Young Earth or Old?

[way 2 go]

It is clear from the preponderance of scripture that original heaven and earth of Genesis 1:1 was subject to cataclysmic destruction between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2

Without getting into the about a dozen other passages that are pertinent let me add a little of what can be learned from scripture about Gen 1

I get a lot of guff for being a follower of The Way International, yet I find no one who has done their homework like they have.

The Way International
you have joined a cult and people are giving you guff , that's weird.

Well, I expect the following will help fill some details

A verse I have yet to see posted about Genesis 1

Jeremiah 4:23

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

God showed by revelation to Jeremiah the state of the earth before God started restoring it in Genesis 1:3

God is light and in him is no darkness at all, I John 1:5

God would have included the creation of light in Genesis 1:1. Why did is it not found until Genesis 1:3? Because whatever light had been part of the original creation was extinguished by a cataclymic event. Call it a "big destruction"

perfect at Genesis 1:1
you said: "At parochial grade school, I was taught that God is perfect. Since God is perfect, everything he does is perfect. "

When the dragon and his angels were cast down to earth was that a cotton ball landing on a pile of marshmallows?

Revelation 12:7-9,12-13,15-17

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

It is this war that caused the original creation of Genesis 1:1 to fall into the ruin described in Genesis 1:2

God makes clear who this was that was the evil that was the source of this cataclysm, "the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan,"

This dragon... is in direct opposition to God and to His son.

John 10:10 makes that abundantly clear.

Who steals, kills and destroys? the thief known by many other names as well as we have seen.

Without getting into all the passages that pertain, Lucifer was the angle of light that rebelled against God and was cast down. The dragon, the destroyer destroyed the perfection of Genesis 1:1, thus God brooded over the waters and began the restoration in Genesis 1:3

nope

Lucifer was placed in the garden of Eden with Adam & Eve by God , Lucifer fell after the creation of man

Eze 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.
Eze 28:14 You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"In the beginning" doesn't necessarily mean "the very first step."

So there was a step in regard to the creation which happened before the "beginning" of the creation?

All you prove is that you are willing to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to cling to ideas which defy common sense.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So there was a step in regard to the creation which happened before the "beginning" of the creation?

"The beginning" is not the same as "In the beginning.

"In the beginning" refers to a period of time, not one specific instant.

"The beginning" is speaking of a specific instant, a point in time.

All you prove is that you are willing to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to cling to ideas which defy common sense.

This coming from someone who has repeatedly tried to force his views of scripture into scripture, rather than just simply reading scripture and accepting what it says.

 

[chair]

Observations show that the Earth is old.
A particular view of the Bible claims that the Earth is young.

One can reject the observations in order to stick to a particular view of the Bible. When one does this one rejects normal reality and substitutes a 'spiritual reality' instead. This is a weird situation to be in, but some choose it.

Or one can have a different view of the Bible, and stick to normal reality. This is easier to deal with.

 

[way 2 go]

Observations show that the Earth is old.
A particular view of the Bible claims that the Earth is young.

One can reject the observations in order to stick to a particular view of the Bible. When one does this one rejects normal reality and substitutes a 'spiritual reality' instead. This is a weird situation to be in, but some choose it.

Or one can have a different view of the Bible, and stick to normal reality. This is easier to deal with.

Observations show that the Earth is young

https://kgov.com/list-of-not-so-old-things


Iron-clad "Dinosaur-era" tissue from "70-million year old" Mosasaur: As below, and in this peer-reviewed report by researchers including from Lund University in Sweden and Southern Methodist University in Dallas, scientists confirm another biological tissue discovery using sophisticated techniques to rule out modern contamination, bio-film, etc., concluding that original biological collagen exists in a small bone from an extinct marine reptile called a mosasaur. Yet according to a report in Science Magazine as it relates to the discoveries of dinosaur tissue, scientists calculate the maximum survival time of collagen not in millions but in thousands of years.


