Our Young Earth

(treeoflife;53624)
Yes. Read the creation event in Genesis. Adam and Eve were made fully formed. A rib was taken from Adam and a woman was made. God gave them commands, which they were able to understand. All the other trees, plants, and animals God created when the Earth was made. The Earth was obviously created in this way, not only by God's Word, but such that it could sustain life. Reason would also conclude this, if it wasn't directly in God's Word. Many many animals, as babies, require the immediate and specific attention of older, mature parents in order to survive. The Earth was created by God, along with everything on it, in a mature state with "age," in order to sustain life. It's in God's Word, but is also there logically by reason.The age old question of what came first, the chicken, or the egg, is answered if we know God's Word. It is the chicken.
All this proves is that God created the beings on the earth with age. Not the earth itself. That is just an assumption.May I ask a question?Where did oil come from? and when was it brought into existence. For example, Before Noah;s flood or after or when God made everything etc.

(Alpha and Omega;53665)
Where did oil come from? and when was it brought into existence. For example, Before Noah;s flood or after or when God made everything etc.
I would say after, because it is very possible for that to happen when the entire world of biological life is burried under rock and dirt for a long time.However, I also wouldn't hold it against God to put the oil in the ground when He created the Earth. It could have been there the whole time. I can't see any reason to say this isn't possible, but I tend to believe it is there since the flood of Noah's day.

(thesuperjag;53175)
Treeoflife, when are you going to realize that the pictures you posted are referring to this age. (Second Earth Age) Because there was humans...flesh male body and female flesh body...
here is a question assuming we say these is the second age, third age or whatever then wouldn't it make sense to say that this age will keep going on for a few more billions of years seeing it isn't even close to a 100,000 yet. Every thing that has stages are usually close or measured in similar cycles but for God to make an age that would last for over 3 billion years and then to make another one that probably wouldn't last for a million seems suspect. What's more Jesus referred to a few thousand years as old.Matthew 5:33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:Matthew 5:21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:Matthew 5:27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:Also used in other places by inspired men of God.Acts 15:21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.1 Peter 3:5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:2 Peter 1:21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This clearly shows old doesn't have to be a billion years or more. according to what i gather from your beliefs1st earth age = 3.7-10 billion years possibly more from new scientific discoveriescurrent earth age = 6000 or more yearsThis would make more sense if the current age was close to the first ages number but as it is they are not even comparable.What's more why don't we just drop the current dating we use and begin using dates that correspond to the billions like star dates and so on.

(Alistein;53686)
here is a question assuming we say these is the second age, third age or whatever then wouldn't it make sense to say that this age will keep going on for a few more billions of years seeing it isn't even close to a 100,000 yet. Every thing that has stages are usually close or measured in similar cycles but for God to make an age that would last for over 3 billion years and then to make another one that probably wouldn't last for a million seems suspect. What's more Jesus referred to a few thousand years as old.This would make more sense if the current age was close to the first ages number but as it is they are not even comparable.What's more why don't we just drop the current dating we use and begin using dates that correspond to the billions like star dates and so on.
Not necessarily. There is a big difference between the first earth age and the second. HUMANS! Just look at society it is in total chaos. Do you think that humans can survive together for millions or billions of years? The sad thing about that question is the answer is no, because after about 6000 years look at all the destruction we have caused to this planet and to each other. Humans cannot share this planet and I am sure God knows that, therefore it really does not make a difference. An interesting note about the stars. When you look into the sky you are in effect looking backwards in time. When you look at a star that is 1 million light years away that means it took that light to travel 1 million years from that star to this planet. Another reason to believe in an old earth. That star may not even exist anymore. Now we see millions of stars in the sky and when we do we are looking into the first earth age. As for the oil....Gen 6:14Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.well oil was here before Noah's flood. 1) price of a life, ransom, bribe2) asphalt, pitch (as a covering)3) the henna plant, name of a plant (henna?)4) village

