Evidence of age - 1. Ice Cores

[duordi]

Okay, so this is at least a valid argument in that the conclusion follows the premises. denying the consequent. But my question is, per your premise, why would we expect to see the term greater light again, if indeed it was the sun?

I could turn around and make the argument, if the greater light was not the sun, we would expect it to be mentioned again somewhere in scripture where it talks about the pre-flood world. But we don't see that. Therefore it must have merely been the sun.

Is that a valid argument? Yes! It's a good argument. Only if I can support my premise. I haven't yet seen a good argument for your premise.

I would point out that if there was really a different type of light that was grouped with the stars, that no longer exists today, there would be some mention of it is scripture, particularly explaining why it was destroyed.

Also, by definition, the sun is a greater light to us which rules the day, and the moon a lesser light to us which rules the night. So they fit the description perfectly. And they are grouped with the stars everywhere else in scripture.

Furthermore, I think the stars are the key. If there was some kind of vapor canopy (which I kind of reject at this point), the stars would not have been visible yet. So why mention them? But since it does, why not also mention making the sun and moon in addition to the greater and lesser light? Seems odd if that were really the case.

Of course you are correct in saying that this proof is only as strong as the chance that the word for greater light would be used again.

There are very few passages about the pre flood condition so it should not be expected that something this specific should be mentioned. The point was that the sun was a part of everyday life while Bible events were unfolding so it would seem that the term “greater light“ would have been used for the sun if it really was the sun.

If you go by the text of Genesis, the highest heaven is further out than the stars. What else could the author have meant? It's the highest! The ancients did not know how far away the stars were, but they knew they were higher than the clouds, which they knew were the source of rain. This is easily inferred by the naked eye. And the stars are visible to the naked eye, so it's at least fair to say the psalmist thought the waters above the heavens were way out there beyond the stars. And I don't think they associated these waters with rain or clouds. I think it was a mystery to them. In many ways it's still a mystery to us.

Well there are three heavens.

The sky in Gen 1

The Cosmos Deu 1:10

The third heaven is where God is 2 Cor 12:2 at least that is what Paul calls it.

Then you can describe the Sky heaven by the cloud level.
There are higher clouds and lower clouds.
I am not saying you did or did not use these definitions but the text does not assignment any of definitions once you disregard the context of diminishing elevation.

Plus I think the straightforward reading of scripture supports my premise better than it does yours. Moses said explicitly. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them

All that was made in the heavens was made is six days. This includes sun, moon stars.

You changed the word for “greater light” to sun. Notice that Moses does not mention the sun.

Actually if you understand hebrew parallelism, it is. The second line in Hebrew parallelism is always complements the first. The psalmist is using hebrew poetry to say that all things no matter how high should praise the Lord. To paraphrase: The highest heavens should praise the Lord. In fact, even the waters above the heavens should praise the Lord! Now that's pretty high and that's precisely the point the psalmist is making.

I guess I am not willing to revise the text so that it says what I want it to so I will pass on this.

I'm sorry but the passage is crystal clear. There is every indication, that the passage is building upward to build on the point that all things no matter how high should praise God. Thus, even the highest heavens, even the waters that are above all the heavens.

Building up? It starts at the top and works its way down.

Actually, no you can't. You can't make it say what you tried to make it say, that the waters are below the heavens and that the passage somehow is going from higher places to lower. The opposite is true. The passages is building from high to highest and then to even above highest. It's beautiful poetry.

No, absolutely not, and there's somewhat of an interesting story there, which I'll get into below. I'm merely looking at the passage in its literal context, understanding how hebrew poetry works.

So the creatures in the deep are above the waters and the highest heavens?

Actually no, and here's the interesting story. I was researching the issue of the flood and vapor canopy. Many creationists were rejecting the canopy theory, and I wanted out find out why. I came across this passage doing a word search for 'heavens' and 'waters' mainly because I was trying to understand Gen. 1:6. Bingo, there it was! When I first looked at this passage I had a view closer to yours, and older flood models, though I wasn't a gap theorist anymore at that point. But I did hold to the Henry Morris flood vapor canopy model. This passage forced me out of that view, because it explicitly says the waters were above the highest heavens, and more importantly still up there. I didn't want to accept what it said, because it made things very difficult me. But I also wanted to accept scripture at face value, and allow it to drive my theories. Thus, I'm where I'm at today.