Most Human Mutations Arose in 200 Generations: From Adam until Real Science Radio, in only 200 generations! The journal Nature reports The Recent Origin of Most Human Protein-coding Variants. As summarized by geneticist co-author Joshua Akey, "Most of the mutations that we found arose in the last 200 generations or so" (the same number previously published by biblical creationists). Another 2012 paper, in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Eugenie Scott's own field) on High mitochondrial mutation rates, shows that one mitochondrial DNA mutation occurs every other generation, which, as creationists point out, indicates that mtEve would have lived about 200 generations ago. That's not so old!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"The beginning" is not the same as "In the beginning.

Let us look at the following two verses which refer to "in the beginning":

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen.1:1).​

"In the beginning," when the LORD created the earth, He laid its foundation:

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands" (Heb.1:10).​

Even though the LORD laid the foundation of the earth "in the beginning" you assert that the following verse describes how the earth was created "in the beginning":

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep" (Gen.1:2).​

You can somehow trick your mind into believing that even though the LORD laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning it remained "without form."

Since the "foundation" of anything is a part of that thing then in order to believe your mistaken idea we must throw our reason to the wind and imagine that when the LORD laid the foundation of the earth that foundation was without form!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Let us look at the following two verses which refer to "in the beginning":

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen.1:1).​

"In the beginning," when the LORD created the earth, He laid its foundation:

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands" (Heb.1:10).​

YUP!

"In the beginning" includes the first six days, Jerry.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

God created the heavens and the earth, laid the foundation of the earth, in the beginning.

Even though the LORD laid the foundation of the earth "in the beginning" you assert that the following verse describes how the earth was created "in the beginning":

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep" (Gen.1:2).​

You can somehow trick your mind into believing that even though the LORD laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning it remained "without form."

Since the "foundation" of anything is a part of that thing then in order to believe your mistaken idea we must throw our reason to the wind and imagine that when the LORD laid the foundation of the earth that foundation was without form!

Jerry, have you never seen a skyscraper under construction?

It's without form, and void.

Yet the workers lay the foundation first AFTER gathering materials! Then they start to form it, building on the foundation.

You can't have a foundation if there's nothing to make it out of.

So God made materials to work with, good materials.

Then He laid the foundations of the earth. Yet the earth was still without form, and void, because He had not yet formed the earth.

So he gathered his materials and began forming it, and did so over the next six days.

Why is this so difficult?

 

[way 2 go]

So he gathered his materials and began forming it, and did so over the next six days.

Why is this so difficult?

so simple a child could understand it

first you need materials , then you can build.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Because, unlike you, I cannot trick my mine into believing that the foundation of the earth which the LORD laid in the beginning was without form.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because, unlike you, I cannot trick my mine into believing that the foundation of the earth which the LORD laid in the beginning was without form.

The earth was without form, Jerry. Not the foundation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The earth was without form, Jerry. Not the foundation.

Since when can the foundation of anything be divorced from that which stands on the foundation?

You are saying that the foundation of the earth was not a part of the earth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Since when can the foundation of anything be divorced from that which stands on the foundation?

You are saying that the foundation of the earth was not a part of the earth.

I'm saying that the earth had not been formed yet, Jerry.

You keep assuming that the earth had already been formed with it's foundation, but that's not what Scripture says.

Scripture says that God laid the foundations, THEN formed the earth.

Just like construction workers lay the foundation for the skyscraper, THEN build the skyscraper.

 

[chair]

Observations show that the Earth is young

https://kgov.com/list-of-not-so-old-things
...

One way of dealing with your weird situation is to deny it. A common solution in some circles.

 

[Stripe]

so simple a child could understand it

first you need materials , then you can build.

The Darwinists decided they didn't need God. "We can make man better than You," they told Him. God suggested a competition and they readily agreed. So they got a bunch of dirt to start making their own man. But God said: "Oh, no, no, no. Get your own dirt."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'm saying that the earth had not been formed yet, Jerry.

You are saying that the foundation upon which the earth rests is not a part of the earth.

According to you the foundation of the earth and the earth itself are completely separated!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Darwinists decided they didn't need God. "We can make man better than You," they told Him. God suggested a competition and they readily agreed. So they got a bunch of dirt to start making their own man. But God said: "Oh, no, no, no. Get your own dirt."

