The Water and Earth were Both Present Before the Six Days of Creation

[JudgeRightly]

While my theory of an old earth and old universe with young life does not employ the idea of “long day” periods of the six days of creation, many OECs do believe that the days of creation are extended periods of time; and, some even claim millions if not billions of years long “long days”.
It’s always confused me how any thinking person could possibly come to the conclusion that a “day” in the Holy Bible could ever mean anything other than a 24 hour period of time; except for of course in such a phrase as “in the day of Solomon,” or “in the day of Noah.”

I think the Hebrew texts are clear that the six days of creation were indeed 24 hour days, and God created the life and environment for it in those six days.

If you accept what Jesus said (and you should), millions or billions of years is not possible anywhere in scripture, not in between verses 1 and 2, and certainly not by taking "day" to mean a long period of time.

[JESUS]But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[/JESUS] - Mark 10:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark10:6&version=NKJV

In other words, God made the universe, the earth, the seas, and everything in them, in six days, and man on Day 6, at the BEGINNING of the creation ("now" being the continuous "end" of creation).

 

[mtwilcox]

If you accept what Jesus said (and you should), millions or billions of years is not possible anywhere in scripture, not in between verses 1 and 2, and certainly not by taking "day" to mean a long period of time.

[JESUS]But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[/JESUS] - Mark 10:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark10:6&version=NKJV

In other words, God made the universe, the earth, the seas, and everything in them, in six days, and man on Day 6, at the BEGINNING of the creation ("now" being the continuous "end" of creation).

So, in your opinion; which day do you believe God created the water and earth?

Do you agree that the Bible says angels were present when God laid the foundations of the earth?

If so, which day were they made; or, do you believe they always existed with God, even before time itself as we know it in this existence?

[Job 38:4 KJV] Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
[Job 38:5 KJV] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
[Job 38:6 KJV] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
[Job 38:7 KJV] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

[Isa 42:5 KJV] Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

I find it outstanding that the Bible says God stretches out the heavens, and we now have proven through observation, that the universe or “heavens” are indeed expanding.

=M=

===========================

 

[mtwilcox]

On the subject of “observable truth” which is now today proven science, that was already written plainly in the Holy Bible:

Spreading out of the Universe, or an expanding universe.
The Bible said the universe had a beginning, which is what the majority of scientific communities now accept as truth; it may surprise you that many scientists used to believe that the universe always was, and had no beginning... The Bible always had that right...
The fountains of the deep were discovered; now called hydrothermal vents by modern science.

There are many more examples of scientific facts that the Bible presented as facts, long before science was able to observe them and realize them as facts.

This is a video related to this very subject:

=M=

==========================

 

[mtwilcox]

To further elaborate on this Idea of proven science explained in the Bible:

The Bible contains the concept of entropy...
All structures break down over time.

[Psa 102:25 KJV] Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands.
[Psa 102:26 KJV] They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
[Psa 102:27 KJV] But thou [art] the same, and thy years shall have no end.

The scripture is clear on the fact that all of creation is slowly breaking down; the idea that nothing is permanent but God is an absolutely interesting concept to be put forth.
In the past, science assumed that there are things in the universe that are everlasting, but the Bible has always claimed that nothing lasts forever but God.

Laws of Science today say just that.

=M=

==========================

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, in your opinion;

My opinion has nothing to do with this.

which day do you believe God created the water and earth?

Day 1.

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. - Genesis 1:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:1-2&version=NKJV

Do you agree that the Bible says angels were present when God laid the foundations of the earth?

I do, however, the Bible does not state explicitly when exactly they were created, just that they were made within the first week of creation, as per Genesis 2:1.

If so, which day were they made;

I believe they were made on day 1, or at the very least, before day 3, as per the verses from Job you quote below.

or, do you believe they always existed with God,

No.

even before time itself as we know it in this existence?[/COLOR]

Time is an aspect of God's existence, and since God has always existed, then time has also, since it is an aspect of His existence, always existed.

But no, Angels did not exist before Genesis 1:1, because God started by making the heavens and the earth.

