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

[Hoghead1]

Your knowledge of Hebrew is off here. The Hebrew word in qu3estion definitely can be translated as "was" and it may also be translated as "become." Some apologists want it translated as "became," since this would support their gap theory. However, there is no text or evidence that the Hebrews even entertained the gap theory, to start with. Furthermore, if you use "became," you still do not have proof of some sort of prior earth. "And the earth became" could very well be taken to mean that the first step in the process was for God to create possibly pout of nothing or out of some sort of chaos and work from there, like a sculptor first putting a lump of clay on the table and then sculpting it into something. I favor "was," because these is absolutely no biblical evidence or historical evidence that the Hebrews believed Genesis was referring to some sort of previous earth and there is absolutely no evidence that there is any kind of a gap intended here.

 

[Riberra]

Your knowledge of Hebrew is off here. The Hebrew word in qu3estion definitely can be translated as "was" and it may also be translated as "become." Some apologists want it translated as "became," since this would support their gap theory. However, there is no text or evidence that the Hebrews even entertained the gap theory, to start with. Furthermore, if you use "became," you still do not have proof of some sort of prior earth.

The point is not about "some sort of prior Earth."

The point is about a prior STATE of the Earth created perfect in Genesis 1:1 which became a ruin after that God drowned it with a total flood , described in Genesis 1:2.... not about another Earth.

"And the earth became" could very well be taken to mean that the first step in the process was for God to create possibly pout of nothing or out of some sort of chaos and work from there, like a sculptor first putting a lump of clay on the table and then sculpting it into something. I favor "was," because these is absolutely no biblical evidence or historical evidence that the Hebrews believed Genesis was referring to some sort of previous earth and there is absolutely no evidence that there is any kind of a gap intended here.

You would be right if the word -was- was the only word in litige but in the text we have also the Hebrew words (tôhû in Hebrew)which is word 8414 in your Strong’s, meaning, “a desolation“
AND
the word (bôhû in Hebrew 922)meaning, “an undistinguishable ruin“

Do you believe that Genesis 1:1 describe the Earth as being created by God an undistinguishable ruin ?
Genesis 1:1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
___ ___

Based on the description of the state -into which the Earth's became- described in Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:6-7
the Earth looked probably like Venus view from space .At the difference that the cloud covering the whole Earth was made of Water vapor and the Earth's surface totally flooded.

Genesis 1:6-7
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And 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.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven

Note:
-And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were UNDER the firmament =liquid water totally flooding the whole Earth's surface

from the waters which were ABOVE the firmament = water vapor saturating and covering the whole atmosphere of the Earth.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I never said that science was an entity, it's actually an activity and a method.
I wasn't generalising, I was summarising.
There is nothing unscientific about proposing your understand of Genesis as a hypothesis, and there is nothing unscientific in proposing an opposing hypothesis. You can't claim that presenting one of these is not science. To do so as you do shows that you don't understand science.
Genesis isn't science. It is truth, but it isn't science.
We can know things about the past without having had someone directly observe them when they happened.....

Your post is contradictory, and certainly there is no "science" in your assumptions.
God was there. He did it. He wrote what He did, and from that writing in heaven [Enoch read the tablets in heaven called "The Scripture of Truth in Daniel 10:21], Adam, our first father, wrote what God said in that Book, for his descendants, and that is why it is told to us who read it that it is "the generations of the heavens and the earth".
There is no way any human being can go back and test God's creation. It just "ain't possible".
So, I beg to differ with you, and think, personally, that it is foolish -though fadish among those who think they are wise- To claim to have a scientific -so called- explanation for creation -or not- that totally disses God's own Word.
There is no science that can recreate what God did, and there is no science that can show how God did it any differently than how He said He did it, in 6 ordinary days of creation week.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

God created the heavens and the earth as a whole piece, with no form -and no name, yet, until the elements were formed into each particular thing that God then named, in creation week- and only the elements that everything would be made from were created when God created the "heavens and the earth, "formless".

