Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am a dispensationalist. That lines up with science and history the best. Everyone has their own perspective and viewpoint. As Einstein tells us, everything is relative. It is interesting that in psalm 90 Moses tells us a day is 1,000 years. There are people who believe that was an oral tradition and not written down until the time of David.
We still have a lot of oral tradition today. It is interesting what actually became part of the Bible and what was not found to be acceptable.
I am a dispensationalist. That lines up with science and history the best. Everyone has their own perspective and viewpoint. As Einstein tells us, everything is relative. It is interesting that in psalm 90 Moses tells us a day is 1,000 years. There are people who believe that was an oral tradition and not written down until the time of David.
We still have a lot of oral tradition today. It is interesting what actually became part of the Bible and what was not found to be acceptable.
If you do not understand Psalm 90 correctly don’t you think understanding and making a determination about Creation is a bit much for you? I know the way I’m stating that is not the nicest way of putting it (I apologize I couldnt find the words to be softer in what I wanted to say) but I hope you understand what I mean. Go back and read Psalm 90 im sure when you do you won’t make the comparison you just did.
Making the statement that Psalm 90 is Moses saying a day is a 1000 years. It doesn’t say that. Pointing out metaphorically how God’s perception of time is different from ours in no way is saying a day is actually 1000 years. We have a lifespan of 80 years. Of course our perspective of a day would be different than Gods. When we live eternally a day will be like 1000 years to us. Nothing in that verse implies a day IS 1000 years. And there are no examples of God using it in that context.
Making the statement that Psalm 90 is Moses saying a day is a 1000 years. It doesn’t say that. Pointing out metaphorically how God’s perception of time is different from ours in no way is saying a day is actually 1000 years. We have a lifespan of 80 years. Of course our perspective of a day would be different than Gods. When we live eternally a day will be like 1000 years to us. Nothing in that verse implies a day IS 1000 years. And there are no examples of God using it in that context.
Hi Platte
Thank you for your post that with God day is a thousand years because it says so
Revelation 20:7 ESV
[7] And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Hi Platte
Thank you for your post that with God day is a thousand years because it says so
Revelation 20:7 ESV
[7] And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
You do understand that was a hyperbolic statement in describing God's patience...plus that verse also says 1000 years = 1 day...so your 6 1000 year days are back to 6 days. Just plain silly argument - who does that or even thinks thats legit. Jonah was not in the belly of the fish for 3000 years. Jesus did not rise 3000 year slater.
The Bible tells us they were 6 literal days (evening and a morning). If you can't believe Moses - you certainly can't believe Christ.
The manna story also proves literal days for Creation as the Israelites were fed manna from heaven for 6 days in the wilderness and a double portion on Friday for the Sabbath. Not to take any extra or it would spoil I think the most we have seen someone going without food is 40 days, no one could survive no food for a 1000 years. Moses was with God 40 days/nights and did not eat while God wrote the Ten Commandments and gave other laws, Exo 34:28 not 4000 years without food water.
There are a lot of YEC people who believe "The First Day" is a literal 24 hour day. So in the literal Bible what happened on this first "day"? Usually they God created
I was about to create a thread, with this question, which I think is the first challenge facing YEC, and making it impossible.
When did Day 1 begin?
If Day 1 does not begin from Genesis 1:1, then the six day creation does not include the creation of the heavens.
If Day 1 starts after Genesis 1:2, then there was no water to start with, even if persons argue that the earth in verse 2, is not planet earth... which isn't reasonable, since both verse 1, and 2 refer to earth as existing, and the watery deep isn't hanging in space, on nothing.
If Day 1 begins at Genesis 1:3, when God said, let there be light, then the first day was only but 1 second long, because there was both day and night, which was evident at the same instance.
These issues, along with other facts of Genesis, make YEC impossible in reality.
Both Moses and Abraham had the best education that was available in their day. If anyone it was Abraham that invented science. He was the first person to separate truth from error. He was a chaldean from Ur where they developed the technology to build the Ziggurat that God was so upset with them. Even though I do not understand why. That was when he confused the langauge and scattered the people.