(Alpha and Omega;53688)
Not necessarily. There is a big difference between the first earth age and the second. HUMANS! Just look at society it is in total chaos. Do you think that humans can survive together for millions or billions of years? The sad thing about that question is the answer is no, because after about 6000 years look at all the destruction we have caused to this planet and to each other. Humans cannot share this planet and I am sure God knows that, therefore it really does not make a difference. An interesting note about the stars. When you look into the sky you are in effect looking backwards in time. When you look at a star that is 1 million light years away that means it took that light to travel 1 million years from that star to this planet. Another reason to believe in an old earth. That star may not even exist anymore. Now we see millions of stars in the sky and when we do we are looking into the first earth age. As for the oil....Gen 6:14Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.well oil was here before Noah's flood. 1) price of a life, ransom, bribe2) asphalt, pitch (as a covering)3) the henna plant, name of a plant (henna?)4) village
What is this big difference if it is an age then there should be strong similarities that atleast identify it as such. Secondly if the earth was destroyed or went into Chaos who or what was responsible? I'm pretty sure you would say Satan if indeed you do say that wouldn't you think the devil is capable of more damage than humans and if he did dwell on the earth and was responsible for the destruction I think logically the destruction of this first age should have been more immense and faster such a world lasting for billions of years makes no sense if an evil such as the devil existed in it.As for starlights i am quite familiar with it and there are many inconsistencies with it also most stars that are seen can not last up to a million years like blue suns for example. They are very hot and burn out quickly. there are many theories regarding light travel it is still an ongoing research it isn't final. Also since you believe that God remade the earth it would make no sense for starlights to support billions of years seeing they were created on day 4 there light could therefore only have started existing or traveling at the time they were made and not before.

(Alistein;53736)
What is this big difference if it is an age then there should be strong similarities that atleast identify it as such. Secondly if the earth was destroyed or went into Chaos who or what was responsible? I'm pretty sure you would say Satan if indeed you do say that wouldn't you think the devil is capable of more damage than humans and if he did dwell on the earth and was responsible for the destruction I think logically the destruction of this first age should have been more immense and faster such a world lasting for billions of years makes no sense if an evil such as the devil existed in it.
Why should there be strong similarities?Firstly, I do not know that the earth is billions of years old. I believe that it is at least 400 million years old. That is the oldest fossils to have been discovered. This I read a while ago so it might have changed. Also all this proves is that death was on earth 400 million years ago.Secondly, there was no destruction of the earth just life on earth. How? the sun must have burnt out that is why we see the earth in and out of the water (Genesis 1:2). I do think Satan was the destroyer because he was the original sin so he was the bringer of death as we see in the geological record. Therefore that is why we have entropy, because of Satan. Therefore God just let everything die off. First the sun then everything on earth. No sun = no life. (Alistein;53736)
As for starlights i am quite familiar with it and there are many inconsistencies with it also most stars that are seen can not last up to a million years like blue suns for example. They are very hot and burn out quickly. there are many theories regarding light travel it is still an ongoing research it isn't final. Also since you believe that God remade the earth it would make no sense for starlights to support billions of years seeing they were created on day 4 there light could therefore only have started existing or traveling at the time they were made and not before.
The paradox of day 4. It would not matter if the blue suns do not last a million years or not. Let's say a blue sun dies 20 000 years ago we would still see the light of that sun for another 20 000 years, if it is dead or not. Genesis 1:14-19And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And 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. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.As we see here God did not create the stars on day four. He made them. There is a big difference between "made" and "create". They are both different Hebrew words with different meaning. As we see in II Peter 3:5-7 the stars and heaven are of old so those stars had to exist (and then perish?) before the seven days of Genesis, otherwise why the requirement for the Sun and Stars to be regenerated ("made") on the 4th Day?

