Earth millions of years Old

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html2 Peter 3:5-7 is NOT a reference to Noah's flood. There are only two (2) places in the entire Bible where the Earth is flooded by water. One, of course, is at the time of Noah's flood (Genesis 7). The other is at Genesis 1:2 where it speaks about the condition of the Earth at the time just before God said, "Let there be light."Now, if 2 Peter 3:5-7 is not a cross-reference to Noah's flood, then it MUST be a cross-reference to Genesis 1:2 (there is no other alternative - simple logic). And if 2 Peter 3:5-7 is a cross-reference to Genesis 1:2, then the Holy Spirit is calling your attention to something very significant that millions of 'Young Earth' Creationists are blindly overlooking. Specifically, that a glorious ancient world that God created in the distant past (Genesis 1:1), had long since been utterly destroyed, plunged into deep darkness, and overflowed by a raging flood of great waters on a universal scale at the time of Genesis 1:2. The seven-days of Genesis, which follow, chronicle God's methodology of restoring the heavens and Earth and repopulating the world with living creatures, including modern man. There is a time gap between the first two verses of the Bible. It is a time gap that is obscurely declared, but not greatly detailed in the book of Genesis. It is the very first 'mystery' found in the Bible. Knowing that there is a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and WHY there is a time gap, will open more perfect understanding of what the Creation narrative is actually saying, and begins to cut a clear path through the confusion of conflicting theories and interpretations that have occupied the Creation/Science debate.More on that shortly but, for now, it is very important that we first show you the Biblical clues that tell us why 2 Peter 3:5-7 is not a reference to Noah's flood.Clue #1: Compare the phrase "the heavens and earth, which are now" to the phrase the "heavens were of old":What does that mean? Ask yourself this question: When Noah's flood happened did it change anything in the upper heavens? Would a flood on the Earth have any effect on the sun, moon, or stars? The obvious answer is NO. The heavens of Noah's days were the same heavens as in Adam's day; same sun, same moon, same stars. FACT: Noah's flood had no effect on the upper heavens. All of Noah's flood's effects were confined to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. And although the Bible speaks about the "windows of heaven" being opened and water coming down (Genesis 7:11), the context of that reference is the "first" heaven of the Earth's atmosphere. That is where rain comes from. (Keep in mind: The Bible says there are three (3) heavens. See 2 Corinthians 12:2). This explained in great detail later.Again, note the contrasting comparison between the phrases the "heavens were of old" (before the waters of 2 Peter 3:5-7) and the "heavens and earth which are now" (after the waters of 2 Peter 3:5-7). If Noah's flood did not alter the upper heavens, then this verse must be speaking about an event other than Noah's flood. And Genesis 1:2 is our only other Biblical candidate.Clue #2: Notice also in the passage that the earth is said to be "standing out" of the water and "in" the water. In our English language these terms suggest that these particular waters were not confined to the surface of the planet. The Bible says that part of the planet was "standing out" from these waters (that is, the sphere of the planet was partially "overflowed") and the location of the bulk of the waters was external to the Earth itself. The Bible says the planet was "in the water" of this particular flood (think of a round fishing floater bobbing in a flowing stream). In other words, part of the Earth is protruding from the waters and not simply just covered by waters on the surface. The literal English wording of this passage does not describe a flood event confined to the Earth's surface. This passage describes a deluge that raged across the solar system, and beyond (our solar system and outer space are the "second" heaven of the three heavens).
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(RobinD69;49408)
I am sorry but you are adding to and taking away from the word of God. The first age began with creation Gen. 1. The second age began with the receeding of the flood water in Noahs time. The third age is the age of Grace. If you are placing another earth age before creation then you are calling the Lord a liar.
That's baloney. The Truth is... Kriss is no where calling Lord a liar...how dare you to accuse Kriss and calling her a liar. We are still in our flesh body which is in the second Earth Age, while we are in a period to be saved by GRACE. Thanks to the Lord.
smile.gif
Don't claim opinions as God's Words, otherwise we will be in trouble.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
(thesuperjag;49412)
That's baloney. The Truth is... Kriss is no where calling Lord a liar...how dare you to accuse Kriss and calling her a liar. We are still in our flesh body which is in the second Earth Age, while we are in a period to be saved by GRACE. Thanks to the Lord.
smile.gif
Don't claim opinions as God's Words, otherwise we will be in trouble.