Well you have reasons for your opinion. I am definitely not an expert on poetry so I think I will stick to keeping things in context.

What did you think about the proof that that the stars and space existed before the first day in Gen 1: 1 & 2 ?

Duordi

 

[Calminian]

Couple things:

There are 3 heavens but they are not sky cosmos and spiritual realm. This is a model many are citing, but I reject it as I cannot find any support for it.

Look into the subject of hebrew parallelism, regarding the psalm passage. I think it will eventually sway you like it did me. There's no question the psalmist believed in waters that were beyond the stars.

Well you have reasons for your opinion. I am definitely not an expert on poetry so I think I will stick to keeping things in context.

What did you think about the proof that that the stars and space existed before the first day in Gen 1: 1 & 2 ?

Duordi

I think there was some space prior to verse 14, that was created in v. 1. I think angels live in the cosmos, so they need space. What was your proof that the stars existed prior to v. 1?

 

[duordi]

There are 3 heavens but they are not sky cosmos and spiritual realm. This is a model many are citing, but I reject it as I cannot find any support for it.

You said that before that is why I gave you three scriptural references.

The third heaven is where God is 2 Cor 12:2 at least that is what Paul calls it.

2 Cor 12:1 & 2 Paul it talking about himself here.
1I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.

So if Paul was in the third heaven there must be a first and second heaven.

I see what your problem is. You want the first and second heaven (sky and cosmos) to be the same thing, so now you have to create another heaven because we can prove there are three Heavens.

Look into the subject of Hebrew parallelism, regarding the psalm passage. I think it will eventually sway you like it did me. There's no question the psalmist believed in waters that were beyond the stars.

That is the problem, there is a question.

If I agreed with this I would have to change Bible word meanings, take things out of context and disagree with Paul’s perception of three Heavens.

Personally I think I will keep finding things that don’t fit with the combined (cosmos and sky) based on the trend in the last few posts. I am open to the idea and will keep looking but everything seems to be leaning the other way.

I think there was some space prior to verse 14, that was created in v. 1. I think angels live in the cosmos, so they need space. What was your proof that the stars existed prior to v. 1?

I have Angles and Stars before the first day.

Jobe 38
4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8"Or who shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
9when I made clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10and prescribed limits for it
and set bars and doors,
11and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?

The Stars and the Angles existed before the sea and land were divided while there was darkness on the surface of the waters. This is the condition before the first day because to have the first day you must have light which is created in day one.

I don't think you can get around this one without redefining words or rearranging the order of the text?

Duordi.

 

[philadiddle]

I have a question for you two. If you found out that the other person was right would if affect the meaning of the creation story at all? Would it affect the message of the gospel at all?

 

[Calminian]

I have a question for you two. If you found out that the other person was right would if affect the meaning of the creation story at all? Would it affect the message of the gospel at all?

Nope. We agree that the basic logic of the gospel, sin death redemption. This is just basically a friendly discussion.

 

[Calminian]

You said that before that is why I gave you three scriptural references.

The third heaven is where God is 2 Cor 12:2 at least that is what Paul calls it.

Yes, but where does it say this is where the angels abide? or primarily abide?

So if Paul was in the third heaven there must be a first and second heaven.

correct. I also think Paul was the most likely author of Hebrews, and based this 3 chambered heaven on the Tabernacle model (which is said to be a pictorial representation of heaven).

I see what your problem is. You want the first and second heaven (sky and cosmos) to be the same thing, so now you have to create another heaven because we can prove there are three Heavens.

Actually even that is not quite true. I actually think all 3 heavens are spacial with boarders. I just think earth and its atmosphere happen to be in one of the heavens—the 1st. In fact I think our whole galaxy is likely in the 1st. So I think there are borders, I just don't think modern theologians are right about where those borders are. And I have no desire for this whatsoever. It's just my theory at this point.

If I agreed with this I would have to change Bible word meanings, take things out of context and disagree with Paul’s perception of three Heavens.

