How old is the earth?

[EarlyActs]

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.

Please check the image at 0:01 of the ad and then 0:20 and tell me me what you see. If you don’t try to make some visuals as though you are making a film , you have no idea what is going on,

The forum moved the ad from here to another thread even though that’s visuals are the crux of this topic.

 

[EarlyActs]

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.

It makes no sense to have everything created at first and then again on various days. Almost all unbelievers I talk to don’t get this. It is caused by operating in unclear English when the Hebrew is distinct.

 

[EarlyActs]

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.

People will still get the ideas that God created vs not. But many many people find the details to be confused or ridiculous.

 

[EarlyActs]

Videos are to be posted only in the forum for that purpose. Thank you.
I moved it.

Speaking of being inckear, I just figured out what this dark saying meant. You meant there was a thread for video but you made yourself unclear by not linking it and calling that thread a forum , which the whole site is.

 

[EarlyActs]

The video is at YouTube found by searching Sanford young local creation

The two images to be proven wrong are at 0:01 and 0:20.
01 is earth before Day 1.
20 is earth after day 1 and until day 3.

These things can be rendered visually, and it must make sense with the text.

 

[EarlyActs]

So there are the 2 questions I hope you will work on:
1, are the two visuals correct—do they match the text?
2, what difference does it make if earth is older than day 1 if it is lifeless, and life is only and instantly from God?

 

[EarlyActs]

To help make the Bible sensible does not mean to compromise it with evolution. It means to sort out the Hebrew properly and if there is time before day 1 in the text like other science says , then we integrate the two sources of knowledge.

Time, yes; evolutionary change, nope.

 

[David1701]

People will still get the ideas that God created vs not. But many many people find the details to be confused or ridiculous.

If anyone finds Genesis "confused or ridiculous", then it is because his pride is getting in the way of believing what it says.

 

[David1701]

To help make the Bible sensible does not mean to compromise it with evolution. It means to sort out the Hebrew properly and if there is time before day 1 in the text like other science says , then we integrate the two sources of knowledge.

Time, yes; evolutionary change, nope.

The problem with this (and it's a huge problem) is that to assume time before Day 1 of the creation week does two things:

1) It contradicts what the Bible says.

2) It assumes that what "other science says" is the overriding authority, rather than the word of God.

1) and 2) are both forms of unbelief.

 

[CrowCross]

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.

The bible clearly says day 4.....there are other options as to what that light could have been.

 

[David1701]

Speaking of being inckear, I just figured out what this dark saying meant. You meant there was a thread for video but you made yourself unclear by not linking it and calling that thread a forum , which the whole site is.

There's a video sub-forum, and there are threads within that.

Even in something mundane, like this, your posts show evidence of confusion. I would seek the Lord about this, if I were you.

 

[David1701]

The bible clearly says day 4.....there are other options as to what that light could have been.

Yes, exactly.

 

[David1701]

It makes no sense to have everything created at first and then again on various days. Almost all unbelievers I talk to don’t get this. It is caused by operating in unclear English when the Hebrew is distinct.

Genesis 1 does not say that God created "...at first and then again on various days.".

It's not surprising that unbelievers don't understand it, since their minds are darkened. What is surprising is that a Christian does not understand it.

 

[David1701]

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

I suppose that you are a better expert in Hebrew than all the experts in Hebrew, down through the centuries, who translated the Old Testament? This seems highly unlikely, don't you think?

 

[David1701]

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.

...

It's does not say that starlight was created on Day 1. It just says "light". The stars were created on Day 4.

 

[EarlyActs]

If anyone finds Genesis "confused or ridiculous", then it is because his pride is getting in the way of believing what it says.

That would be true of creation in general, but surly you must have noticed the repeat creation that makes it difficult. Or the question of how long was the earth dark and covered.

 

[EarlyActs]

It's does not say that starlight was created on Day 1. It just says "light". The stars were created on Day 4.

That’s the problem right there. The firmament is local, not distant.

So what normal natural light is available 3 days earlier than the local .light of day 4?

I’m not being obnoxious; I’m trying to help people I know get off to a smooth start.

What I have found does not have the usual problem with distant starlight. That problem is the subject of many, many studies and talks.

 

[Alive]

That’s the problem right there. The firmament is local, not distant.

So what normal natural light is available 3 days earlier than the local .light of day 4?

I’m not being obnoxious; I’m trying to help people I know get off to a smooth start.

What I have found does not have the usual problem with distant starlight. That problem is the subject of many, many studies and talks.

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

 

[EarlyActs]

I suppose that you are a better expert in Hebrew than all the experts in Hebrew, down through the centuries, who translated the Old Testament? This seems highly unlikely, don't you think?

If you research you will find that Luther, Calvin, Schofield for ex saw an extension of time of some sort. The idea that there was nothing at all before Day 1 is very recent.

The imperfect mode of the Hebrew tense is mentioned in many, many articles. Thus translated ‘when God began creating, the earth was already …’. See the TEV.

On word choice, the English heavens is very unfortunate when it is so easy to see the two in the text and that God is in a third. All you need to do is use the side-by-side qbible.com.

V8 tells us that the area called the heavens is local and in the firmament, and distant stars are certainly outside that. The two groups of lights have different purposes. Just like 2 Peter 3 where the universe is simply old but the earth was then formed out of water. In Gen 15 , 2000 years on, the distant stars will have a message but it is numeric, their volume. The ancients ‘read’ stars as those verbs say.

 

[EarlyActs]

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

It is the term illumination actually. What would be the source of that?

A person does have to be able to form a picture bc these things are real physical reality. Look into storyboard creation and work out your own for the succession of times here: before Day 1, Day 1, Day 4, etc.