(Alpha and Omega;53738)
Why should there be strong similarities?
Because that is how things are in nature also it is from a creator that never changes
Firstly, I do not know that the earth is billions of years old. I believe that it is at least 400 million years old. That is the oldest fossils to have been discovered. This I read a while ago so it might have changed. Also all this proves is that death was on earth 400 million years ago.
Scientist say it is and this they conclude not only frm fossil records but also from geological samples. In whatever case you have sited fossils that atleast agree or which knowledge comes from science. And 400 million years of death is a lot and should be more prevalent in society.
Secondly, there was no destruction of the earth just life on earth. How? the sun must have burnt out that is why we see the earth in and out of the water (Genesis 1:2). I do think Satan was the destroyer because he was the original sin so he was the bringer of death as we see in the geological record. Therefore that is why we have entropy, because of Satan. Therefore God just let everything die off. First the sun then everything on earth. No sun = no life.
If there was no destruction why the need fo a re-creating? The earth in and out of water. It is obvious the earth can't be in 2 places at once either it is in one or the other or that part of it is in one and the other part in the other. In which case part of the earth would have been in water and the rest out of water that sounds like what we have today and by your arguments the earth rose out of the water, in which case it fits but then the next verse say it overflowed with water which is exactly what happened with Noah's flood account. perhaps other more modern renditions would help here2 Peter 3:5-7 (Amplified Bible)5For they willfully overlook and forget this [fact], that the heavens [came into] existence long ago by the word of God, and the earth also which was formed out of water and by means of water, 6Through which the world that then [existed] was deluged with water and perished.(A) 7But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been stored up (reserved) for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly people.2 Peter 3:5-7 (New International Version)5But 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.Also the bible does not say satan was the original sin. sin as i understand is not a being in which case after God finished His work and said it was very good there was sin in it. I don't agree with that since God never lies if he says good it must be especially considering He spoke everything into existence
The paradox of day 4. It would not matter if the blue suns do not last a million years or not. Let's say a blue sun dies 20 000 years ago we would still see the light of that sun for another 20 000 years, if it is dead or not.
True, but if there was re-creation the light would have been extinguished by reason of a new heaven and order for it to be still around would bring confusion
Genesis 1:14-19And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And 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. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.As we see here God did not create the stars on day four. He made them. There is a big difference between "made" and "create". They are both different Hebrew words with different meaning. As we see in II Peter 3:5-7 the stars and heaven are of old so those stars had to exist (and then perish?) before the seven days of Genesis, otherwise why the requirement for the Sun and Stars to be regenerated ("made") on the 4th Day?
actually there really isn,t any word in hebrew that describes create like you say but i will note that one of the words used in hebrew in the strongs to explain this is the word do and make. the word bara actually means to cut out or cut down not to bring into existence from nothing. Everything proceeds from God. I have already shown that old need not refer to millions or billions of years as Jesus used it to refer to a few thousand years. Also 2 peter 3:5-7 does not mention the stars or any name alluded to them like the heavenly host. And if the stars perished long ago since God remade them their lights should have been extinguished since the entire universe was remade.

Do you not understand that the planet Earth is not destroyed, but only an age. Age and Earth are two different things.

(thesuperjag;53759)
Do you not understand that the planet Earth is not destroyed, but only an age. Age and Earth are two different things.
What then is the use of recreating or regenerating it? Also why do you all use II Peter 3:5-7 which clearly says the world perished. It either perished or didn't.

(Alistein;53760)
(thesuperjag;53759)
Do you not understand that the planet Earth is not destroyed, but only an age. Age and Earth are two different things.
What then is the use of recreating or regenerating it? Also why do you all use II Peter 3:5-7 which clearly says the world perished. It either perished or didn't.Because the world means age. There is nowhere in the bible you are going to find where God says that He created Three Worlds (as in 3 planet Earth according to your interpretation)

(thesuperjag;53762)
Because the world means age. There is nowhere in the bible you are going to find where God says that He created Three Worlds (as in 3 planet Earth according to your interpretation)
Yes. Jag is right. It does not say the Earth that then was it says the World that then was huge difference. 2 different meanings.

(Alpha and Omega;53769)
(thesuperjag;53762)
Because the world means age. There is nowhere in the bible you are going to find where God says that He created Three Worlds (as in 3 planet Earth according to your interpretation)
Yes. Jag is right. It does not say the Earth that then was it says the World that then was huge difference. 2 different meanings.Amen! I knew we will agree. It is so much better to just believe in the Truth.