Where did Paul ever say the 1st heave was the sky, the second was outerspace and the 3rd was a spiritual realm where the angels lived?

Personally I think I will keep finding things that don’t fit with the combined (cosmos and sky) based on the trend in the last few posts. I am open to the idea and will keep looking but everything seems to be leaning the other way.

Where did you get the combined cosmos and sky theory?

I have Angles and Stars before the first day.

The Stars and the Angles existed before the sea and land were divided while there was darkness on the surface of the waters. This is the condition before the first day because to have the first day you must have light which is created in day one.

What is your proof this light that was created on day 1 was starlight? Right now there are not stars bright enough to generate anything close to daylight.

 

[duordi]

The only serious question here is how far can we go in redefining words before we invoke the curse.

Rev 22:
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

So yes, I would say this does affect salvation.

I am sure if I am wrong, Calminain will forgive me and we will have a great time in Heaven laughing about our misconceptions.

Duordi

 

[Calminian]

The only serious question here is how far can we go in redefining words before we invoke the curse.[/COLOR

I think God will forgive you for redefining the greater light as something other than the sun, if that's what you mean.

For the record, the revelation passage is referring to scribes who copy down holy scripture. If you are given that task, you'd better be very careful to copy it word for word, and not add anything to it. Such a command to be applied to all scripture.

its not referring to interpretations. Otherwise, there's likely only going to be one person in heaven, or even more likely no one will get in, because no one is without at least one error in interpretation.

And BTW, for the record, I think heaven will even have TEs in it. While their gospel may not be logical, God does not judge us based on our perfect logic. But that's not to say logic is not important. Certainly we should strive to be theo-logically sound. But thankfully we don't have to be theologically perfect to get into heaven.

 

[duordi]

Perhaps it would be easier if you define the three heavens as you think of them.
We agree there are three and Paul was in the third one.
I though you said the first heaven included the cosmos and the atmosphere.
So where is the second Heaven from your point of view?

Originally Posted by duordi

I have Angles and Stars before the first day.

The Stars and the Angles existed before the sea and land were divided while there was darkness on the surface of the waters. This is the condition before the first day because to have the first day you must have light which is created in day one.

What is your proof this light that was created on day 1 was starlight?


Right now there are not stars bright enough to generate anything close to daylight.

You gave the proof. It would take something like the sun to give enough light and the sun is a star the last time I checked.

It was sun light reflecting through a cloudy atmosphere. The sun is a star and was created with the Earth in verse one.

The reason it was dark on the surface of the Earth is because of thick clouds. Job 38:9. In Genesis God made the atmosphere clearer and He had light at first it was just a light sky / dark sky. Eventually an actual imiage could be seen. Maybe it had rainbows around it or something but it was different enough to give it its own name and define it as being in the atmosphere.

Of course it does not exist anymore but there are several lights in the sky that you would not believe if you could not see them yourself.

How about the northern lights which can look like curtains hanging down form heaven? Would you believe they existed if the Bible said they did but you had no evidence except a Bible description?

It all works with my point of view but I do not know how to fit it all in from your point of view.



Duordi

 

[duordi]

I spoke for myself.
I am very cautious with the Bible.

If you believe in an old cosmos there it as way to answer a bunch of questions like "How many different kinds of angles are there?

It doesn't work if you only accept a young cosmos theory.
If you ever change your opinion let me know and I will go through it for you.

Duordi

 

[Calminian]

Perhaps it would be easier if you define the three heavens as you think of them.
We agree there are three and Paul was in the third one.
I though you said the first heaven included the cosmos and the atmosphere.
So where is the second Heaven from your point of view?

I have no idea where the second and third heaven are locationally. I just know they're out there.

As I said, my model for the heavens is the Tabernacle. I believe all 3 heavens are physical and locational.

You gave the proof. It would take something like the sun to give enough light and the sun is a star the last time I checked.

It was sun light reflecting through a cloudy atmosphere. The sun is a star and was created with the Earth in verse one.

So your saying the light that as not the sun, really was the sun? You've confused me.

