6,000 Year Old Earth (part 1)

[EightSav]

The 6 days of creation are literal 24 hour days, as God is saying-that is all you need to know about them because God doesn't care much for you knowing matters of the dust so much. The hebrew word used for creation for the 6 days is "restoration" which means restoring the earth after it was made desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. So, therefore, the 6 days of restoration are SUMMARY days of restoring that which was already there previously. The light was there, but it did not shine on earth yet until either earth came back into orbit or whatever was covering the atmosphere was freed up so light could shine on earth. The first light was probably electromagnetic light, and the other light was the sun with evenings and mornings. The sun was there but it just couldn't get through, and this is summed up in the summary days of restoration to allow this to be restored. Isn't it wonderful the word God uses is "restoration", not creation as was used for Gen. 1.1? Ask yourself, Why day 2 was not a good day? It is because when God split the firmament, waters below from waters above, up came some of those disembodied demon spirits that were cast down into the deep in Gen. 1.2. They could not harm Adam in the garden unless Adam gave into the temptation. Let us thank the Lord for this discernment!

 

[steen]

The 6 days of creation are literal 24 hour days, as God is saying-that is all you need to know about them because God doesn't care much for you knowing matters of the dust so much. The hebrew word used for creation for the 6 days is "restoration" which means restoring the earth after it was made desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. So, therefore, the 6 days of restoration are SUMMARY days of restoring that which was already there previously.

You did relatively OK up until here, stating personal beliefs of a subjective manner. But then....

The light was there, but it did not shine on earth yet until either earth came back into orbit or whatever was covering the atmosphere was freed up so light could shine on earth. The first light was probably electromagnetic light, and the other light was the sun with evenings and mornings. The sun was there but it just couldn't get through, and this is summed up in the summary days of restoration to allow this to be restored.

Now you are making claims directly pertaining to science, so the inevitable answer becomes:

PROVE IT. provide the evidence for your unique and peculiar, unsubstantiated "just because I say so" claim here.

etc.

 

[EightSav]

I have the proofs fully documented. It is enough for me to hold onto those proofs. My experience has been those who disagree with this, even when they see the quotes of Scripture and Hebrew words the Bible uses for this fact, still it is rejected. So please forgive me if I don't give you all those proofs you ask for.

 

[steen]

Ah, OK, the "I know all about it, honestly, but I won't tell you" defense. yeah, OK, whatever

 

[EightSav]

Sorry. It's for the best. I only give the proof when someone hath an ear to hear.

 

[random_guy]

Sorry. It's for the best. I only give the proof when someone hath an ear to hear.

I'm always interested in learning more about science and I would love to hear the evidence you have. I'm training to be a scientist, so I always keep an open mind.

 

[Pats]

The 6 days of creation are literal 24 hour days,

According to those who interpret the scripture from a "literal" POV, ok.

as God is saying

As who is saying? It seems to me that Genesis was written by people who were expressing a story about God, not quoting Him directly.

-that is all you need to know about them because God doesn't care much for you knowing matters of the dust so much. The hebrew word used for creation for the 6 days is "restoration" which means restoring the earth after it was made desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. So, therefore, the 6 days of restoration are SUMMARY days of restoring that which was already there previously. The light was there, but it did not shine on earth yet until either earth came back into orbit or whatever was covering the atmosphere was freed up so light could shine on earth. The first light was probably electromagnetic light, and the other light was the sun with evenings and mornings. The sun was there but it just couldn't get through, and this is summed up in the summary days of restoration to allow this to be restored. Isn't it wonderful the word God uses is "restoration", not creation as was used for Gen. 1.1? Ask yourself, Why day 2 was not a good day? It is because when God split the firmament, waters below from waters above, up came some of those disembodied demon spirits that were cast down into the deep in Gen. 1.2. They could not harm Adam in the garden unless Adam gave into the temptation. Let us thank the Lord for this discernment!

Do you realize the amount of twists and turns you have to interject into that passage to draw these conclusions?

How about looking at some things that it already says without adding anything between the lines.

1) God is the creator of our Earth.

