"Stood forth" in 2 Pet 3 KJV is very good

[Interplanner]

The KJV on 'estosa' went with 'stood forth' "The universe existed from of old, and the earth stood forth out of water and through water." It is useful in that it reflects the vertical tectonics that we now know are the 'engine' of what happened in the flood.

It means that the step in creation when the earth was formless, void, dark, submerged was a step before dry land was pushed up. The motion itself does not appear to take much time, but it doesn't answer how long the earth was formless, void, dark, watery prior to that. v9 is when this uplift happened, the 3rd day.

 

[False Prophet]

And God said, g“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,4 and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. ESV
Then God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered together so the dry land will appear.” And it happened. 10 God named the dry land “earth” and the water that was gathered together “seas.” God saw that this was good.
NCV
Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. NASB
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. NIV
And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. RSV
And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so. YOUNG'S

 

[patrick jane]

the planet has molten rock, the crust is comparatively thin. The crust cracks, the plates move, the molten layers move the crust AND cause vertical lift. God caused these changes in an instant, which may seem impossible today, but not for God

Colossians 1:16 KJV -

 

[Interplanner]

And God said, g“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,4 and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. ESV
Then God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered together so the dry land will appear.” And it happened. 10 God named the dry land “earth” and the water that was gathered together “seas.” God saw that this was good.
NCV
Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. NASB
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. NIV
And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. RSV
And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so. YOUNG'S

Those are nice quotes, but the place in question was 2 Pet 3's 'estosa'. Forming is certainly a strong possibility, but if you can express how God lifted the land masses, all the better.

 

[Interplanner]

the planet has molten rock, the crust is comparatively thin. The crust cracks, the plates move, the molten layers move the crust AND cause vertical lift. God caused these changes in an instant, which may seem impossible today, but not for God

Colossians 1:16 KJV -

True, but there is more. See Silvestru on 'Geology and Deep Time' on youtube, 3 years ago I think. There are mounds that have built like Hawaii that show the speed and force that is possible. The British geologist Clemens in London geo society has written that Yosemite's domes could form in as few as 5 hours, if the right crack was lined up with the right boil of magma.

There is a Nordic flood record which says that the person saw land masses pushed up, others sucked down, and Iceland-style volcanic activity all through it. He also mentioned a huge whirlpool, which must have existed at several places per Silvestru's models and drained water. "Nobody talks about the Monterey Canyon. The Monterey is 3 times the size of Grand Canyon but is underwater with most of the same features draining out to the deep Pacific."

 

[6days]

True, but there is more. See Silvestru on 'Geology and Deep Time' on youtube, 3 years ago I think.

Emil Silvestru was a 'all-in' evolutionist at one time. He now believes God created everything 6000 years ago....and that there was no previous ruined creation (He suffered a stroke about 4 years ago)

Silvestru, "I am now convinced of six-day, literal, recent, Genesis creation. That doesn't mean that there are not still some unanswered problems, but researching such issues is what being a scientist is all about."

 

[Interplanner]

I don't know why the previous form of the earth is an issue for you. What matters about the evil that gets its foothold in ch 3 is that it is mankind's issue, affect everyone downstream from him. It doesn't matter to man what else was going on in the universe.

Anyway, Silvestru's presentation mentioned above was about the flood, but I see a retroactive angle to it in the KJV choice.

btw, do you think that the NIV note on Gen 1:2 is mistaken? "The earth became..." is 2nd choice.

 

[patrick jane]

True, but there is more. See Silvestru on 'Geology and Deep Time' on youtube, 3 years ago I think. There are mounds that have built like Hawaii that show the speed and force that is possible. The British geologist Clemens in London geo society has written that Yosemite's domes could form in as few as 5 hours, if the right crack was lined up with the right boil of magma.

There is a Nordic flood record which says that the person saw land masses pushed up, others sucked down, and Iceland-style volcanic activity all through it. He also mentioned a huge whirlpool, which must have existed at several places per Silvestru's models and drained water. "Nobody talks about the Monterey Canyon. The Monterey is 3 times the size of Grand Canyon but is underwater with most of the same features draining out to the deep Pacific."

God's Work is amazing; set into perpetual motion

 

[6days]

I don't know why the previous form of the earth is an issue for you.

