The 7000-Year Theory

Interplanner said:

There is no "Bible" science....

Click to expand...

That is just plain hogwash!
There was no light in Genesis until God said let there be light. There was no heavens stretched out until God divided the waters and stretched out the powers/the firmament on day 2, and named them "Sha-mayim/heavens =[divided, as in two] waters".


There was no "dry" =earth, until God commanded the waters below the heavens to be gathered in one place and the "dry" to appear, which he named earth, right then and there.
These things did not exist until God made them out of the waters of creation which He brought into being in the beginning =night 1, in darkness.

Light brought out of darkness making an evening and morning and equaling one day: before that, there was nothing but the water for one night.

Firmament =the powers- stretched out between divided waters which waters are still divided with half above the stretched out heavens unto this day; and before they were stretched out, there was no heavens above the earth and no stars above the earth and no sun and no moon.

No stars until the powers [electro-magnetic energy called "light"] were brought into being and stretched out with the firmament they were not stretched out from the earth until day 2, between the divided waters of creation. The powers all began right here on this geo-centric globe named earth which is the beginning point for heavens and stars.
Stars will fall to earth, in Revelation, right back to where they were stretched out with the heavens, from.

Interplanner said:

Amazing that Newton already had to grieve the fact that people were trying to predict the future and 'pin the date' in his times.

Click to expand...

They were doing this long before preterism was even invented. Both the so-called Epistle of Barnabas and "against Heresies, by Irenaeus, said that the end would come in earth's six thousandth year. By the chronology of the Septuagint, which they were using, this made it about four to five hundred years in their own future. By the chronology we now use, this made it just about now.

yeshuasavedme said:

That is just plain hogwash!

Click to expand...

Well Interplanner, I dint read what you wrote that was hogwash, But I sure got a grin on.

I just wanted to say,'' I guess she told you bud!''

So Yeshua,
what exactly does 'tohu wa-bohu' imply when used with a verb that has the implication of 'already going on'? The only other use of the phrase is in Jer 4:23.

BW, it has nothing to do with preterism. Nor with the 'week of millenia' scheme. Newton was refering to people trying to figure out their future with their 'crystal ball' Bibles, as they supposed, which he condemned. Another non-point, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm a geocentrist, although I usually stay in the closet, as it goes against the prevailing paradigm. But the young earthers do themselves no favours by accepting the protestant viewpoint, without doing the research.
I read a book by Grant Jeffrey.. he accepted the 'long day' of Joshua (as I do) but couldn't understand it, because of the way of the world as it is now.
It's like most people accept what other people teach as established fact, as most people haven't got the time to investigate everything, to check if it's true.. that's the way learning is passed on; by accepting that people are passing on truthful information.

Interplanner said:

So Yeshua,
what exactly does 'tohu wa-bohu' imply when used with a verb that has the implication of 'already going on'? The only other use of the phrase is in Jer 4:23.

Click to expand...

You like to play word games with your own private interpretations when the context of all Scripture shows you are in error.
You ignore all truth and try to make it all go away on your word which you define your way to make something up that is totally out of context.

You completely ignore the totality of Genesis 1's creation account which makes your imagined recreation totally unbibiblical.
You have no foundation for your assumptions in the Word of God anywhere because it all, of a piece, stands on the beginning as it is written, exactly.

There was no light in Genesis until God said let there be light. There was no heavens stretched out until God divided the waters and stretched out the powers/the firmament on day 2, and named them "Sha-mayim/heavens =[divided, as in two] waters".


There was no "dry" =earth, until God commanded the waters below the heavens to be gathered in one place and the "dry" to appear, which he named earth, right then and there.
These things did not exist until God made them out of the waters of creation which He brought into being in the beginning =night 1, in darkness.

Light brought out of darkness making an evening and morning and equaling one day: before that, there was nothing but the water for one night.

Firmament =the powers- stretched out between divided waters which waters are still divided with half above the stretched out heavens unto this day; and before they were stretched out, there was no heavens above the earth and no stars above the earth and no sun and no moon.

No stars until the powers [electro-magnetic energy called "light"] were brought into being and stretched out with the firmament they were not stretched out from the earth until day 2, between the divided waters of creation. The powers all began right here on this geo-centric globe named earth which is the beginning point for heavens and stars.
Stars will fall to earth, in Revelation, right back to where they were stretched out with the heavens, from.

Click to expand...

hiscosmicgoldfish said:

I'm a geocentrist, ....

Click to expand...