(Alistein;53758)
Because that is how things are in nature also it is from a creator that never changes
Actually, nature changes often. No one is brining in question that God never changes.(Alistein;53758)
If there was no destruction why the need fo a re-creating?
There was death on the earth no life existed anymore. (Alistein;53758)
The earth in and out of water. It is obvious the earth can't be in 2 places at once either it is in one or the other or that part of it is in one and the other part in the other. In which case part of the earth would have been in water and the rest out of water that sounds like what we have today and by your arguments the earth rose out of the water, in which case it fits but then the next verse say it overflowed with water which is exactly what happened with Noah's flood account. perhaps other more modern renditions would help here2 Peter 3:5-7 (Amplified Bible)5For they willfully overlook and forget this [fact], that the heavens [came into] existence long ago by the word of God, and the earth also which was formed out of water and by means of water, 6Through which the world that then [existed] was deluged with water and perished.(A) 7But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been stored up (reserved) for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly people.2 Peter 3:5-7 (New International Version)5But 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.Also the bible does not say satan was the original sin. sin as i understand is not a being in which case after God finished His work and said it was very good there was sin in it. I don't agree with that since God never lies if he says good it must be especially considering He spoke everything into existence
The earth is not in two places at once. Why are you questioning the word of God?No thanks I will stick to my KJV thank you very much.(Alistein;53758)
actually there really isn,t any word in hebrew that describes create like you say but i will note that one of the words used in hebrew in the strongs to explain this is the word do and make. the word bara actually means to cut out or cut down not to bring into existence from nothing. Everything proceeds from God. I have already shown that old need not refer to millions or billions of years as Jesus used it to refer to a few thousand years.
Then why use create in one verse and made in another. They are two different words used by God. Why does he use these two different words? They do in fact mean different thingsmade = `asah1) to do, fashion, accomplish, makea) (Qal)1) to do, work, make, producea) to do to workc) to deal (with)d) to act, act with effect, effect2) to makea) to make to producec) to prepared) to make (an offering)e) to attend to, put in orderf) to observe, celebrateg) to acquire (property)h) to appoint, ordain, institutei) to bring aboutj) to usek) to spend, pass (Niphal)1) to be done2) to be made3) to be produced4) to be offered5) to be observed6) to be usedc) (Pual) to be made2) (Piel) to press, squeezecreated = bara'1) to create, shape, forma) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)1) of heaven and earth2) of individual man3) of new conditions and circumstances4) of transformations (Niphal) to be created1) of heaven and earth2) of birth3) of something new4) of miraclesc) (Piel)1) to cut down2) to cut out2) to be fata) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat(Alistein;53758)
Also 2 peter 3:5-7 does not mention the stars or any name alluded to them like the heavenly host. And if the stars perished long ago since God remade them their lights should have been extinguished since the entire universe was remade.
That is just an assumption.

(thesuperjag;53762)
Because the world means age. There is nowhere in the bible you are going to find where God says that He created Three Worlds (as in 3 planet Earth according to your interpretation)
I never even approached this and you give me an interpretation for it in any case if it says world then it means world and not ages ages is clearly used in the bible and with different meaning and i don't see 3 worlds anywhere so I don't know where you got that from and i didn't write anything as such that debate is your own making not mine.

(Alistein;53822)
(thesuperjag;53762)
Because the world means age. There is nowhere in the bible you are going to find where God says that He created Three Worlds (as in 3 planet Earth according to your interpretation)
I never even approached this and you give me an interpretation for it in any case if it says world then it means world and not ages ages is clearly used in the bible and with different meaning and i don't see 3 worlds anywhere so I don't know where you got that from and i didn't write anything as such that debate is your own making not mine.Sorry if I came across you the wrong way... forgive me if I did... because this post, lead me to that conclusion...(Alistein;53760)
What then is the use of recreating or regenerating it? Also why do you all use II Peter 3:5-7 which clearly says the world perished. It either perished or didn't.