[Job 38:4 KJV]Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?[/COLOR] declare, if thou hast understanding.
[Job 38:5 KJV] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
[Job 38:6 KJV] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
[Job 38:7 KJV] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

[Isa 42:5 KJV] Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

I find it outstanding that the Bible says God stretches out the heavens, and we now have proven through observation, that the universe or “heavens” are indeed expanding.

=M=

Rather, it says He stretched, past tense, out the heavens. Meaning He finished stretching them out.

But I do agree that the universe, from our point of view, is showing effects of being stretched out.

But, what does any of this have to do with the universe being millions or billions of years old or only 7-10k?

 

[JudgeRightly]

On the subject of “observable truth” which is now today proven science, that was already written plainly in the Holy Bible:

Spreading out of the Universe, or an expanding universe.

Again, past tense, "stretched." No longer happening.

The Bible said the universe had a beginning, which is what the majority of scientific communities now accept as truth; it may surprise you that many scientists used to believe that the universe always was, and had no beginning... The Bible always had that right...
The fountains of the deep were discovered; now called hydrothermal vents by modern science.

Two words:

Hydroplate Theory.

There are many more examples of scientific facts that the Bible presented as facts, long before science was able to observe them and realize them as facts.

=M=

True science will never contradict scripture.

To further elaborate on this Idea of proven science explained in the Bible:

The Bible contains the concept of entropy...
All structures break down over time.

[Psa 102:25 KJV] Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands.
[Psa 102:26 KJV] They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
[Psa 102:27 KJV] But thou [art] the same, and thy years shall have no end.

The scripture is clear on the fact that all of creation is slowly breaking down; the idea that nothing is permanent but God is an absolutely interesting concept to be put forth.
In the past, science assumed that there are things in the universe that are everlasting, but the Bible has always claimed that nothing lasts forever but God.

Laws of Science today say just that.

=M=

I think you need to go read this.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

You may find it worth your while.

 

[mtwilcox]

So, you don’t believe the universe is still expanding?

I find it hard to understand why you seem to believe time existed before reality.
Why do you believe this?

I mean, I’ve always assumed time doesn’t apply to God given he is eternal, and created this reality.

You assume God made the angels on day 1?

So, as far as the whole distance between stars, and the speed of light; the whole idea that light takes a very long time to travel from these stars to our eyes...
Do you think this fact is explained by God just making the universe with an apparent age?

I mean, I talk to people at an observatory near my home regularly, and try to explain how the origin of stars and planets and solar systems could not be explained by the existence of dust, gasses, Gravity, and time alone.

I mean, to say that a star could be constructed by natural physical forces, and no intelligent design involved whatsoever; seems like a bit of a stretch for me.... and that may agree with that...

But, if I were to come at them with “the universe is actually 6-10 thousand years old, but just ignore the fact we can see star systems that are billions of light years away, because our God created them with apparent age”, it seems like a far less logical argument, than the obvious intelligent design idea.
[COLOR="#00000FF"]
What would you answer an astronomer who says the universe is obviously billions of years old, because we can see Stars that are billions of light years away?
[/COLOR]
=M=

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you do not use the "Reply with Quote" button, I may not get your responses. Please use it.

So, you don’t believe the universe is still expanding?

I believe the Bible, which uses the past tense word "stretched."

I find it hard to understand why you seem to believe time existed before reality.

That's because you've been raised in a church that teaches (assuming you were raised in a church, or if not, you learned from those who believe in...) the "timelessness of God."

The Bible does not teach that God is outside of time, or that time was created.

https://kgov.com/time

Why do you believe this?

Because time being created is a logical contradiction.

You cannot have a "before creation" if there is no time.

In other words, time is a prerequisite of creation, therefore time itself cannot be created.

I mean, I’ve always assumed time doesn’t apply to God given he is eternal, and created this reality.

Eternal implies infinite time, not "no time."

You assume God made the angels on day 1?

I said that I believe, at the very least, that they were created before day 3.

