3 Earth Ages

Rosco-p-c · #1 5th November 2009, 11:51 PM

Hello, I’m Rosco and I’m new to the Christian Forums. I’ve been a quazi student of the scriptures for several years, but in the last year my wife and I have been drawn to become more focused and serious about developing a stronger relationship with God, fellowship, eschatology and exegesis.

Recently we were introduced to the three earth ages perspective of interpreting the story of God’s creation and our role in it. Has anyone here encountered that approach? We’re curious what your thoughts are.

Thanks.

Rosco

philadiddle · #2 6th November 2009, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by Rosco-p-c

Hello, I’m Rosco and I’m new to the Christian Forums. I’ve been a quazi student of the scriptures for several years, but in the last year my wife and I have been drawn to become more focused and serious about developing a stronger relationship with God, fellowship, eschatology and exegesis.

Recently we were introduced to the three earth ages perspective of interpreting the story of God’s creation and our role in it. Has anyone here encountered that approach? We’re curious what your thoughts are.

Thanks.

Rosco

It seems like a way of trying to force the figurative creation account into a model that can be read as literal, or at least as historical. Scientifically, the main problem is that it is not supported by the evidence in our natural history. Theologically, it sounds like a new age idea to think that souls existed in the first age as spirit and not as body.

That's just a quickie response, dig deeper if you like.

juvenissun · #3 7th November 2009, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Rosco-p-c

Hello, I’m Rosco and I’m new to the Christian Forums. I’ve been a quazi student of the scriptures for several years, but in the last year my wife and I have been drawn to become more focused and serious about developing a stronger relationship with God, fellowship, eschatology and exegesis.

Recently we were introduced to the three earth ages perspective of interpreting the story of God’s creation and our role in it. Has anyone here encountered that approach? We’re curious what your thoughts are.

Thanks.

Rosco

Are the three: 6000+ years; 4.5 billion years; or ????? ?
Or, the young earth, the old earth, and the gap theory age (???) ?

What is the problem with these ages?

shernren · #4 8th November 2009, 06:06 PM

You'll have to tell us what it is.

Zadok7000 · #5 17th November 2009, 02:06 PM

See 2 Peter 3:

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water
= Gen. 1:1, the 1st age (created billions of years ago, dinosaurs etc)

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished
= the "katabole" (overthrow - redered "foundation" - of the world) between 1:1 and 1:2

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
= Gen. 1:2 - today - the 2nd age, perhaps 15,000 years old

reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
= end of the Millennium, start of the 3rd age

The earth became "tohwu" in Gen. 1:2, it was not created that way. (Isa. 45:18)

Zadok7000 · #6 17th November 2009, 02:10 PM

And no, Peter is NOT referring to Noah's flood. I understand that is the prevailing opinion, but it does not hold up to scrutiny.

Calypsis4 · #7 17th November 2009, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Zadok7000

And no, Peter is NOT referring to Noah's flood. I understand that is the prevailing opinion, but it does not hold up to scrutiny.

You are in error on this matter. Peter WAS talking about the flood of Noah.

There is no gap. The comparison between Gen. 1:1 & 1;2 with Jeremiah 4;23 must be taken in context. The prophet was speaking of the destruction of Israel and how it appeared after the Babylonian invasion and devastation...check out vs 31. There is no connection between Gen 1 and Jeremiah 4 except similar wording.

22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

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

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.

30 And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.

31 For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.

May God bless you.

Zadok7000 · #8 17th November 2009, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

You are in error on this matter.

That settles it then. :eyeroll:
I used to accept the Noah's flood explanation, but no more. The Lord did not create the earth "tohwu" as Isa. 45:18 says. It doesn't make sense linguistically or logically.

juvenissun · #9 17th November 2009, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Zadok7000

And no, Peter is NOT referring to Noah's flood. I understand that is the prevailing opinion, but it does not hold up to scrutiny.

I like to agree with you, but with a different reason.

But, first, I like to hear your elaboration on what you called "linguistic" and "logical" reasons. You may go brief on the interpretation. If I have more question, I will ask.

Peter said: "out of water" and "by the water" or "in the water". What does it really say?

Zadok7000 · #10 18th November 2009, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

I like to agree with you, but with a different reason.

But, first, I like to hear your elaboration on what you called "linguistic" and "logical" reasons. You may go brief on the interpretation. If I have more question, I will ask.

Peter said: "out of water" and "by the water" or "in the water". What does it really say?

It makes no logical sense that God would create something without form and void (tohwu). Isa 45:18 confirms this. It makes no linguistic sense because the tense of the verb "hayah" in Gen. 1:2 should be "became" not "was". That would straighten all of this out - but people choose to remain ignorant of it, that is what Peter was saying.

the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished
=
Gen. 1:2, the earth was covered with water (whether in liquid or ice form we are not told). In verses 6-10 the waters had to be divided so the land could appear. This earth with land being overflowed with water is not "towhu" in any way. It became that way at the overthrow. Noah's flood, on the other hand, was only 22 feet high, much land was not even covered, even many trees locally survived it. Bad flood? Yes. Global cataclysm that Peter described? No.