Where is a "6000 year old earth" found in scripture?

[ewq1938]

What we have are computer programs that can identify individual authors.

lol...

 

[joshua 1 9]

lol...

You do not believe they can deliver on their claim?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/an-israeli-algorithm-shed_n_886996.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkna...s-determine-who-wrote-the-bible/#60ba9c522308

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Absolutely. Even Adam comes across as an adult.
Fruiting trees, dirt, thousands of species of animals
a well aged garden, stability, moderation and balance
that all comes from establishment and age.

Absolutely no indications of any kind suggesting
anything less than an ancient creation.

You are assuming that you have the understanding of what the just created universe should look like.
Your assumption has no weight on what the creation should have looked like.
It looked like itself, all beautiful, and new, not old, not even looking old, cause it was the beginning, not the end of eons.
No reason to put in your assumption of what it should look like or did, cause God was there, and He told us what He did, and He means it.
You, on the other hand, were not there, and your idea of old appearance is based on what you have lived and believed, without believing the plain Word of God.
The creation looked new, cause it was new.
It did not look old. There was no "old".

 

[miamited]

You are assuming that you have the understanding of what the just created universe should look like.
Your assumption has no weight on what the creation should have looked like.
It looked like itself, all beautiful, and new, not old, not even looking old, cause it was the beginning, not the end of eons.
No reason to put in your assumption of what it should look like or did, cause God was there, and He told us what He did, and He means it.
You, on the other hand, were not there, and your idea of old appearance is based on what you have lived and believed, without believing the plain Word of God.
The creation looked new, cause it was new.
It did not look old. There was no "old".

Hi YSM,

I'm not sure that the human power of observation and reason would even be able to look upon the newly created realm and make a determination of 'new' or 'old'. It just looked as it was. In one moment there was nothing in the black inkiness of space and suddenly the ball of solids and liquids that God called the earth merely appeared. It was awash on it's surface with water, but underneath had the same solids that we see today. How does water, that is active and being properly oxygenated, look old? I often go to the lake near our home and I honestly don't know what 'old' and 'new' water would look like. How does a tree, that was created moments before, that is fully grown and mature, look old? The only assumption we could make, understanding now and in this time, that a tree begins as a seedling and grows into a sapling and then into a full grown tree that it must be old because we know that trees start from seed and these trees certainly appear to be well beyond the seedling stage. But that same argument could be made of Adam. Adam would only appear aged to us because we know that a human being starts as a frail baby and then grows into adulthood over a span of several years. So, the only way we could say that things 'looked' new is if we threw out those understandings of the growing and maturing processes of all things.

Of course, it certainly wouldn't have shown any of the effects of pollution and contamination that man tends to cause upon the earth that we see plenty of today. If we don't see any landfills upon the earth, does that make it look new? If we don't see any of the foamy water and refuse of sewage in a body of water, does that make the water look new? I can walk up into the mountains around my home and find brooks and streams of water tripping over rocks that is crystal clear and cool and inviting to the thirst, would I see that as being new water? I can walk through parts of our national forest system where there are no signs of man having ever existed; no pathway signs or buildings off in the distance, am I to conclude that the forest is new?

I'm just not convinced that looking old or new is a determination that we could have made if we were able to see the earth today as it appeared in the days that God commanded all that is in this realm to exist. Can a star in the universe actually look new or do we merely assign it age because we can see it?

The trees and rocks and various flora and fauna would have merely looked like they looked. There wouldn't have been any 'signs' by which, on day 10 of the creation, we could have made any determination of the age of all that existed upon the earth and in the heavens other than knowledge that we now have that living things need some amount of time to mature.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[SkyWriting]

You are assuming that you have the understanding of what the just created universe should look like.
Your assumption has no weight on what the creation should have looked like.
It looked like itself, all beautiful, and new, not old, not even looking old, cause it was the beginning, not the end of eons.
No reason to put in your assumption of what it should look like or did, cause God was there, and He told us what He did, and He means it.
You, on the other hand, were not there, and your idea of old appearance is based on what you have lived and believed, without believing the plain Word of God.
The creation looked new, cause it was new.
It did not look old. There was no "old".

I know what dirt looks like that plants grow in and more importantly what dirt is made of.

And I know what was created and as far as we know has not changed lately.