Light on day 1, revolving the globe and separated from the darkness, making evening and morning =one whole "Day".
The tremendous amount of waters that the Holy Spirit "hovered over" giving life to [like a mother hen on the nest of eggs, the word picture shows us] were divided in two, on day two, and the firmament was stretched out between the divided waters of the globe, and then, and only then, was the firmament named "two waters" =Hebrew Shamayim.
The heavens themselves exist between the waters below and the waters above. There are electomagnetic forces holding them apart, and the pillars of heaven and earth are such.
There are at least three layers to the outstretched heavens, and then the waters above.
The heavens "collapsed" at the flood of Noah, and waters above poured out to unite with the waters below the mantle, which were pulled up by the powers of the waters rushing with tremendous forces up, to meet them, from deep underground.
The waters hadn't been united like that since day two of creation week"

!Now that is true Bible facts and true Bible science.
No man can recreate it, but God tells us about it.
But not all the waters above came down to meet the waters below, which burst forth from great fountains from below earth. There are still waters above the heavens, as we read in the Word, in Psalm 148:4. But that which came down with powers through the gates opened in heaven to meet the waters below, which rose with powers from the fountains below earth's crust with a magnetic attraction on a universal scale, seem to be contained on earth, and did not rise up again, and cover the earth to this day, and are below the earth, to this day, but the waters below the earth are now streams of fire, as Enoch wrote, making Sheol a place where the waters below turned into streams of fire that continue to burn, until Sheol itself is cast into the Lake of Fire and is no more, in the regeneration of the heavens and the earth; which is to come in the 8th day, after the seven millennial days week of this present creation -which is signed/oracled in the Feast of Tabernacles and that Great Day, the 8th Day, after it...

 

[greenguzzi]

Your post is contradictory, and certainly there is no "science" in your assumptions.
God was there. He did it. He wrote what He did, and from that writing in heaven [Enoch read the tablets in heaven called "The Scripture of Truth in Daniel 10:21], Adam, our first father, wrote what God said in that Book, for his descendants, and that is why it is told to us who read it that it is "the generations of the heavens and the earth".
There is no way any human being can go back and test God's creation. It just "ain't possible".
So, I beg to differ with you, and think, personally, that it is foolish -though fadish among those who think they are wise- To claim to have a scientific -so called- explanation for creation -or not- that totally disses God's own Word.
There is no science that can recreate what God did, and there is no science that can show how God did it any differently than how He said He did it, in 6 ordinary days of creation week.

I never gave my ideas about creation, scientific or otherwise. For all you know I might agree with you. Even if I do disagree, this thread isn't the place to express it. My objection is that your understanding of science is completely off target. It's your method and terminology that is the issue.
What you call "science" isn't science at all. Your theological and cosmological ideas would be more credible if you stopped falsely claiming that you somehow use science to back them up.
Better still if you learn the scientific method yourself, and then apply it correctly to your ideas.
Science is a tool. You can either choose to use it or not, either is fine. But to pick up something completely different and claim it to be "science" is deception and falsehood, and needs to be called out for what it is.

(edit) BTW: Science isn't a fad. it's the best tool so far discovered for observing the physical universe. It has served us well in understanding God's creation, and it will serve us well for a while to come. It was begun by Godly men, and it can be used by Godly men to reveal His work. It will sometimes disagree with dogma, but it will never disagree with His word. It is a gift from God, and should be used with care.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I never gave my ideas about creation, scientific or otherwise. For all you know I might agree with you. Even if I do disagree, this thread isn't the place to express it. My objection is that your understanding of science is completely off target. It's your method and terminology that is the issue.
What you call "science" isn't science at all. Your theological and cosmological ideas would be more credible if you stopped falsely claiming that you somehow use science to back them up.
Better still if you learn the scientific method yourself, and then apply it correctly to your ideas.
Science is a tool. You can either choose to use it or not, either is fine. But to pick up something completely different and claim it to be "science" is deception and falsehood, and needs to be called out for what it is.