The person responsible for the 'Tower of Babel' (Ziggurat) was not Abraham, but Nimrod. Genesis 10:8-10; Genesis 11:8, 9
The act was in opposition to the true God, and was against his will, to fill the earth, and subdue it.
Abraham lived in the general area where Nimrod, and those who did not fear God, were involved in Babylonian idolatry.
However, Abraham, who was a descendent of Shem, had a knowledge and understanding of the true God, and found favor with God. Genesis 14:22-15:1; Genesis 24:1-4
I was about to create a thread, with this question, which I think is the first challenge facing YEC, and making it impossible.
When did Day 1 begin?
If Day 1 does not begin from Genesis 1:1, then the six day creation does not include the creation of the heavens.
If Day 1 starts after Genesis 1:2, then there was no water to start with, even if persons argue that the earth in verse 2, is not planet earth... which isn't reasonable, since both verse 1, and 2 refer to earth as existing, and the watery deep isn't hanging in space, on nothing.
If Day 1 begins at Genesis 1:3, when God said, let there be light, then the first day was only but 1 second long, because there was both day and night, which was evident at the same instance.
These issues, along with other facts of Genesis, make YEC impossible in reality.
All three of your statements begin with the little word "if." But Genesis starts:
“1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Ge 1:1-5 NKJV)
You are making a huge assumption that there was a gap somewhere between verse 1 and verse 5. Those of us who believe in a young earth do not see those or any other "facts of Genesis" making our belief an impossibility.
Great point about consistency in interpretation! You're right, if we're going to take a literal 24-hour day approach, we should apply the same principle to understanding the rest of the passage. I think it's a great idea to explore how the Bible defines the word "earth" and other terms, like "formless and void", within its own context. The Jeremiah 4:23 reference is a good starting point. It seems like Jeremiah is describing a desolate, post-judgment scene. If we apply that understanding to Genesis 1, it could suggest that the "earth was without form, and void" is describing a state of devastation or chaos, rather than a pristine, newly created earth
I did not get to welcome you to the forums, so I will do that now.
WELCOME!
I agree with your observation - the "earth was without form, and void" is describing a state of devastation or chaos, rather than a pristine, newly created earth.
II did a few animations, which I made use of in a blog, but so far it has not been approved, and I have no idea what's happening there, otherwise, i could have shared the link with you.
Since the topic is at hand, and I don't want to wait, I might as well go ahead and share that here.
Description : What is happening...
The heavens are created, with the sun, moon, and stars, and the earth is in the process of forming.
The magma making the core is expelling hot volcanic ash, and as the rock cools, volcanoes are erupting.
All this debris, ash, and gas spewed into the atmosphere, is trapped, and the earth is shrouded in darkness, as the sun's light is blocked out.
See the animation in color.
You could well appreciate how chaotic the earth would be, with volcanoes, and magma flowing through the rock, and then the liquid water that burst from the mantle, mixing with some lava flow.
That would certainly describe an earth that was formless, and desolate.
Once the oceans formed, the earth's relatively young crust, which is still malleable / flexible, is being pressured by the weight of the water.
The activity taking place on the seabed is still chaotic.
All three of your statements begin with the little word "if." But Genesis starts:
“1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Ge 1:1-5 NKJV)
You are making a huge assumption that there was a gap somewhere between verse 1 and verse 5. Those of us who believe in a young earth do not see those or any other "facts of Genesis" making our belief an impossibility.
Why do you assume that I am assuming there was a gap somewhere between verse 1 and verse 5?
Can you point out in my post, where I made that assumption?
I'm asking those who believe in YEC, when Day 1 began.
Since you believe in YEC, can you answer this for me?
The Bible is true but no one seems to understand the Bible. So the Bible is subject to translation and interpretation. A lot of the Bible does not even get translated. Every book in the world would not be enough to explain what is in the Bible.
