• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

How old is the earth?

There is the theory that the "angels" inhabited earth...as well as the planet Rahab and Mars prior to the utter destruction of Rahab and the Earth becoming "without form and void."

I can see Rahab being shattered and becoming the asteroid field but I don't see the shattering as happening pre-Genesis 1.
That theory and other sources where even one says God was jealous of the devil's creation and destroyed but His words with His wisdom to help us see the truth in His words, should be sufficient to prove that as a lie as well as any other theory.
 
Just trying to address that assigning Hebrew terms to the creation of the heavens and the earth as separate from the rest of the universe is a mistake.

Don’t use the term heavens for the English concept. He meant the firmament and v 8 says that.

The firmament is not the universe.
 
use the term heavens for the English concept. He meant the firmament and v 8 says that.

The firmament is not the universe.
If the firmament meant the whole universe, there would not be a reference to kavov in v16

Learn Hebrew vocab or stop
 
That theory and other sources where even one says God was jealous of the devil's creation and destroyed but His words with His wisdom to help us see the truth in His words, should be sufficient to prove that as a lie as well as any other theory.
All the theory's are interesting....

Guys like Timothy Alberino have some interesting thought.
 
Don’t use the term heavens for the English concept. He meant the firmament and v 8 says that.

The firmament is not the universe.
well, if you are specifically referring to verse 8, then remember that there are 3 heavens; the first is the sky or the upper atmosphere which is what verse 8 is referring to as that first heaven and the second is that universe as in outer space, and the third is God's throne which exists outside the reality of the heavens and the earth.

So that firmament in verse 8 is that first heaven.
 
All the theory's are interesting....

Guys like Timothy Alberino have some interesting thought.
Well, like the evolution theory, or any theory, we just do not let it lie there, but prove or disprove that theory by His words with His help.
 
well, if you are specifically referring to verse 8, then remember that there are 3 heavens; the first is the sky or the upper atmosphere which is what verse 8 is referring to as that first heaven and the second is that universe as in outer space, and the third is God's throne which exists outside the reality of the heavens and the earth.

So that firmament in verse 8 is that first heaven.


Why impose categories they don’t exist? You are not willing to know Hebrew terms, but you are willing to impose things that don't exist. Way to go!

The name of the 2nd is 'kavov.' 'Shami' is not a name for where God dwells. So you can see that the standard English handles do more harm than good.

Why do you pound on the journal and then say the same things? It's just silly.
Except the Triune God was there.

Well like also Genesis 2:4 which was also about where the generations of mankind had come from for why that second creation account is a rehashing of the 6th day but in greater detail of where all mankind had come from.

Scripture did not originally come with numbered chapters and numbered verses but the first creation account ended in genesis 2:3 before starting that other topic about the generations of where mankind had come from but in greater detail that 6th day in Genesis 2:4.

The fact that in Genesis 2:5 testify that there was not a man yet to ill the ground means this is about the rehashing of the event on the 6th day of creation of man.

Now if you discern that Genesis 1:1 is the topic for how all those following verses from genesis 1:2 to Genesis 2:3 for how God did that in Genesis 1:1, then there was no "Big Bang" until day 4.

Cannot be applied to the creation account.

Ever considered that the local markers ( the entire universe ) was created for that purpose? Granted, some use Venus, the moon, and the Sun like the Mayans, but God has used stars for signs as for other messages too.


But if prejudiced against the Zodiac.... there is this


Quote from the second link "We already have evidence and proof for Jesus’ resurrection way beyond reasonable about according to many scholars. Even non-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman agree that the evidence for the resurrection is better than the evidence for miracles in any other religion.

But this evidence from China is unique because it comes from cosmological sources which are beyond any human control and also ancient Chinese classics which have been verified by the atheist Chinese government as reliable history. It is also from a country far distant from Israel and from the same time Jesus lived. That should be logical enough to help eliminate any remaining doubt as to the fact that Jesus was born, died and rose again and that He cares enough to give evidence of His divinity to people in many cultures/nations throughout the world (researchers have documented evidence for God independent of the Bible in at least 300 major cultures)." end of quote

You can learn more at the link. One such excerpt I shall share below;

Quote from link "
!!SYMBOLS OF JESUS BIRTH!!
The Chinese were very interested in astronomy. The royal courts hired many astronomers to study the stars and write down important events that happened in the cosmos because they believed they could have major impacts on human lives. The Chinese astronomers recorded an incredible event in 5 BC.
“ 二年二月,彗星出牽牛七十餘日。傳曰: ‘彗所以除舊佈 新也. 牽牛,日、月、 五星所從起, 歷數之元, 三正之始。 彗而出之,改更之象也。其出 久者,爲其事大也.”

(漢書, 卷二十六, 天文志第六) Book of Han 《漢書》 卷二十六 天文志
Volume 26: Treatise on Astronomy
http://chinesenotes.com/hanshu/hanshu030.html (starts at 2nd to last paragraph)

In English, it says
“In the second month of the second year [of Jian Ping, emperor of that time], the comet was out of Altair for more than 70 days…It is said, ‘Comets appear to signify the old being replaced by the new.’ Altair, the sun, the moon and the five stars are in movement to signify the beginning of a new epoch; The beginning of a new year, a new month and a new day…The appearance of this comet undoubtedly symbolizes change. The extended appearance of this comet indicates that this is of great importance.”
Astronomy Records of the Book of the Han Dynasty" ~~ end of quote

So not just involving the planet Venus, the moon, and the stars that were to serve as signs to the earth.