The reason it was dark on the surface of the Earth is because of thick clouds. Job 38:9. In Genesis God made the atmosphere clearer and He had light at first it was just a light sky / dark sky. Eventually an actual imiage could be seen. Maybe it had rainbows around it or something but it was different enough to give it its own name and define it as being in the atmosphere.

This doesn't follow. The land is the boundary for the sea. God created the land's foundation which the prior passage of Job referred (referring back to Gen. 1:9-10). This passage is referring to the sea, now (also referring back to Gen. 1:9-10). It's referring to the deep, or abyss as it is sometimes called. The Sea is a very dark place, mostly. That's how the ancients thought of it. And it is often covered in clouds, as that's their primary source of evaporated water. Look at the language closely if this passage you're citing.

8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, 9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, 10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, 11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt’?

This passage has nothing to do with the earth (the land), per se, except that the land serves as the boarder for the sea. It's about the sea.

Keep in mind, Job was likely written right after the Flood. The writer had access to many of the Genesis texts (I say texts, because Genesis itself is a series of writings), but unlike the psalmists who had the whole Torah, he only had early Genesis writings. Thus he knew those texts very well. It's no wonder Job pays such close detail to the information contained in Gen. 1. No question those passages in chapter 38 are specifically referring to Gen. 1:9-10, the creation of the land and sea.

Of course it does not exist anymore but there are several lights in the sky that you would not believe if you could not see them yourself.

How about the northern lights which can look like curtains hanging down form heaven? Would you believe they existed if the Bible said they did but you had no evidence except a Bible description?

It all works with my point of view but I do not know how to fit it all in from your point of view.

Of course this works with your theory. There's just no biblical support for it. It's all argued from silence.

 

[duordi]

I guess I am confused.

Did you accept job was talking about before the creation week
and up to the time when the sea and land were divided which is before the lights in the "fermament heaven" were created?

Are you rejecting the idea that there were clouds which caused darkness on the surface of the waters? No depths are mentioned in the text.

Are you rejecting the angles and stars existed at this time before day one?

I do not have a problem with the sun causing the image that was called the "greater light" because in my view the sun was created already in verse one.

In my personal opinion whatever the "greater light" was, it was as complicated and wonderful as anything God created on the other days of creation.

I also believe whatever the greater light was it followed the laws of physics as far as we can understand them. Gods universe is designed to be understood just like his Bible is.

Duordi

 

[Calminian]

I guess I am confused.

Did you accept job was talking about before the creation week
and up to the time when the sea and land were divided which is before the lights in the "fermament heaven" were created?

Job in this passage is speaking about Gen 1:9-10, when God was creation the foundations of the dry land and seas (day 2). I also agree with you angels exist before this.

Are you rejecting the idea that there were clouds which caused darkness on the surface of the waters? No depths are mentioned in the text.

No surface is mentioned either. But the passage is so explicitly speaking about the sea (which didn't exist until day 2), I'm not sure how anyone could miss it.

Are you rejecting the angles and stars existed at this time before day one?

Angels are called stars in scripture, and yes they existed prior to day 2.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I think you're stumbling on hebrew parallelism again. Did you know Job was a poetry book? Almost the whole book is written in hebrew parallelism. In this passage, the author simply states the same thing, in 2 different ways. Morning stars is parallel to sons of God. Both are terms for angels. "Sang together" is parallel to "shouted for joy." It's simply a poetic way of saying that the angels praised God when they saw him creating the dry land and oceans. We're not talking about nuclear balls of fusion in outer space here.

If you're going to be drawing theology from Job, Psalms, Proverbs or Song of Solomon, you really need to get a grip on hebrew parallelism. I can see where this confused you. And if that Job passage is your sole proof of stars (nuclear balls of fusion) existing prior to earth, you're going to have much difficulty persuading me.

 

[1whirlwind]

I guess I am confused.

Did you accept job was talking about before the creation week
and up to the time when the sea and land were divided which is before the lights in the "fermament heaven" were created?

Are you rejecting the idea that there were clouds which caused darkness on the surface of the waters? No depths are mentioned in the text.

Are you rejecting the angles and stars existed at this time before day one?