Thank you for defending me Jag and you are absoultly right we are in the age of Grace the third age to come is Perfect there is no sin and therefore no need for grace Robin is confused about that
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(Kriss;49414)
(thesuperjag;49412)
That's baloney. The Truth is... Kriss is no where calling Lord a liar...how dare you to accuse Kriss and calling her a liar. We are still in our flesh body which is in the second Earth Age, while we are in a period to be saved by GRACE. Thanks to the Lord.
smile.gif
Don't claim opinions as God's Words, otherwise we will be in trouble.
Thank you for defending me Jag and you are absoultly right we are in the age of Grace the third age to come is Perfect there is no sin and therefore no need for grace Robin is confused about thatThou art welcome Kriss. I am tired of people accusing brethrens because they know scriptures.After all, scripture did say that Satan / Lucy is the accuser of our brethrens. (Revelation 12:10) On top of that, John 3:19 proves it also and Christ said this in the scripture in...Luke 23:14 - Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
 

Super Kal

New Member
Nov 27, 2007
200
0
0
40
why does it always have to be so difficult to understand this?I mean, all I wanna do is learn, and yet everywhere I turn, everything points to something else... like this million year talk... I just don't know what to believe anymore.
sad.gif
 

RaddSpencer

New Member
Mar 28, 2008
285
0
0
44
(kriss;49393)
Its what scripture says JJ not us its why science and scripture agree on the age of the earth. God says he will do it again so whats the big deal with having done it before it doesnt change anything for us today. Its past read Post #8 or this link http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html
Well, I don't believe this gap theory stuff either. I guess your experts and my experts will just have to disagree:http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c003.htmlWestern Bible commentaries written before the 18th century, and before the belief in a long age for the earth became popular, knew nothing of any gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Certainly some commentaries proposed intervals of various lengths of time for reasons relating to Satan's fall,[14] but none proposed a “ruin-reconstruction” situation, or pre-Adamite world.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
Super KalThats when you learn the most God says come to me as little children when we come to the Word without preconcieved ideas trying to make the word fit what men have told us Just listen to him and he will teach you if you do not understand this yet or other things put them on the shelf untill they fit dont do as so many insist men are right, so close your mind listen with awe and wonder to what he says and it will all come together.
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
(thesuperjag;49367)
Once again I agree that sin = death (Romans 6:23) However if you want to call II Peter 3:8 a metaphor, that's your choice, but, I'm not going to believe in
Yes you are. Interesting I would say the same thing about why I don't believe what you do... Hrm.It is a metephore, and the fact that men have place a finite boundry on God's infinite power, is the junk part. Nothing is more junky than saying that and infinite God is roughly 365,000 time (exactly) farther ahead in time than finite man. Especially when there is no instances of this actually happening where 1 day = 1,000 years. You do believe junk, sad to say. As much as I respect you and Kriss, all you do is fuel eachother to agree back and forth.1 day = 1 day is hardly a teaching of men. Do you grasp the ludoucy of that statement? 1 day EQUALLYING (literally, finitely) 1,000 years is a teaching of men. God is outside of time. Believe what you want though, but if you're going to call the opposing understanding junk, when you really have no scriptural backing to change God's Word (and I have seen it all), you'll get the same back.
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
(thesuperjag;49412)
That's baloney. The Truth is... Kriss is no where calling Lord a liar...how dare you to accuse Kriss and calling her a liar. We are still in our flesh body which is in the second Earth Age, while we are in a period to be saved by GRACE. Thanks to the Lord.
smile.gif
Don't claim opinions as God's Words, otherwise we will be in trouble.
I didn't see the post of whoever called Kriss a liar... but, I don't think anyone is intentionally making God a liar, or lying about anything intentionally. Nevertheless... one of us is wrong, and with or without our willfullness to lie... one of us is making a liar out of the truth (which is by His Word). However, I don't feel it is accurate to call anyone a liar here. One side is indeed deceived, no doubt... and it is a tricky thing... we'll just say, you're incorrect, and leave it at that.
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
(kriss;49403)
Men always teach what their traditions tell them science of the age of earth did not exist in earlier times men are always stuck in their traditions reguardless of what scripture says all you are quoting is oipnions of men. scripture says differntThis isnt a matter of anyones Salvation believe the earth is 6000 years old if it suits you but others know that is untrue and too you who are curious God word doesnot say the world is 6000 years old.
The same could say you believe what you believe.The earth is not "very old" (much older than 6,000-7,000 years). You can beleive that it is way older than this if you want to, but others know that it is untrue and too you who are curious, God's Word does not say the world is much older than 6,000-7,000 years old.