So is Jesus.

yeshuasavedme said:

That is just plain hogwash!No stars until the powers [electro-magnetic energy called "light"] were brought into being and stretched out with the firmament they were not stretched out from the earth until day 2, between the divided waters of creation. The powers all began right here on this geo-centric globe named earth which is the beginning point for heavens and stars.
Stars will fall to earth, in Revelation, right back to where they were stretched out with the heavens, from.

Click to expand...

No, there is no science in the Bible, honestly. The Bible is infalliable in so far when it teaches on theology. The Bible is known for historical mistakes in Daniel, and several scientific mistakes.

We live on Earth, one of seven planetary bodies. We orbit the sun, it's a proven fact, we even have pictures to prove it. The orbiting around the sun is what is known as an astronomical year, also a calendar year.

The Earth formed approximately 4.54 billion years ago, and life appeared on its surface within its first billion years. The universe is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years old. Humans evolved out of Africa about 200,000 years ago. As far as science shows, there was no world-wide flood.

We all descend from one common ancestor, that ancestor being the first human.

So, in all honesty, this chronology is a bit moot-ish, seeing that the first humans predate your chronology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-planck_cosmological_parameters-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#cite_note-age_earth1-29

Hello Julieamager;
http://galileowaswrong.com/
You have a real problem rejecting the Word of God as absolute fact in its creation statements beginning in Genesis 1, which history of the creation Moses copied for us from Adam's own writings. Adam was in Eden above, which is God's Holy Mount in the stretched out heavens which were stretched out from the earth between the divided in two waters of creation on day 2 of creation week; and Adam was in Paradise, which is the Garden of God and is in the third heaven....and Eden above is where the "Scripture of Truth" [Daniel 10:21, in the original language], is written by God the Word, Himself, "for the angels to read and know what will befall the sons of Adam from the beginning of creation to the regeneration of all things" -as Enoch himself wrote, which is in the DSS scrolls kept by the Essenes who are the sons of Zadok, the "royal priesthood" who will serve in the millennial temple in Jerusalem below, according to Ezekiel.

In Daniel 10:21, Enoch, who is with the holy watchers in Eden above and is in his glorified body since his translation before the flood, appeared to Daniel and showed him what was written in the "Scripture of Truth" written in heaven, concerning the people of the New Man name -Israel is that name [Isaiah 49], and Daniel wrote those things shown him as Daniel 11 and 12.

juleamager said:

No, there is no science in the Bible, honestly. The Bible is infalliable in so far when it teaches on theology. The Bible is known for historical mistakes in Daniel, and several scientific mistakes.

We live on Earth, one of seven planetary bodies. We orbit the sun, it's a proven fact, we even have pictures to prove it. The orbiting around the sun is what is known as an astronomical year, also a calendar year.

The Earth formed approximately 4.54 billion years ago, and life appeared on its surface within its first billion years. The universe is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years old. Humans evolved out of Africa about 200,000 years ago. As far as science shows, there was no world-wide flood.

We all descend from one common ancestor, that ancestor being the first human.

So, in all honesty, this chronology is a bit moot-ish, seeing that the first humans predate your chronology.

Click to expand...

Daniel is full of mistakes and failed prophesy, and the bible is far from infallible, but Daniel was written/composed in a time after the prophets, approaching the Christian era.. I think it has some inspiration, and is probably cobbled together from older epics, legends..
but the bible is geocentric throughout, which would make it a waist of space to put any faith in any of it, if the bible got that wrong, as it states it as fact many times throughout.. it would be ok, if it was just the one time; it might have been the one persons opinion.
I don't really understand why/how the young-earth types ignore this.. as accepting the heliocentric model; they are agreeing that the bible is wrong about that from the start, so how can they then be so sure about anything else? .. something that the evos are well aware of.

Not everyone believes all that stuff which you list, derived from the secular opinion/belief.

yeshuasavedme said:

Hello Julieamager;
Galileo Was Wrong
You have a real problem rejecting the Word of God as absolute fact in its creation statements beginning in Genesis 1, which history of the creation Moses copied for us from Adam's own writings. Adam was in Eden above, which is God's Holy Mount in the stretched out heavens which were stretched out from the earth between the divided in two waters of creation on day 2 of creation week; and Adam was in Paradise, which is the Garden of God and is in the third heaven....and Eden above is where the "Scripture of Truth" [Daniel 10:21, in the original language], is written by God the Word, Himself, "for the angels to read and know what will befall the sons of Adam from the beginning of creation to the regeneration of all things" -as Enoch himself wrote, which is in the DSS scrolls kept by the Essenes who are the sons of Zadok, the "royal priesthood" who will serve in the millennial temple in Jerusalem below, according to Ezekiel.