2) God commanded the waters and the earth to bring forth life:

Genesis 1:20
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

Genesis 1:24
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

I am not far enough into my studies of this passage to be absolutely certain of the signifgance of this wording, but I don't think it should be overlooked in the light of the evidence God left behind reflected in His creation itself.

I have the proofs fully documented. It is enough for me to hold onto those proofs. My experience has been those who disagree with this, even when they see the quotes of Scripture and Hebrew words the Bible uses for this fact, still it is rejected. So please forgive me if I don't give you all those proofs you ask for.

I have a few issues with this. Firstly, you are telling us that you know so much more than we do about this topic that we are not worthy of your explaining it to us, while simultaneously posting to the thread.

If you truly felt your arguements would fall on deaf ears, why did you post to begin with? I don't understand.

Many of us here are extreamely open to hearing new ideas. New ideas are what draw me to chat on message boards in the first place.

I spent about two years truly searching for this "proof" you speak of before realizing I couldn't find it because it doesn't exist. If you can show me I'm mistaken, by all means, I'd be interested.

 

[Deamiter]

Sorry. It's for the best. I only give the proof when someone hath an ear to hear.

So... Does that mean that you'll only tell creationists why creationism is correct?

Say, I've got this great perpetual motion machine -- you can invest and double your money in a week! I'll tell you how it works, but only if you already believe without any evidence that it works...

 

[EightSav]

When the majority are hostile, I just keep my mouth shut. It's one thing to disagree and another to be aggressively hostile. The language used reveals the condition.

 

[steen]

No, you made unsubstantiated claims, and when you were asked to show the validity of your claims, you came up withy excuses for not doing it. You ongoing hiding from this makes you seem incredibly immature. Isn't it time to suck it up and either provide the evidence or admit that you don't have it, so we can move on. Right now, your denial has become an issue by itself and will be so as long as you continue it.

 

[random_guy]

When the majority are hostile, I just keep my mouth shut. It's one thing to disagree and another to be aggressively hostile. The language used reveals the condition.

I don't think my tone was hostile. I'm genuinely interested in any scientific evidence for YECism. As a scientist in training, I need to learn how to evaluate evidence and this would be an excellent way to test my training. If we never share information, how can others benefit from it?

 

[EightSav]

I have never seen any evidence for YECism, nor is it my position taken.

 

[random_guy]

I have never seen any evidence for YECism, nor is it my position taken.

Whoops, I'm sorry. Usually when people talk about the 6 day Creation period, they tend to be YECists. Are you a Gapper, then?

 

[EightSav]

Again, to repeat, the 6 days are literal 24 hour days which in the Hebrew are not creation days, since creation already took place at Gen. 1.1. The Hebrew word used for the 6 days is "restoration"; therefore, the 6 days of restoration are summary days of the period of restoration after God made the earth desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. God would never create desolate and wate when He created perfectly in Gen. 1.1. It only became desolate and waste because of the sin of earth's earliests ages in which Lucifer fell from 3rd heaven and corrupted the beings, which God then had to cast them into the deep in verse 2 as disembodied spirits-demons. On day 2 it was not called a good day like the other good days because some of thos disembodied spirits were released, one of which entered the serpent to tempt. Only Gap explains why day 2 was not called a good day. Other other beliefs fail.

 

[Keturah]

First of all, what is the Bible?

...not a science text book.

 

[Redneck Crow]

I have the proofs fully documented. It is enough for me to hold onto those proofs. My experience has been those who disagree with this, even when they see the quotes of Scripture and Hebrew words the Bible uses for this fact, still it is rejected. So please forgive me if I don't give you all those proofs you ask for.

If you have some unique set of proofs yet do not share them you are doing the Body of Christ on both sides of this debate a huge disservice by keeping them to yourself.

I suspect, however, that the proofs you hold are not different from the ones which have been posted here many times. We've all seen the scriptures and the Hebrew translations posted. We disagree as to whether they are to be taken literally or not.

I doubt that there is a single TE here who does not believe that God could create the universe in 6 days, 6 minutes, or 6 seconds if He chose to do so. So far what we see has convinced us that He chose to do otherwise. But if y'all have some special bit of insight or information that we haven't seen, by all means, trot it out. Otherwise, why even mention it? The old "I know but I'm not going to tell you" is kinda silly in a discussion.