The subject of this thread is not Darwinism. Holding to the idea that the earth is old and not young does not depend on Darwinism. I believe in the old earth but I deny Darwinism.

 

[Stripe]

The subject of this thread is not Darwinism. Holding to the idea that the earth is old and not young does not depend on Darwinism. I believe in the old earth but I deny Darwinism.

"That's a joke, pastor!"

 

[JudgeRightly]

You are saying that the foundation upon which the earth rests is not a part of the earth.

Nope.

According to you the foundation of the earth and the earth itself are completely separated!

No, I think they're two completely different things.

Not that they're separated.

I also think that, if you'd simply read the text more clearly, you'd also see (and this doesn't blow your mind, I don't know what will) that it mentions not one, but TWO "earth"s.

Remember what I said before, Jerry, about in verse one, that the "earth" in verse one isn't "Earth," but "earth," ie. matter?

Earth (capital "E") is what we live on.

The earth (lowercase "e") is what Earth is made of. Matter. Atoms, molecules, chemicals, particles. That's what God created in verse one. then set aside a lump of it to lay the foundation of Earth.

Here, this should help:

Reread Genesis 1:1-13 again, the first three days, Jerry.

Pay attention. I'll format the portions that are relevant.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.Then God said, [JESUS]“Let there be light”[/JESUS]; and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.Then God said, [JESUS]“Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”[/JESUS]Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.Then God said, [JESUS]“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”[/JESUS]; and it was so.And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.Then God said, [JESUS]“Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”[/JESUS]; and it was so.And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.So the evening and the morning were the third day. - Genesis 1:1-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:1-13&version=NKJV

Jerry, did you notice something about the above passage? Note the blue and green portions of the text.

Did you note that God doesn't call or recognize "good" that which he started on day two? and that he did so twice on day three?

Assertion:

God wasn't finished working on the firmament of day two until partway through day three.

I've colored GREEN the parts where God calls something "good".

I've colored BLUE the parts where one day ends and the next begins.

I've colored [JESUS]red[/JESUS] the portions of the text where God is speaking, to make it easier to see what He is saying.

I've underlined portions of sentences (and I'll copy them below) for you to read independently of the text, to get a grasp of what exactly is being said, without all the extra details. (In other words, sentences within sentences, a useful trick I learned while reading Bob Enyart's The Plot Manuscript to help get an idea of what's actually being said.)

I've HIGHLIGHTED the portions of the text so that you can see the most relevant portions of the text to my argument.

Ok, now for the underlined sections:

"... darkness was on the face of the deep . . . the face of the waters"

"Let there be a firmament . . . and let it divide the waters from the waters"

"... the firmament . . . divided the waters . . . from the waters"

"... the firmament . . . called . . . Heaven" [by God]

"... the waters . . . gathered together into one place, and . . . the dry land appear[ed]"

"... God called the dry land Earth, and . . . the waters He called Seas"

Did that help any, Jerry?

Guess what.

God didn't form Earth as Adam would come to know it until the beginning of day three.

And if what I said above is true (that verse 1 describes God making "matter" and not "Earth"), and it most likely does, as it fits scripture the best, as Isaiah said that God laid the foundations then formed the earth (formed, not created; "the earth", not "Earth"), and that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews said that God laid the foundation of the earth (again, "the earth", not "Earth").

God literally laid the foundations of matter.

Then formed that matter into a ball of rock (the mantle) with water on it.

Then formed a firmament (Hebrew, "raqia") in the midst of the waters, which God called Heaven.

Then the firmament settled, forming seas, and dry land, which God called Earth.

And all within the first three days, and He even had time to make some plant-life before wrapping up day three.

Did that help, Jerry?

 

[chair]

"That's a joke, pastor!"

Evolution requires an Old Earth, but the evidence for an Old Earth stands by itself- it doesn't depend on "Darwinism".

 

[JudgeRightly]

Evolution requires an Old Earth, but the evidence for an Old Earth stands by itself- it doesn't depend on "Darwinism".

Creationism requires a young earth, but the evidence for an "old earth" doesn't actually support an old earth. It stands by itself as evidence, evidence which points to a young earth.