How old is the earth?

[EarlyActs]

The Earth was unformed and unfilled (as yet) - no problem!

There was no evil force before the beginning of creation.

The Holy Spirit does not need to follow the brooding period of hens!

P.S. You know what? Anyone who keeps claiming that the main translations are all wrong, and he alone is correct, is not someone with whom I want to waste any more time. Goodbye.

A good example of pre-existing conditions not explained is Satan in Gen 3. He shows up evil. That's because other things happened at another earlier time and he was already turned evil.

There may be other things that happened on the earth before creation week of our zone (crust and atmosphere).

 

[EarlyActs]

Another important observation about 1:2 is that you could say God did not create (design, engineer, execute) that form of the earth. It's just saying it was there and was that way. I don't know what is so tricky about accepting this when 2 Peter 3 basically says the same thing: that the universe was from old, just 'there,' but the earth was formed like pottery out of water. The pre-creation earth would thus belong to the universe before Day 1, part of the mass release God enacted called the spreading or stretching out in Ps 104 and Is 45.

 

[EarlyActs]

Interesting times! I know of no Christian Youtube site on YEC that has lost views, but I have added a more rational element in my view and 30% of my views were removed overnight 8-24/25. I started trying to get the attention of scientists through search words like light years, deep time, theistic evolution. People do not want Genesis to be modified by the term rational!

I don't know how views are removed actually; it's not like posts at X.

Sanford Young Local Creation Week at Youtube.

 

[EarlyActs]

If you just want to rotely believe God created, that is fine, but this thread is not that. It is the details of relating the pre-existing condition of v2 to findings in science about the age of the earth etc. (which have their own problems).

 

[Musician]

4.3 Billion

 

[EarlyActs]

Don’t read what is not there. He does not mention any source of light only light itself.
Sources came later.

I don't accept your answer bc it is irrational. You just put the Bible into a magical literature category for no good reason. It's got it's own strange features like a talking snake and free swirling swords, so we don't need to pile on.

But I will try a completely different question about online viewing:

I wrote many science posters on X yesterday and included my link. At the end of the day I had 109 views. When I woke this morning there 77, right about the same time you relocated the video. Not that there is any connection, but I have heard of removing posts before but not views. How is that done? What would the concern be to remove some 30 views?

 

[EarlyActs]

4.3 Billion

I know that is conventional. But one of the problems I know of is called the Horizon limitation. The universe' horizon is wider than the age of it, so doesn't this calibrate a problem for the earth as well? I have also heard (from Dr. S. Psarris) of a limitation on measurement called the one-way distance, but I don't understand it.

In case you don't know, my view is that there is a lifeless, random mass release by God, earlier than creation week, called the 'spreading' or 'stretching out' in Ps 104 and Is 45, but it is not what Gen 1 is about, because the Hebrew 'shami' is limited to the local system, and some visibly moving objects (Regulus, for ex), that mark or make signs or communicate. The mass release was earlier and results, for one thing, in the unformed and unfilled earth. It also results in what 1:16 barely mentions as distinct from the 'shami' which is the 'kavov' or stars. The 2nd reference to the 'kavov' is the incredible amount of them in Gen 15 representing how many descendants Abraham will have, in the Gospel of course.

If Day 1, when starlight arrives on earth, is enough starlight for the narrator to say that day and night could be distinct, then it must be referring to objects near us in the MW. Centauri is 4 years away, but by itself I doubt it is enough to satisfy the meaning of Day.

If you can, please see the video at the 1st and 20th seconds when pre-Day 1 and Day 1 are distinguished by just enough light on earth to make it (yes, it is there pre-Day 1). Do you think these match the text?

The journal is now some 150 pages of support material for you to consume.

 

[EarlyActs]

It's the first word of the book of Genesis (translated as "In the beginning") that is the title, not the whole verse.

Every day starts with evening (darkness), so you cannot have Day 1 starting with the creation of light.

Have you considered that your journal could be mistaken?

The point of Day 1 is to establish a day. There no marker yet at all. So The prior darkness does not have to do with that but with lack of starlight .

 

[EarlyActs]

Don’t read what is not there. He does not mention any source of light only light itself.
Sources came later.

I would say the exact same about not saying what is not there in refutation:

That to pop in some magical light source when the text is trying to be sensible is ridiculous. The text could very well be making a rational connection to the arrival of starlight.

That the brooding indicates a fair amount of time.

That the normal use of formless and void is about a destruction of something evil, not human evil, but from others.

That the act of speaking is how God started all the other days. Numerous Genesis sections start with backstory. Rachel’s relatives and beauty were not that way just on the day that story happened with Jacob. That is what v2 is in relation to the chapter.

 

[EarlyActs]

Don’t read what is not there. He does not mention any source of light only light itself.
Sources came later.

There are 4 terms for light in the passage but you are going to just make up that there is ‘light without a source’?

 

[EarlyActs]

Don’t read what is not there. He does not mention any source of light only light itself.
Sources came later.

