String Theory was introduced in the first place.
The classical way of thinking has been that just before the Big Bang the universe was condensed into a tiny singularity that was infinite in time and mass. A Physicist once said ( I cannot remember his name) that infinities only serve to show our ignorance. Once matter is separated by less than a Planck Length (very tiny distance) then the classical sciences we use are of no use. A new way was needed to explain distances smaller than a Planck Length. Basically with String Theory there is no need for a singularity which marks the beginning of time and space... I'll let someone else come in here if you like and continue a bit later. My internet still keeps dropping out (dam government monopolies ).Tut

In the midst of all this interesting discussion, it might be good to remember that there is not only a physical universe, but also a spiritual universe that we cannot (normally) see.

In the midst of all this interesting discussion, it might be good to remember that there is not only a physical universe, but also a spiritual universe that we cannot (normally) see.

How do you know there is a spiritual universe?

I'll let other people more knowledgeable than myself answer spiritual matters.

The interesting thing about String Theory is that it allows us to redefine a singularity. A reason for this is because Strings are extremely tiny. Importantly,they are not a point particle (singularity) as defined by classical physics. They are two dimensional "objects" of pure energy which vibrate. If a String were the size of a small tree then an atom would be the size of our galaxy( very roughly).

Basically everything is made up of strings. The difference between me and the chair I am sitting on is the way the strings are vibrating. To cut a long story short. The mathematical outcome of String Theory is the need for extra dimensions. One such possibility is the existence of Branes. When Branes collide bad things happen to our universe and the other universe which collided with us. The result is what scientists called the Big Bang.

The problem from a religious point of view is that there is no first cause. Elscarta makes the point that how do we know if there were any previous collisions. Our universe may have been the first. Unfortunately I think there are problems with this claim. Brane Theory suggests that there was no first, in exactly the same way as there will be no last collision.

We need to keep in mind this is all only theory based on mathematics... Tut

I'll let other people more knowledgeable than myself answer spiritual matters.

The interesting thing about String Theory is that it allows us to redefine a singularity. A reason for this is because Strings are extremely tiny. Importantly,they are not a point particle (singularity) as defined by classical physics. They are two dimensional "objects" of pure energy which vibrate. If a String were the size of a small tree then an atom would be the size of our galaxy( very roughly).

Basically everything is made up of strings. The difference between me and the chair I am sitting on is the way the strings are vibrating. To cut a long story short. The mathematical outcome of String Theory is the need for extra dimensions. One such possibility is the existence of Branes. When Branes collide bad things happen to our universe and the other universe which collided with us. The result is what scientists called the Big Bang.

The problem from a religious point of view is that there is no first cause. Elscarta makes the point that how do we know if there were any previous collisions. Our universe may have been the first. Unfortunately I think there are problems with this claim. Brane Theory suggests that there was no first, in exactly the same way as there will be no last collision.

We need to keep in mind this is all only theory based on mathematics....Tut

All these theories are very interesting but they are only theories and just like the giant turtle and the big bang they will be discredited and forgotten. You really need to get it straight are you talking about dimensions or parallel universes? There is a difference

As an after thought I think that String Theory is the 'fly in the ointment' here. We already have a scientific and a biblical account of creation that match each other. There is no need to introduce String Theory at this stage.

Hello Paraclete, Thanks for point out the difference between dimensions and parallel universes. Someone more qualified than myself could do a better job, but here goes anyway.

Our universe has branes traveling through it via a different dimension. These branes can be as big as the universe itself. If two branes happen to collide( now called membranes) then there is a Big Bang. Now exactly the same thing could be happening in a parallel universe. I don't think M Theory excludes the possibility that two parallel universes can interact, however I could stand corrected... Tut

Tut, the mathematics of a supercoducting loop suggest that there was no first time that the current went around the loop in exactly the same way as there will be no last time. This is the same with any oscillating system. The mathematics doesn't need to predict a first cause for there to be a first cause!

Hi Elliot

First of all I think it is important to understand why String String Theory was introduced in the first place.
The classical way of thinking has been that just before the Big Bang the universe was condensed into a tiny singularity that was infinite in time and mass. A Physicist once said ( I cannot remember his name) that infinities only serve to show our ignorance. Once matter is separated by less than a Planck Length (very tiny distance) then the classical sciences we use are of no use. A new way was needed to explain distances smaller than a Planck Length. Basically with String Theory there is no need for a singularity which marks the beginning of time and space... I'll let someone else come in here if you like and continue a bit later. My internet still keeps dropping out (dam government monopolies ).Tut

Thanks. I STILL don't understand it, but I appreciate the effort.

Hello Elliot

Perhaps a few remarks centred on the last part of the debate will help.

Obviously, a genesis account requires a first cause. There are many good first cause arguments that fit well into the traditional Big Bang theory.

String/Brane theory makes it harder to fit in a first cause argument. Harder, but not impossible.

Best of luck with it... Tut