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
(kriss;49411)
http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html2 Peter 3:5-7 is NOT a reference to Noah's flood. There are only two (2) places in the entire Bible where the Earth is flooded by water. One, of course, is at the time of Noah's flood (Genesis 7). The other is at Genesis 1:2 where it speaks about the condition of the Earth at the time just before God said, "Let there be light."Now, if 2 Peter 3:5-7 is not a cross-reference to Noah's flood, then it MUST be a cross-reference to Genesis 1:2 (there is no other alternative - simple logic). And if 2 Peter 3:5-7 is a cross-reference to Genesis 1:2, then the Holy Spirit is calling your attention to something very significant that millions of 'Young Earth' Creationists are blindly overlooking.
If.... then....Oh, the ol' bait and switch technique. First the writer here says that "2 Peter 3:5-7 is not a reference to Noah's flood."For this the writer offers no proof.Then, rightfully so, the writer states what is clearly obvious and true:
"There are only two (2) places in the entire Bible where the Earth is flooded by water. One, of course, is at the time of Noah's flood (Genesis 7)"
No argument there... I'm now baited on the hook. Care to reel me in?The writer then says this next part, for which no proof is offered whatsoever... only speculation and "ifs" and "thens". The writer says:
"Now, if 2 Peter 3:5-7 is not a cross-reference to Noah's flood, then it MUST be a cross-reference to Genesis 1:2 (there is no other alternative - simple logic). And if 2 Peter 3:5-7 is a cross-reference to Genesis 1:2, then the Holy Spirit is calling your attention to something very significant that millions of 'Young Earth' Creationists are blindly overlooking."
It's the ol' "if then" story without any proof. Of course, this story would not be successful if there wasn't SOME TRUTH in it. That truth element is that there are only two times that *could* be spoken of, the earth being flooded entirely by water.The writter here may want those listning to him (or her) to make a logical leap from one to the other... but the unignorable ingredient that I need is proof.Let me tell YOU a story:Fact: I have two orange basketballs.Fact: One orange basketball I have with me all day, and the other one I leave at home and only have it in the mornings.Fact: I played basketball with my friends using my orange basketball that I take with me during the day.I tell you how yesterday I played basketball for 2 hours with my friends, and we had a great time! Then someone over hearing this basketball playing adventure, comes along and thinks, "Oh, I wonder which one he played basketball with?""Well," says the curious boy, "We know that he only has two basketballs... so IF it wasn't the one that we KNOW he took with him during the day, it must be the one that he had in the morning. And, if it was the one in the morning, than there is something all you other people are blindly overlooking! He actually played basketball with the one he had in the morning!"A logical explaination is laid out, with ifs and thens... but no actual factual evidence is given that would make it truly logical.
 

Alistein

New Member
May 4, 2008
93
0
0
46
2 Peter 3:5-7 is NOT a reference to Noah's flood. There are only two (2) places in the entire Bible where the Earth is flooded by water. One, of course, is at the time of Noah's flood (Genesis 7). The other is at Genesis 1:2 where it speaks about the condition of the Earth at the time just before God said, "Let there be light
How did you get to this?But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.(The same world that came from water was thesame one flooded according to these verse not another world whic is obviously refering to Noah's flood)KJV 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: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But 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.This clearly refers to Noah's flood. There is nothing hinting of a pre-existing world here.
There is a time gap between the first two verses of the Bible. It is a time gap that is obscurely declared, but not greatly detailed in the book of Genesis. It is the very first 'mystery' found in the Bible. Knowing that there is a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and WHY there is a time gap, will open more perfect understanding of what the Creation narrative is actually saying, and begins to cut a clear path through the confusion of conflicting theories and interpretations that have occupied the Creation/Science debate
There is no time gap in the bible. Remember that the bible was not originally written in chapters and verses this was added by scholars to help make the bible earier to read. If you read genesis 1:1-2 and further without the verse numbering you might see something there. Also if you check the concordance you would notice it is the same word that is used for heaven and heavens you have to use the context of the sentence to determine if it is talking aboput heaven or heavens as in the hebrew there is no plural, These defeats the idea of heaven or heavens used here.