Since you are a moderator here, any chance you could compare the 2 visuals to the text?

 

[EarlyActs]

Scofield was a charlatan, largely responsible for spreading the lies of Dispensationalism.

The "idea" that there was nothing before Day 1 comes from believing what Genesis 1 says.


Then why do no trustworthy translations translate it that way? The translators were experts in Hebrew you know.

The TEV is one of the worst translations in the English language!


Here are the BDB (one of the most respected Hebrew-English lexicons) definitions of the word translated as "heavens", in Gen. 1:1.

- Original: שׁמה שׁמים
- Transliteration: Shamayim
- Phonetic: shaw-mah'-yim
- Definition:
1. heaven, heavens, sky
-a. visible heavens, sky
--1. as abode of the stars
--2. as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
-b. Heaven (as the abode of God)
- Origin: from an unused root meaning to be lofty



Verse 8 tells us that, on Day 2, God created the expanse and called it "sky" (one of the meanings of the Hebrew word).

You are creating difficulties where none exist.

My mistake here: I meant the NET with its piles of grammatical notes.

 

[EarlyActs]

I was hoping David would not just walk out on a conversation without comment on the whole masthead list.

I developed this view to pursue rationality like Acts 26 says, not to invent light without sources, or miss the meaning of a term which limits and clarifies it (Shami) or miss the literary patterns that place backstory. Or miss the adverbial dependence of many section headings in Genesis, as found in grammatical commentaries , on 1:1 or 5:1-2.

 

[ShepherdsPie]

How old is the Earth? Well let’s consider… Is the earth only 6,000 years old, as some Christians have been persuaded to believe? Does the Bible contradict actual science and the data discovered in the earth's geological layers? Of course not. The Earth is billions and billions of years old.

And there has never been any evolution of any kind.

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

2 Peter 3:5-8,13 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. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

 

[David1701]

I would say the exact same about not saying what is not there in refutation:

That to pop in some magical light source when the text is trying to be sensible is ridiculous. The text could very well be making a rational connection to the arrival of starlight.

Straw man; appeal to ridicule; speculation - do you have any other logical errors or blunders in which you'd like to indulge?

That the brooding indicates a fair amount of time.

Speculation and begging the question...

That the normal use of formless and void is about a destruction of something evil, not human evil, but from others.

Speculation; begging the question and ignoring (or being ignorant of) the law of first use.

That the act of speaking is how God started all the other days. Numerous Genesis sections start with backstory. Rachel’s relatives and beauty were not that way just on the day that story happened with Jacob. That is what v2 is in relation to the chapter.

Day 1 was unique. In any case your alleged reason for why Day 1 does not start by telling us that God spoke is, again, speculation.

 

[David1701]

How old is the Earth? Well let’s consider… Is the earth only 6,000 years old, as some Christians have been persuaded to believe? Does the Bible contradict actual science and the data discovered in the earth's geological layers? Of course not. The Earth is billions and billions of years old.

And there has never been any evolution of any kind.

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

2 Peter 3:5-8,13 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. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Does unbelieving, biased "science", with its unbelieving assumptions about the data, contradict the Bible? Yes, it certainly does!

Does believing science, taking God's word as the foundation for truth, contradict the Bible? No, it agrees with it and does what scientists mostly used to do - find out how God's creation works, not try to justify unbelief.

 

[Alive]

Since you are a moderator here, any chance you could compare the 2 visuals to the text?

No. I am not interested. Carry on.

 

[EarlyActs]

Straw man; appeal to ridicule; speculation - do you have any other logical errors or blunders in which you'd like to indulge?


Speculation and begging the question...



Speculation; begging the question and ignoring (or being ignorant of) the law of first use.



Day 1 was unique. In any case your alleged reason for why Day 1 does not start by telling us that God spoke is, again, speculation.

So the upshot is you don’t believe in integration of the revealed and natural knowledge. You dismiss the natural. This turns the Bible into a neo-orthodoxy that is repellent to a rational mind.

—————————

What I really want is a thoughtful discussion of the masthead list, posted 4 times above.

We are to pursue the true and rational says Paul in Acts 26. ‘Soephronose’

Each of those features show the Bible to be appealing to outside reality that confirms it.

 

[EarlyActs]

I don’t know of a Hebrew grammar that fails to show the adverbial position of v2; likewise in ch 5.

 

[Alive]

So the upshot is you don’t believe in integration of the revealed and natural knowledge. You dismiss the natural. This turns the Bible into a neo-orthodoxy that is repellent to a rational mind.

—————————

What I really want is a thoughtful discussion of the masthead list, posted 4 times above.

We are to pursue the true and rational says Paul in Acts 26. ‘Soephronose’

Each of those features show the Bible to be appealing to outside reality that confirms it.

I deleted out the inappropriate bit insulting members who do not agree.
As far as the part in bold…ya don’t always get what you want
Ease up friend. Not everyone is gonna buy what is being sold.