 

[SkyWriting]

You are assuming that you have the understanding of what the just created universe should look like.

I know the difference between babies and adults. Most humans are created small.

But the scriptures suggest Adam was not a baby. Nor Eve.
Not any of part of Creation was created young.
So the earth was not young when created and is not now young.
Unless your saying that Adam was created as a fertilized egg.

Then you may also say the earth was molten cooling lava during creation week.
But that's not how scripture reads.

19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Hi YSM,

I'm not sure that the human power of observation and reason would even be able to look upon the newly created realm and make a determination of 'new' or 'old'. It just looked as it was. In one moment there was nothing in the black inkiness of space and suddenly the ball of solids and liquids that God called the earth merely appeared. It was awash on it's surface with water, but underneath had the same solids that we see today. How does water, that is active and being properly oxygenated, look old? I often go to the lake near our home and I honestly don't know what 'old' and 'new' water would look like. How does a tree, that was created moments before, that is fully grown and mature, look old? The only assumption we could make, understanding now and in this time, that a tree begins as a seedling and grows into a sapling and then into a full grown tree that it must be old because we know that trees start from seed and these trees certainly appear to be well beyond the seedling stage. But that same argument could be made of Adam. Adam would only appear aged to us because we know that a human being starts as a frail baby and then grows into adulthood over a span of several years. So, the only way we could say that things 'looked' new is if we threw out those understandings of the growing and maturing processes of all things.

Of course, it certainly wouldn't have shown any of the effects of pollution and contamination that man tends to cause upon the earth that we see plenty of today. If we don't see any landfills upon the earth, does that make it look new? If we don't see any of the foamy water and refuse of sewage in a body of water, does that make the water look new? I can walk up into the mountains around my home and find brooks and streams of water tripping over rocks that is crystal clear and cool and inviting to the thirst, would I see that as being new water? I can walk through parts of our national forest system where there are no signs of man having ever existed; no pathway signs or buildings off in the distance, am I to conclude that the forest is new?

I'm just not convinced that looking old or new is a determination that we could have made if we were able to see the earth today as it appeared in the days that God commanded all that is in this realm to exist. Can a star in the universe actually look new or do we merely assign it age because we can see it?

The trees and rocks and various flora and fauna would have merely looked like they looked. There wouldn't have been any 'signs' by which, on day 10 of the creation, we could have made any determination of the age of all that existed upon the earth and in the heavens other than knowledge that we now have that living things need some amount of time to mature.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Yes.
It just was, and God said it was all done in one week.
My point is that skywriting has no credibility for judging it as "looking old", because it is not about "looking", but "being" just what God said it was.

One of the things skywriting has claimed is that it took time for the "mud to dry up" after the earth appeared out of the waters, and I pointed out, but he has not answered, that the Word says it was not "mud", but "Dry" that God commanded to appear when He commanded the waters below heaven to be gathered together in one place, which He called "seas", and the "dry" to appear, which He called/named, right then, "Earth".

No mud, no drying time, just "dry", and so it was with creation week.
God spoke, and the elements for every thing He made in creation week were brought forth, out of the waters.

BTW: I do not think there was a solid core globe of anything called "dry/earth", but a globe of water, only, with the Holy Spirit hovering over the face/topside of them, energizing the waters with electromagnetic powers.

Tremendous amounts of waters were brought into being in the beginning, out of which waters God organized into their being everything that is made.

 

[Riberra]

The creation looked new, cause it was new.
It did not look old. There was no "old".

2 Peter 3:5
5 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:

 

[yeshuasavedme]

2 Peter 3:5
5 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:

Yes? and so?
So the elements God created in the waters are "energized by the Holy Spirit" on day 1, and organized into all that is, in this creation, in six days -nearly six thousand years ago.
That was just the beginning, and it will go on forever, being regenerated elementally, anew, in the 8th day; that Great Day - the New Beginning.
The rest of that passage states that the same creation was overflowed with the waters [which was formed out of the waters] perished [became useless for its intention] at the flood of Noah, and now awaits the judgment by fire, when all things are elementally regenerated in a moment of time, and made new.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

 

[Riberra]

Yes? and so?
So the elements God created in the waters are "energized by the Holy Spirit" on day 1, and organized into all that is, in this creation, in six days -nearly six thousand years ago.
That was just the beginning, and it will go on forever, being regenerated elementally, anew in the 8th day, that Great Day, the New Beginning.
The rest of that passage states that the same creation was overflowed with the waters which was formed out of the waters perished [became useless for its intention] at the flood of Noah.