(edit) BTW: Science isn't a fad. it's the best tool so far discovered for observing the physical universe. It has served us well in understanding God's creation, and it will serve us well for a while to come. It was begun by Godly men, and it can be used by Godly men to reveal His work. It will sometimes disagree with dogma, but it will never disagree with His word. It is a gift from God, and should be used with care.

You argue without logic on the Word of God's clear statements.
As to science, there is no such an antity, though many men "bow down" to statements made by men spouting folly out of their mouths while claiming to be "wise".
The foolishness of God is wiser than the "wisdom" .
As to "science" I do not diss that which is applied, but you cannot apply science to creation week. Not possible. You cannot observe it or recreate it, so why diss God's Word on what He said and why not enjoy His Power in His creation and glorify Him for His wonderful works, which men, who are only as a vapor, cannot reproduce nor explain His wonderful works, but only observe how they work.
As to observing how they work, I said it is an electric universe, and there are many, many, many true scientists who study this, and have done many scientific studies that point only to an electric universe and disprove all other theories.

 

[greenguzzi]

You argue without logic on the Word of God's clear statements.
As to science, there is no such an antity, though many men "bow down" to statements made by men spouting folly out of their mouths while claiming to be "wise".
The foolishness of God is wiser than the "wisdom" .
As to "science" I do not diss that which is applied, but you cannot apply science to creation week. Not possible. You cannot observe it or recreate it, so why diss God's Word on what He said and why not enjoy His Power in His creation and glorify Him for His wonderful works, which men, who are only as a vapor, cannot reproduce nor explain His wonderful works, but only observe how they work.
As to observing how they work, I said it is an electric universe, and there are many, many, many true scientists who study this, and have done many scientific studies that point only to an electric universe and disprove all other theories.

You are deceived. The electric universe is a loose set of ideas that don't have any internal consistently, aren't supported by the scientific method, is easily disproved, and is only believed by a handful of crackpots. A few hours on Google Scholar would make this abundantly clear.

You are beginning to repeat yourself, so it seems I have said all I can. I have done what I can to help you. It's up to you now. Learn the scientific method, learn critical thinking, and learn about logical fallacies. I doubt you will have the courage to google these words because you fear that your house of cards will come falling down. One of the key characteristics of every true scientist is the willingness to have their ideas tested and disproven.

You can choose to investigate or not. Your choice. I will continue to point out nonsense when I see it. But I won't spend any more time trying to convince you of your folly.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

You are deceived. The electric universe is a loose set of ideas that don't have any internal consistently, aren't supported by the scientific method, is easily disproved, and is only believed by a handful of crackpots. A few hours on Google Scholar would make this abundantly clear. ...

You hardly hold the authority to call men who are scientists and who do promote -with proofs- the Electric universe theory, "crackpots".

I can recommend Wallace Thornhill, and the work he has done, for instance, and his credentials ace anything you could bring to the table. He is not a [professing, to my knowledge], born again in Christ believer, which we on this section of CF are supposed to be, but his work is simply, to me, a corroboration to the creation of the electric universe in six days by the Creator.

http://www.ancientdestructions.com/wallace-thornhill/

"Wallace Thornhill (1942 to present) or Wal as he is known, graduated in Physics at Melbourne University in 1964 and began postgraduate studies with Prof. Victor Hopper’s upper atmosphere research group. Before entering university, he had been inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky through his controversial best-selling book, Worlds in Collision. Wal experienced first-hand the indifference and sometimes hostility toward a radical challenge to mainstream science. He realized there is no career for a heretic in academia.

Wal worked for 11 years with IBM Australia. The later years were spent in the prestigious IBM Systems Development Institute in Canberra, working on the first computer graphics system in Australia. He was the technical support for the computing facilities in the Research Schools at the Australian National University, which gave him excellent access to libraries and scientists there....l.