In Daniel 10:21, Enoch, who is with the holy watchers in Eden above and is in his glorified body since his translation before the flood, appeared to Daniel and showed him what was written in the "Scripture of Truth" written in heaven, concerning the people of the New Man name -Israel is that name [Isaiah 49], and Daniel wrote those things shown him as Daniel 11 and 12.

Click to expand...

That's Biblical literalism. I'm not a Biblical literalist in any sense of the world. I believe in higher criticism when it comes to the Bible and use the historical-critical method to a degree but mostly the historical-grammatical method.

I do not read Genesis literally because it simply is scientifically inconsistent. It has been shown to not be absolute fact in any sense of the word. I reject the literal reading of Genesis, you can quote me on it, it is both historically and scientifically inconsistent and incorrect.

And, also, Galileo was correct in every sense of the world, we even have pictures to prove he was correct. Also, scienticially speaking, lighter objects are attracted to heavier ones. The earth is much smaller than the sun. It would be insane to suggest that such a large object would be attracted to a small one.

juleamager said:

That's Biblical literalism. I'm not a Biblical literalist in any sense of the world. I believe in higher criticism when it comes to the Bible and use the historical-critical method to a degree but mostly the historical-grammatical method.

I do not read Genesis literally because it simply is scientifically inconsistent. It has been shown to not be absolute fact in any sense of the word. I reject the literal reading of Genesis, you can quote me on it, it is both historically and scientifically inconsistent and incorrect.

And, also, Galileo was correct in every sense of the world, we even have pictures to prove he was correct. Also, scienticially speaking, lighter objects are attracted to heavier ones. The earth is much smaller than the sun. It would be insane to suggest that such a large object would be attracted to a small one.

Click to expand...

God's Word is true from the beginning, and your own words are absolute anti-Bible, which means that being against His Word, you have no validity to teach anyone anything on any basis whatsoever -and your claims are false about the geo-centric universe, as the Bible believing scientists show with many proofs in the book "Galileo Was Wrong, The Church [really, the Bible] Was Right" -and the Word of God is consistent and is fact from the beginning.
Galileo Was Wrong

juleamager said:

No, there is no science in the Bible, honestly. The Bible is infalliable in so far when it teaches on theology. The Bible is known for historical mistakes in Daniel, and several scientific mistakes.

We live on Earth, one of seven planetary bodies. We orbit the sun, it's a proven fact, we even have pictures to prove it. The orbiting around the sun is what is known as an astronomical year, also a calendar year.

The Earth formed approximately 4.54 billion years ago, and life appeared on its surface within its first billion years. The universe is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years old. Humans evolved out of Africa about 200,000 years ago. As far as science shows, there was no world-wide flood.

We all descend from one common ancestor, that ancestor being the first human.

So, in all honesty, this chronology is a bit moot-ish, seeing that the first humans predate your chronology.

Click to expand...

The bible is loaded with science...but here's the problem with what you're saying...science science has become your theology.

Now...when you assert the earth was created "approximately 4.54 billion years ago"...what is that based on? What appearance of age was the earth formed with?

The problem starts when you don't want to listen to the first statement of scripture..."In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth". When you have a problem with that...you create your own problems.

I'm old enough to have seen how many times science has changed and the dating of creation has changed...and with every bit of knowledge God reveals to mankind...he finds out how much more he doesn't know.

Just take for instance how the discovery of DNA enlightened mankind...only to find there's even more he doesn't know.

"Let God be true and every man a liar"!!!

"IN THE BEGINNING GOD...."

yeshuasavedme said:

God's Word is true from the beginning, and your own words are absolute anti-Bible, which means that being against His Word, you have no validity to teach anyone anything on any basis whatsoever -and your claims are false about the geo-centric universe, as the Bible believing scientists show with many proofs in the book "Galileo Was Wrong, The Church [really, the Bible] Was Right" -and the Word of God is consistent and is fact from the beginning.
Galileo Was Wrong

Click to expand...

I'll repeat once again, no, in this respect, concerning science, the Bible was wrong, in fact very, very wrong if you read it literally. I'm not saying I reject that God created the heavens and the earth, I firmly believe that. However, I don't do a literal read of that passage. I'm a theistic supporter of evolution, and an Old Earth creationist.

The Earth goes around the sun, I firmly believe that, for the third time. We also have pictures to prove it! That book also qualifies as what we call pseudoscience. It's not science, it's a sham version of science.

And, no, science is not my theology, I'm simply saying that there's far more scientific evidence for the Big Bang, evolution, and a non-literal reading on Genesis. Call me whatever you want, but I'm not changing my mind.

ebedmelech said:

Now...when you assert the earth was created "approximately 4.54 billion years ago"...what is that based on? What appearance of age was the earth formed with?