I don't know why you add non scriptural ideas into scripture.

What matters about the evil that gets its foothold in ch 3 is that it is mankind's issue, affect everyone downstream from him.

What matter is that Adam's sin corrupted God's perfect creation. Death sin and suffering affect all creation, and we inherit Adam's sin nature.

Rom. 5:12 "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned."

Anyway, Silvestru's presentation mentioned above was about the flood, but I see a retroactive angle to it in the KJV choice.

Silvestru does not believe there was a previous creation that was destroyed.

btw, do you think that the NIV note on Gen 1:2 is mistaken? "The earth became..." is 2nd choice.

BTW, do you think that all major Bible translations of Genesis 1:2 is incorrect? None say "The earth became..."

 

[Interplanner]

I don't know why you add non scriptural ideas into scripture.



What matter is that Adam's sin corrupted God's perfect creation. Death sin and suffering affect all creation, and we inherit Adam's sin nature.

Rom. 5:12 "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned."



Silvestru does not believe there was a previous creation that was destroyed.


BTW, do you think that all major Bible translations of Genesis 1:2 is incorrect? None say "The earth became..."

The point about Rom 5:12 would be that sin entered man's world. If Gen 1:31 declares that it was very good, 1:2 is obviously not very good. I don't know yet if you think that is sin, but I don't think it is. Or it is other entities sin if the earth was one of the black darknesses for the confining of rebellious angels of 2 Pet 3 and Jude.

I don't expect Silvestru to have a literary background, which a person logically needs to read Gen 1. There are far too many similarities to the others, and as P. James-Griffiths shows, we get a full-color or HD image when we hear some of the others and work back to Genesis. "Tracing Genesis through Ancient Culture" youtube.

The NIV has "Now the earth..." which is a standard literary way of expressing a pre-existing condition. So is "The earth became..." (the NIV note). So is NEB's "The earth was already..."

That is how Moses wrote, which you don't seem to accept:
1, title or summary statement
2, pre-existing condition
3, new action or information.
This is repeated over and over in Genesis. #1 is not action in the story. Therefore v1 is not action, otherwise the "literal" reading is that there are two creative acts, v1 and v2 (or 9 depending on what POV is taken, remote or local). Either that or literalists have no attention span!

I don't recall you answering how it is that Job 38 is absolutely clear that some entities that were evil had to be "shaken out" like from a carpet (cockroaches! lol) before God could lay the earth's foundations.

I don't know why it matters to the 6 days, which are still intact, if there were other things going on in the universe. That is crushingly geo-centric, and neither Paul nor Peter nor the Rev are that way. The earth is just one place where God works redemptively.

If it is about human redemption, it is a completely confused soteriology, because man's justification is only in relation to the 1st representative Adam. We never hear of mankind being charged with sin by other entities--Satan or others.

Any logical reading of 2 Pet 3 about 'estosa' through water and with water means that the water was already there. And that 'estosa' was not in the same category as to simply exist for a long time (the heavens).

As Dr. Waltke says in CREATION AND CHAOS, Gen 1-11 was verbally recited around campfires as people came and went among the early Hebrew tribe. There was no surprise about the pre-existing condition of earth. Sometimes this condition was referred to simply as the lizard, and there are plenty of cultures where the 'creator' kills the 'lizard' and the earth is a safe place afterward. (One of these just surfaced last year in the Pacific NW--a petroglyph of Raven killing a lizard). In some accounts, the word for earth is lizard, but it means the chopped up, demolished body of the lizard now safe for human life.

The surprise to the visiting tribes was to hear that Yahweh was the creator and form-er of the earth's present condition. It was He who was so powerful he could make land appear and then he could sink the land in the flood and make it move and crash together in his anger, and end up with mountains and massive piles of sediment here and there. The Nordic legend says the creator drained away water that had covered everything and forced it to stay put, which is pretty much what the Psalms are saying. That's the surprise to the visiting tribes as they heard the evangelistic Gen 1-11.

 

[HisServant]

The KJV is the LAST place anyone should look for the validity of a translation.... it is just that bad.

 

[6days]

The point about Rom 5:12 would be that sin entered man's world.*

Rom. 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"

Adams sin has subjected ALL creation to God's curse. Rom. 8:20-22 "Against its will, all creation was subjected to God's curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

If Gen 1:31 declares that it was very good, 1:2 is obviously not very good.