Before Noah flood there was a total flood where even the fishs did not survive .

Genesis 1:1
1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

The Earth was created perfect right there at that moment.


What have happened to the Earth to became in the condition mentionned in Genesis 1:2 ?
Genesis 1:2
2 “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

Between verses one and two we have the passing of a very large amount of time. In verse one we are told, “God created the Heaven and the earth” (“themelios”). In verse two we are told, “the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep“. Essentially this verse is documenting the “katabole” which includes the destruction of The First Earth Age.

This scripture is also where we find the first mistranslation in the King James Version Bible. The word “was” is 1961 in your Strong’s Concordance and being properly translated means, “became“. This change in words completely alters the scriptures. The word“was” implies that God created the earth void which we know is not accurate and we will completely document that fact as we move through this study.

While the word “became” stipulates an event caused the earth to ‘become without form and void’. That event was the “katabole“,

The whole thing in 2Peter 3 talk about the three Earth Ages.


http://worldeventsandthebible.com/2009/11/world-that-then-was-first-earth-age.html


2 Peter 3:5
5 “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:”


2 Peter 3:6
6 “Whereby the world that then WAS, being overflowed with water, perished:”

Our Father is documenting the “katabole“, the destruction of The World That Then Was, The First Earth Age. God is not talking about Noah’s flood in this verse. The world did not perish in Noah’s time. At the very least Noah, his family and all of the creatures aboard the ark survived his flood. Common sense tells us Noah could not have lived in a world that did not exist. We will continue to document this fact as we move through the remainder of our study.

2 Peter 3:7
7 “But the heavens and the earth, which are NOW, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”

Our Father defined two separate time periods in the last two verses. “The World That Then Was” from verse six and “the heavens and earth which are now” in verse seven. God explains, He destroyed that old earth age with a major flood, a flood of the whole earth. As we will learn in Jeremiah, God also caused the mountains to shift and there is a lot of evidence that indicates extinction level events due to floods, volcanoes, asteroids and even the shifting of earth’s axis.

In The First Earth Age before this present age of flesh, mankind was in spiritual bodies which never die, therefore there are no fossils of them to be discovered. There are no fossils of mankind older than about eight-thousand years old as man in the flesh was first created on the sixth day roughly eight-thousand years ago. Only the animals were in the flesh which is why we continually find their fossils today.

Before we leave 2nd Peter, let us read one more verse.

2 Peter 3:13
13 “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for NEW heavens and a NEW earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

Between these three verses we are given all three Heaven and earth ages. One, “The World That Then Was” which perished. Two, “the heavens and earth which are now” being this present age of flesh. Three, “new heavens and a new earth” which would be the final Heaven and earth age, this will become our reality at the end of the Millennium. 2 Corinthians 12:2 also documents a third Heaven age. It is important to understand the earth itself will not be destroyed, rather it will be rejuvenated as we will dwell here with Christ for one-thousand years (Revelation 20:6). After the Millennium, our Father will begin to dwell with us here on earth, a day that will be known as Judgement Day, the White Throne Judgement. This is the day everyone receives what they have coming to them whether it be good or bad. We will then enter the Eternity where Heaven and earth meet, wherever God is Heaven is also.


http://worldeventsandthebible.com/2009/11/world-that-then-was-first-earth-age.html

 

[greenguzzi]

[... ...] with the Holy Spirit hovering over the face/topside of them, energizing the waters with electromagnetic powers.

Wow, really!?!
Have have studied electrical engineering and I've studied theology, and I've never heard that before. How could I have missed it!?

 

[miamited]

2 Peter 3:5
5 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:

Hi riberra,

Sorry, but 'were of old' is like saying a long time ago. It doesn't have any reference to appearance. In Peters day the creation had existed for about 4,000 years and that was a long time ago. If you want to verify this understanding you can try a verse comparison with other translations. I like biblestudytools.com, but blueletterbible and gateway are also good study sites.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Before Noah flood there was a total flood where even the fishs did not survive .

Genesis 1:1
1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

The Earth was created perfect right there at that moment.