...
"For instance by observing images and measurements generated by NASA on planets, galaxies and stars we can see what is happening on Earth and our own solar system . In addition practical work on Plasma physics in the laboratory can replicate electrical machining seen on a geological scale both on Earth and on other planets . The electromagnetic effects from volcanoes ,earthquakes , and comets to mass coronal ejections appear better empirical explanations than reliance on theories perpetuated by say Hutton and Lyle with their reliance on uniformitarianism.

Due to the increasingly dogmatic censorship imposed by scientific journals over the last century, Wal, like many other independent researchers, has had to turn to minor journals for publication. He has written many papers for the U.S. journal, Aeon, and the Review of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS), in England. He served as a council member of SIS for several years while working in London for the Australian government. He also attended a postgraduate course in Astrophysics at the University of London and meetings of the Royal Astronomical Society and the British Astronomical Association."

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Personally, my own journey to understanding that the creation is "electric" began when I read the Book of Enoch for the first time. Enoch is Canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and has always been there since those Jews who had it with them as sacred writings with the Torah and the prophets and writings, in that land received the Gospel in the first century. They never got rid of it when Rome decided it should not be included in a list they thought was "proper" for men's minds to be aware of -to their discredit and shame, in my opinion. Ethiopia never came under Rome, nor am I under Rome on what is "proper" to read and call sacred writing.
Reading Enoch corroborated thoughts I had about things written in the Word and so I began to search for like minded men who believed the universe was electric and who could show why they believed it -for me, the Word made me understand it, but for men who do not have the Bible as their foundation for searching out God's works after Him, they still come to see what He has made, and seek to discover how it works.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/goodspeed08/042208_is_the_universe_electric.htm
"The following is an excerpt from a new e-Book written by Michael Goodspeed (in collaboration with David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill), Is the Universe Electric? -- a 23-page, full-color introduction to and overview of the Electric Universe theory. The e-book is an expanded version of an essay that was recently published in the largest graphic magazine in Japan, "Kaze no Tabibito." The excerpt below deals primarily with the fundamental differences between plasma cosmology and Big Bang theory. Other sections address the electric sun; electrically charged planets; electrical scarring of planets; plasma formations in the lab and in rock art; and the electric comet. ...

But space discovery has a habit of contradicting astronomical theory. As early as the late 19th century, a number of scientific pioneers began recording their observations of electrical phenomena in space, and documenting experimental analogs in the laboratory. One such pioneer, the Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland, theorized that the earth's auroras are powered electrically by charged particles from the Sun. For many decades, the scientific mainstream dismissed Birkeland's hypothesis, but in the early 1970's Birkeland was irrefutably validated when satellites detected in the auroras the magnetic signatures of electric currents (called Birkeland currents) tracing to solar activity. More recently, NASA's THEMIS spacecraft stunned scientists when it imaged giant, "magnetic ropes" that reached all the way from the earth to the Sun--a pathway for the charged particles from the Sun, now known to light the auroras. "

 

[Riberra]

I can recommend Wallace Thornhill, and the work he has done, for instance, and his credentials ace anything you could bring to the table. He is not a [professing, to my knowledge], born again in Christ believer, which we on this section of CF are supposed to be, but his work is /

http://www.ancientdestructions.com/wallace-thornhill/

From your link:
http://www.ancientdestructions.com/wallace-thornhill/

In 2000, Wal was one of the keynote speakers at a conference in Portland, along with the noted astronomer, Halton Arp, from the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Germany, and the plasma cosmologist, Anthony Peratt, from the Los Alamos Laboratories, author of Physics of the Plasma Universe.

Wal has a website Holoscience.com. It summarises the Electric Universe Model and provides up to date alternative views on scientific news.