I'm old enough to have seen how many times science has changed and the dating of creation has changed...and with every bit of knowledge God reveals to mankind...he finds out how much more he doesn't know.

Click to expand...

The age of the Earth is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.

The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.

And yes, we don't know everything, that's the point of science, we continue to learn more.

My point is that the complexity of our world points to God. I'm not saying that I disagree with Genesis, no, I disagree with your reading of it. God certainly created the Universe, but in far more than seven thousand years; that's Biblical literalism at it's finest, which is a dangerous trend and reading of the Bible practiced in many Protestant churches today. I refuse to accept Biblical literalism, nor will I ever adhere to it.

Every time I oppose Biblical literalism though, I'm apparently fighting God. No, I think I'm just fighting against literalism. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and sitting on pillars and cannot move (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26).

juleamager said:

The age of the Earth is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.

The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.

Click to expand...

I'll take issue with that...all forms of dating are imprecise.

juleamager said:

And yes, we don't know everything, that's the point of science, we continue to learn more.

My point is that the complexity of our world points to God. I'm not saying that I disagree with Genesis, no, I disagree with your reading of it. God certainly created the Universe, but in far more than seven thousand years; that's Biblical literalism at it's finest, which is a dangerous trend and reading of the Bible practiced in many Protestant churches today. I refuse to accept Biblical literalism, nor will I ever adhere to it.

Click to expand...

Actually no. When the bible says "there was evening and morning day one...day 2...day 3..." and so on...to think it's not a solar day is pretty much errant thinking.

juleamager said:

Every time I oppose Biblical literalism though, I'm apparently fighting God. No, I think I'm just fighting against literalism. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and sitting on pillars and cannot move (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26).

Click to expand...

This is a typical mistake of many in the Psalms. The Psalms are poetry...therefore there's what we call today "poetic license". If you fail to keep that in mind...then you miss the point of the Pslams, as well as Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes. They are poetic.

ebedmelech said:

I'll take issue with that...all forms of dating are imprecise.

Click to expand...

Special pleading. It's not precise enough to prove your point, therefore it's wrong.

ebedmelech said:

This is a typical mistake of many in the Psalms. The Psalms are poetry...therefore there's what we call today "poetic license". If you fail to keep that in mind...then you miss the point of the Pslams, as well as Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes. They are poetic.

Click to expand...

I was attempting to make a point, that Biblical literalism is dangerous and silly.

ebedmelech said:

Actually no. When the bible says "there was evening and morning day one...day 2...day 3..." and so on...to think it's not a solar day is pretty much errant thinking.

Click to expand...

It's not errant if there is a very, very, very, very large amount of scientific evidence that disregards that assumption.

juleamager said:

No, there is no science in the Bible, honestly. The Bible is infalliable in so far when it teaches on theology. The Bible is known for historical mistakes in Daniel, and several scientific mistakes.

Click to expand...

“Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'” -Genesis 1:6

"And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, '" Genesis 3:22


The Bible: Infallible...but not impeccably literal. Its inner teachings and the Sacred Tradition of Jesus Christ are far more important, they are what make up Christianity in my opinion. We should stop worrying about what's at the start of the Bible, and focus more on Jesus!

Catholics (I'm speaking for Roman, Orthodox and Anglican) have always been motivated by truth. We've endorsed, funded and supported scientific progress, we've historically been at the forefront of science! As soon as Darwin found the evolutionary theory, and backed it up with evidence, the Holy See immediately recognised it as legitimate. An Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, is known as the ''father of modern genetics'' (he is seen as a heretic among fundamentalist Christians).

Priests and monks have dedicated their lives to questioning the world and the universe. We believe that God obviously didn't reveal everything in the Bible (what about black holes, galaxies, natural selection, genes, chromosones, super novas, asteroids, extraterrestrials, the big bang, atoms, neutrons, protons, electrons, dark matter, the Higgs boson.....or is it all atheist conspiracy?), that there is more to everything than just a book! God has hidden away things for us to find, for us to discover and make do with.

It would be blasphemous to reject hard scientific evidence, for we are denying God's creation in this way! Enough about conspiracy theories and alternate beliefs, let's just accept the truth! Whenever I hear about a scientific discovery, my heart jumps for joy since I believe we are getting closer to God by finding more about His universe, thus respecting Him even more.

If more Christians were more tolerant to science, atheist personalities like Richard Dawkins would find it hard to actually prove that our faith is wrong for it makes much more sense! Even the great Dawkins himself could not deny that a god exists...

Flame me if you will, God gave me the gift of freethought for a reason.