I don't assume it though, and am open to being persuaded otherwise, though to do so, one would have to show how my paradigm of beliefs are incorrect, since the angels being created before day 3 fits my paradigm.

So, as far as the whole distance between stars, and the speed of light; the whole idea that light takes a very long time to travel from these stars to our eyes...

See https://kgov.com/stretch

See also https://answersingenesis.org/astron...ew-solution-to-the-light-travel-time-problem/

Do you think this fact is explained by God just making the universe with an apparent age?

No.

See the above links.

I mean, I talk to people at an observatory near my home regularly, and try to explain how the origin of stars and planets and solar systems could not be explained by the existence of dust, gasses, Gravity, and time alone.

See above.

I mean, to say that a star could be constructed by natural physical forces, and no intelligent design involved whatsoever; seems like a bit of a stretch for me.... and that may agree with that...

Stars were created on Day 4 of the creation week by God.

But, if I were to come at them with “the universe is actually 6-10 thousand years old,

More likely 7 thousand, but certainly no more than 10.

but just ignore the fact we can see star systems that are billions of light years away, because our God created them with apparent age”,

You should stop applying arguments not made by me and others on this thread to us. Making such comments shows you're not really paying attention to what is being said.

it seems like a far less logical argument, than the obvious intelligent design idea.

Good thing it's not something that I argue.

Do try to refrain from bringing up straw man arguments.

What would you answer an astronomer who says the universe is obviously billions of years old, because we can see Stars that are billions of light years away?

=M=

I would suggest that he consider the possibility that the "age" is an artifact of God having stretched out the heavens when He created them. I would also point him to the above links.

 

[mtwilcox]

Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you believe in apparent age.

Thanks for the reply, once again.

If you don’t believe that the universe is still expanding, what to you make of the fact we observe that stars are gaining distance between us and them?

I mean, do you believe that stars are stationary in space?

While the term stretched is used, do you believe that proves the Bible teaches that the heavenly bodies in space are no longer being stretched out?

=M=

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you believe in apparent age.

Thanks for the reply, once again.

If you don’t believe that the universe is still expanding, what to you make of the fact we observe that stars are gaining distance between us and them?

I mean, do you believe that stars are stationary in space?

While the term stretched is used, do you believe that proves the Bible teaches that the heavenly bodies in space are no longer being stretched out?

=M=

:readthis:

If you do not use the "Reply with Quote" button, I may not get your responses. Please use it.

:readthis:

I believe the Bible, which uses the past tense word "stretched."

. . .

https://kgov.com/time

. . .

See https://kgov.com/stretch

See also https://answersingenesis.org/astron...ew-solution-to-the-light-travel-time-problem/

. . .

Stars were created on Day 4 of the creation week by God.

. . .

I would suggest that he consider the possibility that the "age" is an artifact of God having stretched out the heavens when He created them. I would also point him to the above links.

 

[mtwilcox]

Is there any way you could post your logic from within the link you posted that you agree with that answers my questions?

I mean, you didn’t write the document you linked to, so can you give me a simplified answer of your own?

Do you not believe that stars are moving through space?
I mean, the only reason I do, is it’s what I’ve been told by observers...

=M=

 

[JudgeRightly]

Is there any way you could post your logic from within the link you posted that you agree with that answers my questions?

I recommend you just read through the articles.

If I try to shorten it, I might leave something out. If you have questions afterwards, I should be able to answer them, however.

I mean, you didn’t write the document you linked to, so can you give me a simplified answer of your own?

See above.

Do you not believe that stars are moving through space?
I mean, the only reason I do, is it’s what I’ve been told by observers...

They are.

But stars moving through space and the universe expanding are two entirely different things.

 

[mtwilcox]

They are.

But stars moving through space and the universe expanding are two entirely different things.

That’s true;
Thanks to you I am starting to entertain the idea the universe has stopped expanding, and that the calculations for expansion rates have been based on stars that are just moving away from us.

Given, nobody has seen or found the edge of the universe; it’s hard to prove it’s still expanding.