Anthony Peratt, from the Los Alamos Laboratories, author of Physics of the Plasma Universe have made a notice on his page:
http://plasmauniverse.info/
Just below their purple logo on the left
3DIEEElogo.purple.jpg

The Plasma Universe and Plasma
Cosmology have no ties to the anti-
science blogsites of the holoscience
'electric universe'

 

[greenguzzi]

You hardly hold the authority to call men who are scientists and who do promote -with proofs- the Electric universe theory, "crackpots".

I don't need, or claim, any authority of my own. You and these "electric universe" people claim that your woo is science. So I invoke the authority of science itself to show that it isn't.
Wallace Thornhill may be a scientist on paper, but he doesn't behave like a scientist. His concept of "proof" is bizarre. His theories are unsuccessful at predicting anything (the test of any good theory). I don't offer any special knowledge or authority when I say this. All I have is a working knowledge of science, and 90 minutes to spare to spend on scholar.google.com .
Researching Thornhill on Google Scholar is quite fascinating. The first page or three is mostly Thornhill's work, so one can form one's own opinions. But then you see what his peers think of his work, plus all the material debunking it.
In a nutshell, it is nonsense.

[... ...]Wal experienced first-hand the indifference and sometimes hostility toward a radical challenge to mainstream science. He realized there is no career for a heretic in academia.
[... ...]
Due to the increasingly dogmatic censorship imposed by scientific journals over the last century, Wal, like many other independent researchers, has had to turn to minor journals for publication.

There is no question at all that there are bad players in science. But science itself is self-correcting. It is a system that can be exploited for a time, but will eventually reveal the truth. If Thornhill is right, he will eventually be shown to be right. Personally I doubt it, but I'm just an amateur. Time will tell.

 

[Riberra]

Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat,

Can you give the Bible verse(s) who have made people for centuries to think that the Earth is flat ?

Isaiah 40:22 for example talk about the CIRCLE of the Earth and about the STRETCHING of the Heavens ....

In astronomy they use the term EXPANSION of the Universe.


[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
- Isaiah 40:22

 

[-57]

If the earth is flat....could it be a cube?

 

[miamited]

If the earth is flat....could it be a cube?

Hi 57,

I think it's more of an S curve and spins like a boomerang. If you travel down to the bottom of the S you can actually be whipsawed on to Venus. However, if you time your visit right you might even shoot off to Mars. It all depends on the alignment of the planets when you get whipsawed off. Some people I've talked to have told me that they wound up in Uranus. LOL!!!!!!!

God bless you.
Ted

 

[miamited]

My apologies. I just couldn't help myself.

 

[Riberra]

If the earth is flat....could it be a cube?

To which post are you responding ?Hoghead1 seem to believe that this is because of the Bible that people for centuries believed that the Earth is flat....i provided a verse proving that that belief don't come from the Bible.

That verse give even information which was discovered only in modern time in the 20 Th Century which is about the EXPANSION of the Universe.

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
- Isaiah 40:22

Expansion of the Universe
http://www.google.ca/search?q=expan...gfe_rd=cr&ei=kv7QVtqwF8Gh8wefopOYAg&gws_rd=cr

 

[katerinah1947]

For those who believe in it, how are those years calculated according to scripture?

Hi,

As has been stated, back dating the Bible is how it is determined erroneously, I am told, as there are missing generations, they say in each of the timelines to Adam.

Also beget, is not a direct father son relationship, hence things like David begat Jesus, are or can be said.

Originally, as I was doing a scientific piece, which always requires s proof, that stands up in the world, I had found only two provable items to me, and submitted those to the religious folks.

Eventually, because of begat not always being a direct father son relationship, and some missing generations, they showed me that the back dating method that I had used was flawed enough to totally invalidate, my two found items.

One was tha age of Adam. The other was the date of Noah's ark.

LOVE,

 

[-57]

To which post are you responding ?Hoghead1 seem to believe that this is because of the Bible that people for centuries believed that the Earth is flat....i provided a verse proving that that belief don't come from the Bible.