standing out" of the water and "in" the water.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. From this verses it is obvious the dry land was underwater and surfaced upward considering there was a gathering of seas. this would mean the dryland was both in water(part of it submerged) and standing out of water. as for the gap theory this is my opinion on verse 1 and 2 of Genesis 1.In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.The beginning here denotes time, in other words time started here not before or after. Anything before would probably be considered as eternity. This verse says God created the heaven and the earth not trees, man, animals or any living thing. I am of the opinion heaven here refers to space while earth refers to the planet earth being both water and land. I believe this was the foundation of the world. A foundation is usually the first thing laid before building a house. It makes sense if in verse one God laid or created the foundation first and then proceeded forth from there. Exodus 20:11 makes it clear God created the earth in six days and mentions the heaven (space), earth and sea and “All” that is in them 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. This is a verse that has been used to suggest all kinds of things like recreation, evolution and even the big bang. It is important to remember that the bible wasn’t numbered with verses when it was written but for easy understanding the early translators numbered it in chapters and verses it can even be seen when scripture is quoted in the old and New Testament that those quoting only referred to quotes location as in books and not chapters and verses. The word “and” in English language is used to continue a thought or link or connect two or more sentences with the same thought together. So verse 2 continues the same idea expressed in verse 1. Therefore this verse explains the state of things or of creation just like after laying the foundation for a house it would look rough. Without form i.e. no shape. Void implying empty. Darkness upon the face of the deep implying that there was darkness all over to the very depth deep also implies water. So these were the three things that describe this foundation or created matter. They were also the things to be tackled. Another meaning here for move over is brood as like hens or rather birds do over their eggs which ends up in birth or producing life. I believe by the Spirit of God moving over the waters He was brooding the earth which was pretty much water. I am also of the opinion that by brooding the Spirit of God gave life to the planet in other words the earth is in a way alive and therefore able to respond to command as is shown through God speaking. Isaiah 45:7 God affirms He create Darkness, this further supports darkness being created as part of the foundation
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(treeoflife;49449)
(thesuperjag;49367)
Once again I agree that sin = death (Romans 6:23) However if you want to call II Peter 3:8 a metaphor, that's your choice, but, I'm not going to believe in junks
Yes you are. Interesting I would say the same thing about why I don't believe what you do... Hrm.It is a metephore, and the fact that men have place a finite boundry on God's infinite power, is the junk part. Nothing is more junky than saying that and infinite God is roughly 365,000 time (exactly) farther ahead in time than finite man. Especially when there is no instances of this actually happening where 1 day = 1,000 years. You do believe junk, sad to say. As much as I respect you and Kriss, all you do is fuel eachother to agree back and forth.1 day = 1 day is hardly a teaching of men. Do you grasp the ludoucy of that statement? 1 day EQUALLYING (literally, finitely) 1,000 years is a teaching of men. God is outside of time. Believe what you want though, but if you're going to call the opposing understanding junk, when you really have no scriptural backing to change God's Word (and I have seen it all), you'll get the same back.No, but your imply that every time the word "day" in the Bible is referring to a single human day all the time is a teaching of men, obviously calling Peter whom God used a liar.On another note: Kriss and I, we do not have fuel to agree like that. We agree with the Spirit, in love.(treeoflife;49451)
(thesuperjag;49412)
That's baloney. The Truth is... Kriss is no where calling Lord a liar...how dare you to accuse Kriss and calling her a liar. We are still in our flesh body which is in the second Earth Age, while we are in a period to be saved by GRACE. Thanks to the Lord. Don't claim opinions as God's Words, otherwise we will be in trouble.
I didn't see the post of whoever called Kriss a liar... but, I don't think anyone is intentionally making God a liar, or lying about anything intentionally. Nevertheless... one of us is wrong, and with or without our willfullness to lie... one of us is making a liar out of the truth (which is by His Word). However, I don't feel it is accurate to call anyone a liar here. One side is indeed deceived, no doubt... and it is a tricky thing... we'll just say, you're incorrect, and leave it at that.But when one preaches a lie, whether one realize it or not, obviously making God a liar.
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
(thesuperjag;49463)
No, but your imply that every time the word "day" in the Bible is referring to a single human day all the time is a teaching of men, obviously calling Peter whom God used a liar.
The only thing that obviously makes Peter or God a liar is saying that 1 day literally equals (no more or less) "1,000 years." Taking a man's words out of context is also a lie. As you and I both know, this was done to Jesus when He said He would rebuild the temple in three days, but was speaking of His body.(thesuperjag;49463)
But when one preaches a lie, whether one realize it or not, obviously making God a liar.