Please! Read the chapters in Genesis and see that you have an impossible doctrine that is so not of the Word it is not even admissible as "evidence".
It is not even a matter of "interpretation", but of what is actually written.
There was the creation of the heaven and the earth.
They were not named nor formed. There was just a globe of waters.
The Holy Spirit hovered over the waters -infusing it with the energy for the elements of organizing all that is created out of the waters in the six days of creation week.

No light, then light, divided from the darkness, and named evening and morning as it was set circling the earth, and named, together, "one day", and that was the first day.

No heavens stretched out, then the waters were divided in two, and the heavens were stretched out between the divided in two waters of this created globe that was not even named earth, yet, as of then.
The heavens were then named "two waters/sha-mayim", on day two. Before that, they were not named. The light was stretched out with the heavens, and the heavens continued circling the globe [the Hebrew for globe Hebrew is translated "world"] of waters below.

no "dry", then the waters below the heavens were commanded to be gathered together in one place, and the "dry" to appear. God named the "dry" "eretz/earth", and the waters gathered together he named "seas/yam"
That was day 3. So the earth was not named until day 3, and the dry was not mud, but "dry" and one land mass, and one body of gathered waters named "seas" below the heavens.

No vegetation, then God commanded the dry to bring forth vegetation, and the dry/earth was covered with the mature, vegetation, fruiting, with the seed in itself after its kind.
That was day three of evenings and mornings of creation week.

No sun, no moon, then God made the sun and the moon, on day 4, and set them circling the earth in their own peculiar paths in the circle of the earth -the heavens. He made the stars also, including the wandering stars [planets: earth is not a wandering star/planet], and set His heavenly creation calendar in order to bring in the seasons and years and days, and feasts.
The sun is not the light that God brought into being on day 1, but was set to govern that light by day, and the moon by night.

The sun is also not a big hot furnace, but is where God has set His own created temple in His own created outstretched heavens, where He sits on His created throne as God the Word/The Father, [in whom the Son was hidden, in secret, with Him, and was God, and was to come, and is come]. That is in the original Hebrew and is not translated as it is written by bias of translators, in most English versions, but the Hebrew, the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims, all translated it correctly from the Hebrew. After Galileo, translators were biased by unbelieving hearts, and changed His word, in the west.
In 2008, I wrote on this forum about that -but Ive learned even more, since then.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-god-which-is-in-the-created-heavens.7259341/

After He created the sun and the moon and set the calendar of the universe in it's ordained path, on day 4, He commanded the waters to bring forth life from themselves, and the waters teamed with life, including the fowl that fly in the face of the heavens, and that was on day 5 of creation week.

Day 6, the living creatures were commanded to be brought forth from the earth, and then, God made Adam in His own image, after His own likeness [and male and female made He them, and He brought forth the female from the male, after a small bit of time, but after Adam named the beasts of the earth] .

God took -raptured- Adam to Paradise above, which the Word says is in the third heaven, which heaven is one of the stories stretched out from the earth.
Adam was created to rule, and set with the angels in Paradise, in heaven, over earth, and was to populate the earth" with the sons of God of the human being kind" -Malachi 2:15 says so- to build the temple not made with hands for the Glory of the Father to indwell.

So, everything was perfect, and Adam was in fellowship and daily union with the Father of Glory, in heaven above, in Paradise, with free coming and going earth below to heaven above.

So the rest of the story is still happening, and the Redeemer is come to ransom us back for Himself, only in His New Man name, and take us to our heavenly home to rule and reign with Him there, as our Firstborn, and to regenerate the heavens and the earth in the 8th day, which is the New Beginning, signed in the living oracles, and to "Plant the heavens" with the sons of God who will be pillars in His temple "not made with hands" for the Glory to indwell, but in the name of "Israel", the New Man name [Isaiah 49], not in the name of Adam, the fallen and irrevocably defiled, former son of God [Luke 3:38].

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Wow, really!?!
Have have studied electrical engineering and I've studied theology, and I've never heard that before. How could I have missed it!?