I’ll bring this idea up to the astronomers, the next time I visit the observatory.
I like the idea, I just have to think it over for a while, and do some research.
A good place to start would be to find out which objects they were basing the expansion rates off of... then find out if like objects are also moving towards us...

=M=

Here’s a link to the observatory I visit:

https://martzobservatory.org/

They have taken some awesome pictures of God’s handiwork.

[Psa 8:3 KJV] When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
[Psa 8:4 KJV] What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

 

[Gary K]

I recommend you just read through the articles.

If I try to shorten it, I might leave something out. If you have questions afterwards, I should be able to answer them, however.



See above.



They are.

But stars moving through space and the universe expanding are two entirely different things.

Not necessarily. Hubble found that in all directions from earth all but the galaxies closest to the earth are moving away from us. He found that by observation. That was such a blow to his belief in evolution and his hatred of God that he came up with the cosmological principle to deny what he observed. He wrote about this in his book The Observational Approach to Cosmology.

The energy-corrections, it will be recalled, are the total effects of red-shifts on apparent luminosities,
provided red-shifts are not velocity-shifts. The latter interpretation seems to follow directly from the
preliminary assumption of uniformity.
The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it
would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which
the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that
we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central
earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last
resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the
alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.
A thinning out would be readily explained in either of two ways. The first is space absorption. If the
nebulae were seen through a tenuous haze, they would fade away faster than could be accounted for by
distance and red-shifts alone, and the distribution, even if it were uniform, would appear to thin out. The
second explanation is a super-system of nebulae, isolated in a larger world, with our own nebula
somewhere near the centre. In this case the real distribution would thin out after all the proper
corrections had been applied.
Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations. The apparent departures
from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for
redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be
uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition
of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, we accept the uniform distribution, and
assume that space is sensibly transparent. Then the data from the surveys are simply and fully accounted
for by the energy corrections alone - without the additional postulate of an expanding universe.

So, observation says the universe is expanding away from us in all directions. Hubble's law denies this and says no matter where a person is everything is always moving away from us. That is impossible. It's a logical fallacy. He created it to deny the earth having a favored location in the universe because of the implications of the earth being at the core of the universe. So, is the universe expanding? I think so. Is it expanding the way Hubble postulated it was? No. His observations say the universe is expanding in a rational way. Hubble's law is irrational and is a construct to deny creation.

This next quote goes to show how much of current astronomy and cosmology relies on sheer assumption.

Relativistic cosmology is a natural offshoot of Einstein's theory of general relativity. However, the
cosmology is a superstructure, including other principles, and, if the present formulation were found to
be inadequate, the failure would not necessarily affect the underlying theory. Relativity contributes the
basic proposition that the geometry of space is determined by the contents of space. To this principle has
been added another proposition, formulated in various ways and called by various names, but equivalent,
in a sense, to the statement that all observers, regardless of their location, will see the same general
picture of the universe. The second principle is a sheer assumption. It seems plausible and it appeals
strongly to our sense of proportion. Nevertheless, it leads to a rather remarkable consequence, for it
demands that, if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer,
no matter where he may be located, will see the nebulae all receding from his position. However, the
assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the universe, no centre, no boundary; all
must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist, postulates spatial
isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the universe must be pretty much alike
everywhere and in all directions.

Here is a link to Hubble's 1937 book. It's a free download. https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf

And here is an interesting link on this subject from the creation side of the issue. https://www.adefenceofthebible.com/...ng-at-or-close-to-the-centre-of-the-universe/

As far as the earth being an existing planet at the time of God creating the environment for life and life itself as well as man, I don't have a problem with that. God had been around for an eternity before He created humanity. Did He just sit around and do nothing for that eternity? I very much doubt it. It doesn't fit into His character. Remember God's advice to the sluggard? Go to the ant thou sluggard; consider her ways and be wise. Ants are constantly busy, and I can't imagine God telling the idler to do something He Himself does not do as God is not a hypocrite. He doesn't say do this and not do it Himself. He doesn't tell us to love our neighbors and not love others Himself. God is completely consistent.

 

[chair]

delete- I see I addressed this earlier