True, indeed.
smile.gif
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(treeoflife;49466)
(thesuperjag;49463)
No, but your imply that every time the word "day" in the Bible is referring to a single human day all the time is a teaching of men, obviously calling Peter whom God used a liar.
The only thing that obviously makes Peter or God a liar is saying that 1 day literally equals (no more or less) "1,000 years." Taking a man's words out of context is also a lie.You are not understanding at all on what I'm getting at. So I'll leave it at that.(treeoflife;49466)
(thesuperjag;49463)
But when one preaches a lie, whether one realize it or not, obviously making God a liar.
True, indeed.
smile.gif
We can easily agree on that statement.
smile.gif
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
Another reason why 2 Peter 3:6-7 simply can't be talking about some Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2Whereby 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.
Matthew 24:38:In those days before the flood, the people were enjoying banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat. Matthew 24:37:“When the Son of Man returns, it will be like it was in Noah’s day.​
furthermore, whenever Jesus speaks of a flood he compares it to Noah, not some other Bible Gap flood. In fact, Jesus never talks about a Gap that predated Genesis 1:2 at all. The only flood Jesus ever mentions, is that of Noah's day. And, he says that when the Son of Man returns it will be like that of Noah's day.More thought...
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.​
God gave His Word that He would not flood the earth again in this way after Noah and his family were brought to safety. The world was flooded... and the world which is now (following the flood) is kept in store. If Peter is speaking of some "time Gap", firstly, he would have no right to say that men would be "willfully ignorant." There is hardly any support for the Gap theory, and for Peter to have said that the unspoken of time, hidden between two verses, was what men are willfully ignorant of is absurd. Noah's account, however, has ample teachings and reference. By Jesus Himself, namely.Yes, the world was flooded and it is the heavens and earth *which are now*, *are kept in store*. So, what happend here? Did Peter forget about the flood of Noah's Day? He just skipped over that part altogether? Because if the world is kept in store, since the flooding of the earth... he obviously negelected to remember the flood of Noah when all but Noah's small family was delivered from death.However, of course this isn't the case. Peter isn't neglecting to mention anything... rather, Peter mentions all there is to mention. Peter is in fact talking about the flood of Noah... there is nothing else for him to be talking about.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
You are right about one thing one of us is wrong So answer me this why is it that whenever you are presented with scripture that doesnt fit your traditions of men its a called a metaphor because you have no explanation yet every one of these posts is nothing but oipnion Not one person disagreeing has presented scripture to back a single word of what you say its only what you have been told. We give you scripture you call it a metaphor or completly ignore it because it doesnt fit. So we have the scripture, the answers of God, the history, and common sense, you have opinions of what men told you.guess what your the one with nothing You want to keep your childish traditions of men go ahead 1.why is it you have no defense except to call scripture and us wrong why 2.is you have no prove except because I was told3.why is it you have to call everyone wrong to make yourself rightAll science is wrong, scripture is wrong, we are wrong, the vatican astromer is wrong, Peter is wrong, carbon dating is wrong,the speed of light is wrong, meteroligists the reseach weather changes or wrong,geoligists that reseach soil layers are wrong, history wrong Isn't that amazing the smarest people in the World according to you must be those people that not knowing any science we do today interpted scripture hundreds of years ago and men today teach the same traditionsguess God lied when he said knowledge would increase.
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
"Why is it that whenever you are presented with scripture that doesnt fit your traditions of men its a called a metaphor."
Well, of course not. I don't. I only take something as a metephore when it is a metephore. It would be silly to think everything is a metephore, but putting a finite limitation on God by comparing is definitely a metephore.Whenever God is compared to something finite, it is obviously a metephore. If God is like a mountain, or if some of his characteristics are as the mighty sea... or a rushing wind... He is *as* these things, which are finite... but He in no way is those things.There are many explainations for why they arrive at very old dates... some of the "smartest people" also think we evolved from apes. What of them? Did we?
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
says who ?? Men ?? I presented you with the hebrew idiom/figure of speech that Peter and John understood but you refuse to see it because of you perconcieved notions traditions of men where does God say we are to use this as a metaphor God interpts his own word no where does he say this only your traditions. so they must be right the smart men said so. See that excuse allows you to stay in denial because one branch of science is wrong they all are right ?? thats the same reasoning the athiesist use if one religion is wrong they all are
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
Well, there is no time gap. That is man's failed attempt to accomdate God's Word to the Evolutionist's old world.We'll just both believe what we think is right I guess.
smile.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.