You might want to begin learning about the electric universe, from non Bible believers first. I saw it in the Word of God and in the Book of Enoch, correlating the "pillars" of earth as nothing but "electro-magnetic forces" set to hold everything in place. and began to research the electric universe theory myself, and found it has been around a long time....

search their lectures and books and writings for yourself: David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill, the electric universe.
The guys who write there are not Bible believing Christians, though some may profess Christ, I do not know, but they are most well taught and teach, on the electric universe.
I am a student of the Word of God,and the creation was made "electric" from day 1, when the Holy Spirit energized the waters, brooding over them....

 

[Riberra]

Please! Read the chapters in Genesis and see that you have an impossible doctrine that is so not of the Word it is not even admissible as "evidence".

We live actually in the Second Earth Age.The Third Earth Age will happen after the Millennium Revelation 21,...Revelation 22

Same Earth with a new -regenerated- surface....and there was no more sea...
Revelation 21:1
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.


The cycle of destruction and regeneration by God of the Earth's biosphere is well documented.

The whole thing is documented in the Word of God.
You just refuse to even look at it ,right here.

http://worldeventsandthebible.com/2009/11/world-that-then-was-first-earth-age.html

 

[miamited]

Hi YSM,

You wrote:

BTW: I do not think there was a solid core globe of anything called "dry/earth", but a globe of water, only, with the Holy Spirit hovering over the face/topside of them, energizing the waters with electromagnetic powers.

Tremendous amounts of waters were brought into being in the beginning, out of which waters God organized into their being everything that is made.

I'm not too dogmatic about how the first body in our universe appeared. However, I gain my understanding from the way that most translations word the passage. Mine says:


And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

As I understand it, God called the waters to stand aside in one place and let the dry ground appear. It doesn't actually say that he created it at that moment. So, my vision of this event is that the waters receded (only because that's the best word I can think to use at the moment) and out from under where the waters moved away from, there was dry ground. Quite frankly, whether the ground at the time of its appearing was completely dry or not really wouldn't have any bearing on the claim that by the time God made Adam three days later, there could well have been 'dust'. Personally, I also consider dust to be dry dirt and so when we later read that God says we are made of dust, I expect that to be translatable as 'dirt'. If there was no rain to rewet the earth during those three days, the hot sun could surely have turned several inches of the 'dry ground that appeared' dry even if we allow that it must have been muddy because it was all covered with water.

So, I'm not particularly dogmatic as concerns whether the material from which God fashioned the first man, was just a handful of regular old dirt that He sort of scooped up from the surface of the dry ground or whether it was actually dust which are the finer particles of the same thing that tend to blow in the wind. When they have dust storms in Arizona and Nevada what is actually caught up in the wind is merely dirt, but it is the lighter particles that tend to settle on the top layer.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[greenguzzi]

You might want to begin learning about the electric universe, from non Bible believers first. I saw it in the Word of God and in the Book of Enoch, correlating the "pillars" of earth as nothing but "electro-magnetic forces" set to hold everything in place. and began to research the electric universe theory myself, and found it has been around a long time....

search their lectures and books and writings for yourself: David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill, the electric universe.
The guys who write there are not Bible believing Christians, though some may profess Christ, I do not know, but they are most well taught and teach, on the electric universe.
I am a student of the Word of God,and the creation was made "electric" from day 1, when the Holy Spirit energized the waters, brooding over them....

As someone trained in electrical and electronic engineering, and who is pretty fluent in these things, I have to tell you that "the Electric Universe" is just so much nonsense. At best it's a set of unproven hypotheses sprinkled with unmitigated gibberish. I'd advise you to not waste your time with it. More time to study the bible, which will be much more profitable.
If you really do want to study electromagnetism and other aspects of the physical universe I'd suggest you start by teaching yourself critical thinking and the scientific method. That's an essential set of skills all of us interested in studying such things need to master.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

As someone trained in electrical and electronic engineering, and who is pretty fluent in these things, I have to tell you that "the Electric Universe" is just so much nonsense. At best it's a set of unproven hypotheses sprinkled with unmitigated gibberish. I'd advise you to not waste your time with it. More time to study the bible, which will be much more profitable.
If you really do want to study electromagnetism and other aspects of the physical universe I'd suggest you start by teaching yourself critical thinking and the scientific method. That's an essential set of skills all of us interested in studying such things need to master.