Wisdom comes from the Lord through His words and cannot be taught by other men.

I believe it is a mistake to minimize the markers as just our solar system when I believe the Lord meant the whole universe as our markers and yet they were created for that purpose on the 4th day.


Your remarks are really nonsense. The journal is about some of those exact things, but you don't know what is in the journal, so you condemn the journal first. Way to go! but quote "mens" things to me. Way to go! And then condemn "mens" things! Way to go!

re the Triune God
The question was why would there be a special miraculous creation of something that is going to continue on indefinitely as 'nature' (this is what Lewis called a natural miracle). In the case of an instant miraculous wind in 1:2, who would see it? Who would need to? Angels?

Speaking of angels, I assume you have no doubt they exist. But they aren't listed. The same with the 'aliya' or stars. Did Satan show up as is that moment in Gen 3 but without any backstory? No. Other things had happened. That's how 1:2 is to be seen. Other things happened, but are not explained.

The same with Rachel's relatives and beauty. They didn't just happen that day.

Any normal person reading the pattern of the 6 days can see that 1:2 is outside of them, before them.
 
Just trying to address that assigning Hebrew terms to the creation of the heavens and the earth as separate from the rest of the universe is a mistake.

Unless they already are.
 
Hey Christbus:
Look at the 1st visuals of the ad and tell me what you see (the 1st is the darkened version of the 3rd--ignore the computer screen with the moving solar system). Can you relate these two visuals to Gen 1?
 
ChristBus,
If you send an regular e.address by DM, I'll send you an e.copy of the Journal.
 
Just making the visuals question more exact: compare 0:01 with 0:25


btw, if you listen to the end of the middle of the ad again, you will see that it is not a question of 'pleasing' men. It is a question of making something sensible, what Acts 26 calls 'soephronose' (rational). For ex., if someone finds an archeological or social detail that makes more sense of the miracle at the wedding in Cana, then it has been made more sensible. Otherwise, at a quick reading, the reason for the miracle (not the bare miracle itself) can appear to be almost ridiculous.

Genesis needs all the help it can get.
 
Last edited:
So studying Hebrew vocab for its own categories is a mistake. Got it. Is this how you have always studied the Bible?
The question is...why did translators who knew Hebrew not choose the words you have chosen?
 
The question is...why did translators who knew Hebrew not choose the words you have chosen?
Yup…its simple for me like most things are. Our God has made certain we have just what we need for His purpose.
To muck that up, makes no sense…to me.
 
Hey Christbus:
Look at the 1st visuals of the ad and tell me what you see (the 1st is the darkened version of the 3rd--ignore the computer screen with the moving solar system). Can you relate these two visuals to Gen 1?
Videos are to be posted only in the forum for that purpose. Thank you.
I moved it.
 
Videos are to be posted only in the forum for that purpose. Thank you.
I moved it.

Hi, I can't see the other forum that you are talking about. But it's at youtube anyway.
 
For Christ4Bus. Here are the article titles for the current journal. You can guess what they are about without reading, but I offer you an e.copy if you will send an outside email address.



Editor update; what difference does YLCW make? 7



Call for articles 12



The Recitation Transmission of Genesis

until Joseph 13



How the YEC View Is Less—And Less Clear--Than It Could Be 22





The Lifeless Distant Objects 33



Signalers and Messengers 41



What Peter Finalized 54

Studies of the Hebrew Terms for Lights and Stars



Dangling Phrases in Early Genesis



Psalm 104 and Creation Week



Lewis’ Natural Miracles and Lifeless Objects



The Big Bang Long Before Genesis’ Creation-Week



Genesis 1-11 in its original organization







Recap: The Young, Local Creation Week View 60








 
Just making the visuals question more exact: compare 0:01 with 0:25


btw, if you listen to the end of the middle of the ad again, you will see that it is not a question of 'pleasing' men. It is a question of making something sensible, what Acts 26 calls 'soephronose' (rational). For ex., if someone finds an archeological or social detail that makes more sense of the miracle at the wedding in Cana, then it has been made more sensible. Otherwise, at a quick reading, the reason for the miracle (not the bare miracle itself) can appear to be almost ridiculous.

Genesis needs all the help it can get.
Any Christian who says, "Genesis needs all the help it can get.", needs help.

Genesis needs no help at all, since it makes clear, simple sense as written.
 
Yup…its simple for me like most things are. Our God has made certain we have just what we need for His purpose.
To muck that up, makes no sense…to me.

The earth is dark and in deep water til starlight in Day 1 which slightly improved things. Our local system was not there til day 4. Real working light.

What muck?

There are a dozen section titles in Genesis ; 1:1 is not action in the narrative. Bc the ‘Shami ’ is not made til day 4. There is starlight but is it not real working light. It is very simple when correct Hebrew is seen.

So starlight years is our guide as to how long the earth was dark and covered before day 1. Centauri is some 4 years away but us that enough light to say evening vs morning? I think not. Our Milky Way sources are up to 100KLYA.

This does not mean evolution occurred which is the whole reason I started this journal. There is no connecting link between time and evolution—or any sense to evolution. So there should be no concern by Bible based believers that there was dark, covered time before day 1.
 
Any Christian who says, "Genesis needs all the help it can get.", needs help.

Genesis needs no help at all, since it makes clear, simple sense as written.

Are you talking about the Hebrew? The English is a mess.
 
Back
Top