I do not have a problem with the sun causing the image that was called the "greater light" because in my view the sun was created already in verse one.

In my personal opinion whatever the "greater light" was, it was as complicated and wonderful as anything God created on the other days of creation.

I also believe whatever the greater light was it followed the laws of physics as far as we can understand them. Gods universe is designed to be understood just like his Bible is.

Duordi

When you consider this spiritually it comes together. First..."day one" of Genesis was not the "beginning" but was the first day of this present age.
Also, as Christ is Light, Satan is darkness. Darkness/Satan was upon the face of the deep...the sea, which is masses of souls.

There are three spiritual places for souls to dwell. Heaven, earth or the sea. Heaven speaks of believers, the earth speaks of righteous but misled people while the sea....the sea is led by Satan. God allows him this but sets restrictions:

Job 38:8-11 Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?

​

And, concerning the three heavens Paul wrote of...the first heaven was the previous age, the second heaven are those with God presently while the third heaven....is the next age.


.

 

[Calminian]

[/INDENT]And, concerning the three heavens Paul wrote of...the first heaven was the previous age, the second heaven are those with God presently while the third heaven....is the next age.

Paul wrote about this? Can you cite the passages?

 

[1whirlwind]

Paul wrote about this? Can you cite the passages?

There is only one and you are familiar with it.

Please note...I didn't say Paul explained the three heavens of which he wrote...just that he wrote of them.



.

 

[Calminian]

There is only one and you are familiar with it.

Please note...I didn't say Paul explained the three heavens of which he wrote...just that he wrote of them.

I was just wondering which passages you cite regarding the 3 heavens being temporal rather than locational.

 

[1whirlwind]

I was just wondering which passages you cite regarding the 3 heavens being temporal rather than locational.

Heaven, no matter what age, is where Christ is:

1 Peter 3:21-22 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
​

After His resurrection He went into heaven, into the temple in which He dwells, in which He walks.....

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
​

We are His temple and once delivered from Satan/darkness we are then in heaven, while walking the earth, as He is in us....we are of the kingdom:

Colossians 1:12-13 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son:


​

He hath delivered, He hath translated us...not shall deliver or shall translate. The event takes place before our physical death. We are of the first resurrection, in the heavenly kingdom, before we pass from this flesh life.

.
​

 

[shernren]

Let me just say that I think the text itself of 2 Cor 12 indicates that Paul had "heaven" (as we call it) in mind when he spoke of the third heaven. As verses 2-4 indicate:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was
caught up to the third heaven
- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.

And I know that this man was
caught up into paradise
- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows

- and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. (2Cor 12:2-4, ESV)
​

Notice the parallelism of structure in verses 2 and 3, which seems to indicate that Paul is speaking of the same thing when he speaks of "the third heaven" and of "paradise". (After all, this is the exact same analysis you applied to Job 38:7 - and Paul, though he wrote in Greek, was still very much a Hebrew, was he not?)

Of course, you are then free to ask what exactly this "paradise" is - the word originally refers to the walled garden of a ruler. But in the other two uses of the word in the New Testament, it refers specifically to the presence of God and the glorified Jesus (in Luke), and to the tree of life which appears in Heaven at the end of the book of Revelation:

And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43, ESV)

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ (Rev 2:7, ESV)
​

It seems strange therefore to suggest that either paradise or the third heaven is a place in physical space, rather than some kind of spiritual location.

=========

Also, aren't there multiple heavens even in the Old Testament?

Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. (Deut 10:14, ESV)

“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven [lit. heaven of heavens] cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! (1Kgs 8:27, ESV)
​

 

[Calminian]

[/INDENT]It seems strange therefore to suggest that either paradise or the third heaven is a place in physical space, rather than some kind of spiritual location.

What exactly would a "spiritual location" be, though? Scripturally, our spirit has to do with our will, particularly our moral will. In fact spirit could be defined as that which governs or drives our moral decisions. A spiritual man is known as a man who is morally attuned to God. The law of God is said to be spiritual, having God as its author. But what would a spiritual place be? And if there is such as thing as a spiritual place, couldn't it also be a physical place? But if it isn't physical, in what sense would it be spiritual?