I hope you do not believe that no one understands the Bible, because, according to the scriptures, which is God's word, people do understand, and those who don't are described as wicked. Daniel 12:9, 10; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 22:7
Recall that Jesus said that only a "special kind" of people will understand God's sayings, since it depends a lot on a quality that God loves - humility. Matthew 13:10-16
Since God hates pride, the ones who are not like children... willing to be instructed, will never understand, because God hides the understanding from them. Matthew 11:25, 26
Next the Bible has up to 100 layers of understanding. A day can be a 24 hour day, a day can mean a week, a day can mean 1,000 years. If we just follow the rules of Bible interpretation that we learn in Bible college.
It's always best to follow the explanations in the Bible itself, and those who are the servants of God, described in Daniel 12:10, can help, because God give them the spirit of wisdom, and understanding. Exodus 28:3; Deuteronomy 34:9; Isaiah 11:2
Recall, how Stephen was described. The Bible says they "could stand against the wisdom and the Spirit with which Stephen spoke", because he was full of God's grace. Acts 6:8-10
Phillip, the zealous evangelizer was led by the spirit to help an Ethiopian Eunuch in the desert. Acts 8:25-40
Likewise, the apostles were zealous in helping people to learn the truth. Acts 5:41, 42
Paul too... His zeal was evident. Acts 17:16, 17; Acts 20:18-21
All of these were given the spirit of understanding.
Today, God is doing the same for those of his servants.
Theories that were proven wrong was science.
Science does not refer to something that is right only. Science is a study, and the discoveries and finding can be overturned, replaced, and false.
There are many examples of this.
We would not hear scientist say, because a scientific theory was replaced, or doubted, it is not science.
Some scientific theories have been accepted for decades, before being discovered to be wrong, and replaced.
Some theories today have problems, and there are uncertainties regarding their "truthfulness".
The reason persons tend to put science in the light that it is science, only if it is right, is because they put science on a level that it does not, and cannot belong. This is called Scientism, and many scientist talk about this in a very negative way... even referring to some scientist as being too proud.
Hubris, exemplified in the demands we make on science, is a major obstacle to coming to grips with our situation. We are obsessed with trying to predict, manage, and control nature, and consequently we pour immense intellectual and fiscal resources into huge research programs—from the Human Genome Project to the U.S. Global Change Research Program—aimed at this unattainable goal. On the other hand, we devote little effort to the apparently modest yet absolutely essential question of how, given our unavoidable limits, we can manage to live in harmony with the world that we have inherited and are continually remaking.
It is expected though, since scientists are men, and women... not robots, and these are affected by sin as well. The risk of hubris affects politicians, leaders in business, scientists, academia, the military, entertainers, athletes and doctors (among many others). Power, especially absolute and unchecked power, is intoxicating and is manifested behaviourally in a variety of ways, ranging from amplified cognitive functions to lack of inhibition, poor judgment, extreme narcissism, deviant behaviour, and even cruelty. Hubristic behaviour of overconfidence, extreme pride together with an unwillingness to disregard advice makes powerful people in leadership positions to over-reach themselves with negative consequences for themselves and others.
NEXT Science is not proven wrong so much as we have more information. Einstein did not falsify Newton. Newton's laws still as they always have and they fit just fine into Einstein's laws that he adds to what Newton discovered.
"Some ideas have been perpetuated as scams, such as the flat Earth theory, which was initially proposed as a jest and later exploited to cast doubt on religious beliefs. Similarly, the debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism has ancient roots, tracing back to the time of Abraham, the patriarch of Ur and the Chaldeans. Remarkably, Abraham was not only a spiritual leader but also a skilled scientist, adept in astronomy and mathematics.
Consider Noah, too. In an era when skepticism prevailed, he embarked on the monumental task of constructing an ark—a vessel capable of preserving an entire biodiverse ecosystem. The scientific knowledge required for such an endeavor was immense, from understanding hydrodynamics to designing a structure that could withstand the forces of a global flood."