I'm just a student and lover of the Word of God, and an observer of what goes on around me....
For someone who loves the Word, the world of science so called, is lacking in explaining the simplest acts of God and the plainest statements made in His Word.
The Holy Spirit "brooded over the waters" is a plain and powerful statement. Like a mother hen on her nest, is the picture painted by the words used, and that is the beginning of the infusing the "life" in the elements of the waters of creation.
That's my studied opinion, and I'm stuck with it....in fact, I like it very much. I don't need to understand the science God used for infusing the elements of creation with life, but with my simple, believing mind, I see it as the beginning of His infusing the elements in the waters of creation with the life force that He would use to organize those elements into every single created thing that was brought into being, out of the waters of the creation in the six days of creation week.
It is an electric universe. There are those who demonstrate the facts of it who are men of science who are not Bible believers, but who do demonstrate the powers of the creation are electric in nature, and powerful electro-magnetic forces run the entire universe.

But for those who deny it, they cannot explain the spark of life infused in all created beings, nor can they explain how the creation is held together by the forces of creation, nor can they tell what the pillars of earth and heaven are, which Enoch said were "winds", which translates to currents of great electro-magnetic power, in my understanding.
Enoch also showed that the waters above the heavens and the waters below are kept in place by magnetic powers in them, which he named as two "monsters", Leviathan and Behemoth, male and female....now that was something so scientific that the translators did not know how to understand it, so they left it alone.
The sun is electric, also, and gathers the light from the currents given it from the created light, by the stars....There is proof abundant that the stars and sun are electric, and the Electric Universe web sites have lots of that info for anyone who wants to study it.
As to the sun itself, the Word itself states that the Creator has set His tabernacle/dwelling place, in the sun, in the original Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Douay-Rheims English.
Now that is the doctrine of the original Word, and it is a much more interesting creation when one seeks understanding from the Word, even though they are not "engineers", but love the Word itself.

 

[Riberra]

I'm not too dogmatic about how the first body in our universe appeared. However, I gain my understanding from the way that most translations word the passage. Mine says:


And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

As I understand it, God called the waters to stand aside in one place and let the dry ground appear. It doesn't actually say that he created it at that moment.

So, my vision of this event is that the waters receded (only because that's the best word I can think to use at the moment) and out from under where the waters moved away from, there was dry ground.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Good deduction ,the Earth looked the same after Noah's flood...a ball of Water with no dry land.

Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Here the method God used to dry the Earth which was totally submerged under water after Noah's flood

Genesis 8

1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; 2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; 3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: 7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; 9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Hi YSM,

You wrote:


I'm not too dogmatic about how the first body in our universe appeared. However, I gain my understanding from the way that most translations word the passage. Mine says:


And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

As I understand it, God called the waters to stand aside in one place and let the dry ground appear. It doesn't actually say that he created it at that moment. So, my vision of this event is that the waters receded (only because that's the best word I can think to use at the moment) and out from under where the waters moved away from, there was dry ground. Quite frankly, whether the ground at the time of its appearing was completely dry or not really wouldn't have any bearing on the claim that by the time God made Adam three days later, there could well have been 'dust'. Personally, I also consider dust to be dry dirt and so when we later read that God says we are made of dust, I expect that to be translatable as 'dirt'. If there was no rain to rewet the earth during those three days, the hot sun could surely have turned several inches of the 'dry ground that appeared' dry even if we allow that it must have been muddy because it was all covered with water.

So, I'm not particularly dogmatic as concerns whether the material from which God fashioned the first man, was just a handful of regular old dirt that He sort of scooped up from the surface of the dry ground or whether it was actually dust which are the finer particles of the same thing that tend to blow in the wind. When they have dust storms in Arizona and Nevada what is actually caught up in the wind is merely dirt, but it is the lighter particles that tend to settle on the top layer.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Yes, you may be right.
Pondering what I read has led me to think that the size of the globe of waters was tremendous in the beginning, and when God divided the waters in half to stretch the heavens out between them, there was tremendous waters still, below.
I believe that everything that is created in the creation week was elementally brought forth out of the waters of creation, even the "dry", which God named "earth".
Waters below the "dry =mantle" of earth are turned to fires, says Enoch, and modern man has discovered that water can combust -but Enoch already said it.
He said the waters of the flood which then were settled beneath the earth turned to fires -the fires of Sheol that the wicked are punished in.

So waters can combust and burn, as long as certain "radio waves -electro-magnetic currents" stir them up.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-burning-water.html