Alpha and Omega;53772]Actually said:

never said whether nature changed or not but even if nature changes it still retains it's core not like you suddenly observe it and there is so much difference it tends to be something else. The ages you talk about are clearly in opposites.

There was death on the earth no life existed anymore.

Click to expand...

There is no record of this in the bible that is your assumption.God said His creation was good death and good do not match. God certainly could have removed all the death in the world but according to you He left them and created man putting them in a grave yard even a lot of human parents would abhor this yet you would believe it was fitting for a loving God to do.

The earth is not in two places at once. Why are you questioning the word of God?

Click to expand...

That is how it sounds in water and out of water in any case I only used that to arrive at the obvious conclusion which if you read i said it must mean that part of the earth is submerged in water and the other part rising above water which sounds like the world we live in now and according to you what happens in Genesis when the dry land appeared. i recall you writing it was covered and rose out of the water and since it isn't hovering then some parts of it must still be submerged in water.

No thanks I will stick to my KJV thank you very much.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter which you stick to the conclusion is still thesame ,the other versions were only used to further highlight things as the KJV is written in old English.

Then why use create in one verse and made in another. They are two different words used by God. Why does he use these two different words? They do in fact mean different thingsmade = `asah1) to do, fashion, accomplish, makea) (Qal)1) to do, work, make, producea) to do

to workc) to deal (with)d) to act, act with effect, effect2) to makea) to make

to producec) to prepared) to make (an offering)e) to attend to, put in orderf) to observe, celebrateg) to acquire (property)h) to appoint, ordain, institutei) to bring aboutj) to usek) to spend, pass

(Niphal)1) to be done2) to be made3) to be produced4) to be offered5) to be observed6) to be usedc) (Pual) to be made2) (Piel) to press, squeezecreated = bara'1) to create, shape, forma) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)1) of heaven and earth2) of individual man3) of new conditions and circumstances4) of transformations

(Niphal) to be created1) of heaven and earth2) of birth3) of something new4) of miraclesc) (Piel)1) to cut down2) to cut out2) to be fata) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

Click to expand...

Like I said one of the words used for create is do and make and since you are using the concordance I notice there is no interpretation such as bring into existence from nothing though I understand your point here. however the source you use does not support this stance. Instead you might try understanding what is implied by the word or why it is used. That is just an assumption

Click to expand...

.Maybe and maybe not show me where it says stars and i will drop it. It does not list stars yet in genesis and exodus they are listed. on the contrary you are the one making an assumption here by including what was clearly not included . I merely pointed to the fact it was not included.Concerning the word creation there seems to be a lot of interpretations out there but here are a few I have found a bit helpful http://heartofwisdom.com/Acrobat/creationweek.pdfhttp://www.bcmmin.org/create.htmlI think Jesus even makes it very clear in the following verses unless you doubt His wordMatthew 19:4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.Mark 10:6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.An expansion of the chapter makes it clear the reference is to Adam and Eve.

(thesuperjag;53762)
Because the world means age. There is nowhere in the bible you are going to find where God says that He created Three Worlds (as in 3 planet Earth according to your interpretation)
(thesuperjag;53824)
Sorry if I came across you the wrong way... forgive me if I did... because this post, lead me to that conclusion...
I was referring to the world not worlds since there is no worlds included.

I just came across this verse today.John 8:44Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.certainly pre-dating the 7 days of re-creation.

(Alpha and Omega;53900)
I just came across this verse today.John 8:44Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.certainly pre-dating the 7 days of re-creation.
Interest way of looking at it, however, remember, Lucifer chose to become evil by his free will. I just wanted to correct some people who thinks God created Satan evil......not saying you believe that...I just wanted to take words of cautions.

(thesuperjag;53902)
Interest way of looking at it, however, remember, Lucifer chose to become evil by his free will. I just wanted to correct some people who thinks God created Satan evil......not saying you believe that...I just wanted to take words of cautions.
yes absolutely right jag. Sorry if that is what I implied.