God declared the completed creation "very good". *You are being a bit heretical if you are judging God saying creation was "not very good" as He completed each step / each day.*

I don't expect Silvestru to have a literary background, which a person logically needs to read Gen 1.

So, only smart people like you can really understand Scripture?
Oh... and compromises like Hugh Ross also understand scripture?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Emil Silvestru was a 'all-in' evolutionist at one time. He now believes God created everything 6000 years ago....and that there was no previous ruined creation (He suffered a stroke about 4 years ago)

Silvestru, "I am now convinced of six-day, literal, recent, Genesis creation. That doesn't mean that there are not still some unanswered problems, but researching such issues is what being a scientist is all about."

Please don't take this as an attack 6days. I found this comment interesting because I'd never heard of what you described happening to a scientist before. So I researched it, and unfortunately Mr. Silvestru's quotes make it quite clear that he only believes in a 6000 year old Earth and the like because he became a Christian then had to change his scientific views to fit his new religion. For example:

"Once I became a Christian, I knew I had to tune up my scientific knowledge with the Scriptures."
"Although philosophically and ethically I accepted a literal Genesis from my conversion, at first I was unable to match it with my technical side."

Science did not convince him that a 6000 year old Earth was the right answer. In fact he admits it told him differently. He just believed that in order to be a good God-fearing Christian he had to accept a literal Genesis. The scientific method was not employed

 

[patrick jane]

The KJV is the LAST place anyone should look for the validity of a translation.... it is just that bad.

you poor soul

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Delete

 

[Interplanner]

Rom. 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"

Adams sin has subjected ALL creation to God's curse. Rom. 8:20-22 "Against its will, all creation was subjected to God's curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.


God declared the completed creation "very good". *You are being a bit heretical if you are judging God saying creation was "not very good" as He completed each step / each day.*


So, only smart people like you can really understand Scripture?
Oh... and compromises like Hugh Ross also understand scripture?

There is nothing good by Gen 1's own standards about being formless, chaotic, dark, watery and not having the Spirit at work in it. Every reference to the 'deep' in Hebrew is frightful; just check Job--Isaiah. You are such a confused reader of what is actually there. That is before the 6 days. There was a pre-existing condition.

In addition, what is good about 'formless and void' in Jer 4:23? Nothing!!! What is good about God having to remove evil ____s from the earth before laying the foundation of what we now have, Job 38? Nothing. Are those not the two closest literary comparisons we are forced to make?

Besides, he didn't say that the pre-existing condition was good. Instead, he needed to redeem it, to reform it. The indications of other texts on this do not lay the fault of a mess at God's feet but others. Or it is simply what's there when he has finished executing judgement on something, which is not his fault either.

re Ross: I think you missed that I heard Ross recently in debate and he did very poorly on answering counter-questions about 'what do things look like after millions of years?' It would have been better if he had said 'I don't know' than what he did. I don't remember the counterpart person but it was on NRBTV about 2 weeks ago. He may have a point about the age of the distant universe (like 2 Pet 3), but yes, I believe he has missed the point about the speed and force with which granitic magmatism can take place and catastrophic vertical tectonics. In fact, I get the impression he'd rather like to avoid the flood altogether.

The creation that Paul was speaking of in Rom 8 is everything downstream from mankind. I don't believe he meant it universally. Sin was already in the universe when Satan tempted Adam, and who knows where he'd been. What exactly did the rebellious angels do who sinned, and how long would that take? How long were they confined at 'blackest darkness' places which also show up in other cultures? Even Peter borrowed 'Tartarus' regarding that in 2 Pet 2.

Your conception of a strict absence of time, drama, action, entities except for day 1 of creation forward is completely foreign to the Bible and an unnecessary obstacle to people inquiring here. Jn 17:24. God's works are manifold. Unless God is at work in many things and levels in his universe, it is silly to have him show up just for things here, and doing only the most unusual things here. What I'm saying is what Lewis said, and should relieve some of the difficult pressure a person like OliviaM has reading Gen 1-11.

And I haven't even talked about 'sons of God', Nephilim, giantism, etc.