That verse give even information which was discovered only in modern time in the 20 Th Century which is about the EXPANSION of the Universe.

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
- Isaiah 40:22

Expansion of the Universe
http://www.google.ca/search?q=expan...gfe_rd=cr&ei=kv7QVtqwF8Gh8wefopOYAg&gws_rd=cr

Problem is....God didn't use the BB as you seem to suggest.

 

[-57]

Hi,

As has been stated, back dating the Bible is how it is determined erroneously, I am told, as there are missing generations, they say in each of the timelines to Adam.

Also beget, is not a direct father son relationship, hence things like David begat Jesus, are or can be said.

Originally, as I was doing a scientific piece, which always requires s proof, that stands up in the world, I had found only two provable items to me, and submitted those to the religious folks.

Eventually, because of begat not always being a direct father son relationship, and some missing generations, they showed me that the back dating method that I had used was flawed enough to totally invalidate, my two found items.

One was tha age of Adam. The other was the date of Noah's ark.

LOVE,

You said"Eventually, because of begat not always being a direct father son relationship, and some missing generations,"

.....Do you have the "proof, that stands up in the world" that show this to be true with the biblical generations?

 

[katerinah1947]

You said"Eventually, because of begat not always being a direct father son relationship, and some missing generations,"

.....Do you have the "proof, that stands up in the world" that show this to be true with the biblical generations?

Hi, (in edits now)(edits done)

My work on this was finished in about 1997.

It was the Catholics who provided me with the proofs, that my dating was incorrect.

The Baptist's also made a submission but wrote it in their trade language, which is all esoteric to me.

The Catholics, when I submitted my findings, they gave me back a plain scientific answer.

My statement to them, was something like this: "If Noah's Ark happened in 2760 BC, the people living back then, did not seem to notice that they were dead. The Indians in Central America, and the men walking across the land in the Rift Valley in Africa, also were here much before Adam was made in 5000 BC."

That is all they were given, as phone calls were expensive back then, and they had an answering machine, not a real person.

Both organizations responded back to me.

After reading, I no longer had a proof, that could stand up, in scientific circles.

Also, I then looked around, for anyone else who had proved the Bible wrong, with a proof that would stand up and be publishable, in my trade which was science, hard science, meaning Electrical, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and disciplines like that.

I was working in APL at the time for HP, that is Advanced Physics Lab, and HP was Hewlett Packard back then.

If you have the same questions as I had from the findings from actually, going through The Bible, which is Real by those later controlled experimental results, then submit your questions to them as an organization, to see what their responses are today.

That is what I did.

The research at the time was to find out if The Bible was Real or man made.

Tests were run.

The first one was to try and find a provable error in there, as if it is man made, then the probability of an error bring in there, is extremely high.

I found two, The age of Adam, and when Noah's Ark happened. Both of those findings were in error, and indeed I had made the errors they talked about.

So, if you want the proofs, and you actually have done the work dating the Bible, and Noah's Ark, submit your findings to all the religious churchs to see if they can find an error, in your work,

that will save your career, in that you will still be seen as a valid researcher, if you are wrong, as the second step in any findings is 'peer of the subject reviews', to see if everyone gets the same answer now, in science.

I did, that part of the work, that test failed. The controlled experiments, five of them, as no more were needed, did in fact show, That The Bible is Real, Being True where It Says It is True, and False where It Says It Is False. (Satan's words are all to be taken as false, yet they are in there. Two of Jobs friends spoke incorrectly about God. Their words are in there also)

As I could not use my original,,,,now mistaken, findings on The age of Adam, and the date of Noah's Ark, and another test, controlled experiments, gave the answer on the thing being studied, that of "is the book Real or not",,,, work staying on the subject of the dating used in there, was not used, as they had Plausibly, Proven, My dating findings were wrong.

So, the answers you are looking for on dating, came from them, The Catholics and The Baptist's, and that is where you need to go to get your proof part.

LOVE,