The notion that science is “proven wrong” is indeed a common misconception. Allow me to break it down:
Scientific Theories and Falsifiability:
Science operates based on empirical evidence, observation, and experimentation. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of natural phenomena that has withstood rigorous testing.
Importantly, scientific theories are falsifiable. This means that they can be tested and potentially disproven through evidence. If a theory fails a crucial test, it is revised or replaced.
However, the ability to be falsified doesn’t invalidate a theory; rather, it demonstrates its scientific nature.
Advancement of Knowledge:
Science continually evolves as we gain more information and refine our understanding.
Einstein’s theory of relativity did not invalidate Newton’s laws of motion. Instead, it expanded our understanding of the universe.
Newton’s laws remain accurate within their applicable contexts (e.g., everyday situations), while Einstein’s theories provide a more comprehensive framework (especially at high speeds or in strong gravitational fields).
In summary, science isn’t about proving things absolutely right or wrong; it’s about refining our understanding based on evidence. Newton’s laws and Einstein’s theories coexist harmoniously, each contributing to our broader scientific knowledge.
In 1996 scientists announced the astonishing news that they’d discovered what they believed might be signs of ancient life inside a meteorite from Mars. In 2014 astrophysicists declared that they’d found direct evidence at last for the “inflationary universe” theory, first proposed in the 1980s.
What these assertions had in common was that they were based on research by highly qualified, credentialed scientists—and also that the "discoveries" turned out to be wrong. Today essentially nobody thinks the meteorite contained persuasive evidence that it once harbored life, or that the astrophysicists had found anything more exciting than dust in the Milky Way.
This sort of backtracking isn’t unusual. In part, it happens because scientists almost always have to revise cutting-edge research, or even retract it, as the scientific community tries to replicate it and fails, or as more and better evidence comes in.
I believe you believe "the notion that science is “proven wrong” is indeed a common misconception".
However, sometimes what we believe may not be based on facts, but our personal feelings, and thus, it may call for us to make adjustments, based on facts we are presented with.
I hope I was helpful in some way.
All three of your statements begin with the little word "if." But Genesis starts:
“1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Ge 1:1-5 NKJV)
You are making a huge assumption that there was a gap somewhere between verse 1 and verse 5. Those of us who believe in a young earth do not see those or any other "facts of Genesis" making our belief an impossibility.
David. I'll try to make it easier for you to understand the three statements, by adding two more.
If there is no sun before day 1, it is not possible to calculate, or determine a twenty-four hour long day.
If the argument is that God used a temporary light that was used to determine twenty-four hours, this is making Genesis out to be of no account in YEC.
I hope this helps a bit, at least.
However you look at it, YEC with a literal six twenty-four hour day periods, is impossible to reconcile with Genesis.
The start of the fist day is only one of the problems.
David. I'll try to make it easier for you to understand the three statements, by adding two more.
If there is no sun before day 1, it is not possible to calculate, or determine a twenty-four hour long day.
If the argument is that God used a temporary light that was used to determine twenty-four hours, this is making Genesis out to be of no account in YEC.
I hope this helps a bit, at least.
However you look at it, YEC with a literal six twenty-four hour day periods, is impossible to reconcile with Genesis.
The start of the fist day is only one of the problems.
Hi ill make it even easier what was created before the flood was destroyed in the flood so the only thing that concerns us is the creation of the first creation after the flood thing God created was the first Adam of this creation Israel that did not work God began a new creation with Christ
2 Corinthians 5:17 ESV
[17] Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
If Day 1 starts after Genesis 1:2, then there was no water to start with, even if persons argue that the earth in verse 2, is not planet earth... which isn't reasonable, since both verse 1, and 2 refer to earth as existing, and the watery deep isn't hanging in space, on nothing.
If Day 1 begins at Genesis 1:3, when God said, let there be light, then the first day was only but 1 second long, because there was both day and night, which was evident at the same instance.
Because you just said Satan would be locked away for 1 day. Not 1000 years. You said 1000 years is a day. So when God said Satan would be locked away for 1000 years He really meant 1 day
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
(I’m trying to point out your silly usage of the verse)