 

[HisServant]

you poor soul

Why?... because I don't have my head in the sand?

I have pity on people like you because you have closed your mind to the Holy Spirit leading in favor of the doctrines of the Anglican Church... yet, I bet you aren't Anglican or Episcopalian....

Doesn't that strike you as funny?... it always makes me laugh a little.

 

[6days]

Please don't take this as an attack 6days. I found this comment interesting because I'd never heard of what you described happening to a scientist before. So I researched it, and unfortunately Mr. Silvestru's quotes make it quite clear that he only believes in a 6000 year old Earth and the like because he became a Christian then had to change his scientific views to fit his new religion.

Attack? .... no, of course not. I'm well aware of Emil Silvestru's testimony. He describes how difficult it was to come to the realization that everything he had been taught...everything he believed was wrong.

His testimony is not unusual, since origins science interprets evidence according to our beliefs about the past. Geneticist John Sanford says something similar." I was totally sold on evolution. It was my religion; it defined how I saw everything, it was my value system and my reason for being. Later, I came to believe in “God”, but this still did not significantly change my intellectual outlook regarding origins. However, still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history. I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see. It sounds simple, but it was a slow and painful process. I still only see “as through a glass, darkly” [1 Cor. 13:12]. But I see so much more than I could before!"

 

[Greg Jennings]

Attack? .... no, of course not. I'm well aware of Emil Silvestru's testimony. He describes how difficult it was to come to the realization that everything he had been taught...everything he believed was wrong.

His testimony is not unusual, since origins science interprets evidence according to our beliefs about the past. Geneticist John Sanford says something similar." I was totally sold on evolution. It was my religion; it defined how I saw everything, it was my value system and my reason for being. Later, I came to believe in “God”, but this still did not significantly change my intellectual outlook regarding origins. However, still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history. I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see. It sounds simple, but it was a slow and painful process. I still only see “as through a glass, darkly” [1 Cor. 13:12]. But I see so much more than I could before!"

I'm glad you are more thick-skinned than some creationists. Truly I am.

As I pointed out previously, Mr. Silvestru did not come to his new views regarding the age of the Earth because scientific evidence told him he needed to rethink some things. In fact he says himself that scientific evidence was at odds with the Genesis creation account, and that he only changed his views because he thought he needed to in order to accommodate his new faith. At a glance it would seem that Sanford came across the same dilemma. I even remember reading about a British scientist (his name and exact field of study escapes me) who stated that even if all of the evidence available to him contradicted his belief in a 6000 year old Earth that he would still believe in a literal Genesis, which is of course is very obviously illogical.

I wouldn't consider that a ringing endorsement for the scientific accuracy of creationism, would you?

 

[Interplanner]

Please don't take this as an attack 6days. I found this comment interesting because I'd never heard of what you described happening to a scientist before. So I researched it, and unfortunately Mr. Silvestru's quotes make it quite clear that he only believes in a 6000 year old Earth and the like because he became a Christian then had to change his scientific views to fit his new religion. For example:

"Once I became a Christian, I knew I had to tune up my scientific knowledge with the Scriptures."
"Although philosophically and ethically I accepted a literal Genesis from my conversion, at first I was unable to match it with my technical side."

Science did not convince him that a 6000 year old Earth was the right answer. In fact he admits it told him differently. He just believed that in order to be a good God-fearing Christian he had to accept a literal Genesis. The scientific method was not employed

Yet some of the best quotes about CPT (catastrophic plate tectonics) or vertical tectonics are not from Christians. I don't know about the distant universe or its age, but the 6 days and the deluge are increasingly linked together along these lines. Both geologically and culturally. There is an emormous amount of information in the world wide flood accounts, and where they are located, and why certain details reached those far locations, etc.

Just two geologic examples: the Centralia theory of Australia is now that rapid sedimentary deposit accounts for the entire center of the contintent, partially burying Ayers Rock, which is itself J shaped, ie, bent/folded. (Folding is located in many places around the world and takes huge amounts of energy, heat, water, etc.). 2, Clemens in the London geology association journal writes that granitic magmatism could produce domes like Yosemite's in as little as 5 hours. This planet has been rocked and rolled.

The reformation seems to be taking place in geology because uniformitarianism was slopped together when geology was very naive.