1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    01 May '13 09:01
    Geological evidence of creation
    YouTube&NR=1&feature=fvwp
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    01 May '13 09:25
    Forming of the Grand Canyon

    YouTube&feature=endscreen&NR=1
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    01 May '13 12:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Forming of the Grand Canyon

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_TX95LAogY&feature=endscreen&NR=1
    Now the argument isn't over the age of the GC, but the layers underneath. Let's see you young Earthers rationalize that one. Just allowing for one moment your fantasy world of a GC only a few thousand years old.
  4. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    01 May '13 12:491 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Geological evidence of creation
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flrhqjN5BHo&NR=1&feature=fvwp
    Without looking at your videos your direction seems to be that "Biblical Creation" is only your Young Earth Creation.

    I reject that.

    I would reject this dogmatic position today as I would reject the insinuation that "Biblical Creation" is that the sun revolves around the earth.
    It doesn't matter is religious structures insisted that Galileo was a heretic.
    Going back to the Bible and reading carefully I cannot deduce anything there that insists that the earth is the physical center of the solar system.

    I think you also are fighting for a certain interpretation of Scripture.
    You could be wrong in your interpretation of Scripture text.

    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep." (Genesis 1:1 Recovery Version)

    Who says that God had to tell us all of the details of the universe pre-dating the events discribed in the seven days of Genesis ? Suppose He deems it to be none of our business in terms of His present administrative economy ?

    Suppose all He wants you to know by revelation, at this point, is that the earth was waste and empty ? What went before is for the moment not His concern to communicate.

    So you cannot biblically insist that no prior time took place to Genesis 1:2 on.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    01 May '13 14:58
    Originally posted by sonship
    Without looking at your videos your direction seems to be that "Biblical Creation" is only your Young Earth Creation.

    I reject that.

    I would reject this dogmatic position today as I would reject the insinuation that "Biblical Creation" is that the sun revolves around the earth.
    It doesn't matter is religious structures insisted that Galileo was a ...[text shortened]... te.

    So you cannot biblically insist that no prior time took place to Genesis 1:2 on.
    Perhaps you should have looked at the video first if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.
  6. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    01 May '13 15:571 edit
    Okay. I'll look at it and probably enjoy it too.

    I like some Young Earth science talks as far as being refreshing new considerations..., sometimes.

    I think Kent Hovind can be entertaining.

    But if this is science, this is man's invention. Right?
    God knows all the facts.

    If there is a conflict then something is being misinterpreted.
    And that may be in our interpretation of what God's revelation said.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    01 May '13 16:12
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Now the argument isn't over the age of the GC, but the layers underneath. Let's see you young Earthers rationalize that one. Just allowing for one moment your fantasy world of a GC only a few thousand years old.
    Mt.St.Helen Volcanic Eruption: Does it Prove Creation or Evolution?

    YouTube
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    01 May '13 16:20
    Originally posted by sonship
    Okay. I'll look at it and probably enjoy it too.

    I like some Young Earth science talks as far as being refreshing new considerations..., sometimes.

    I think Kent Hovind can be entertaining.

    But if this is science, this is man's invention. Right?
    God knows all the facts.

    If there is a conflict then something is being misinterpreted.
    And that may be in our interpretation of what God's revelation said.
    Of course. God was the witness to what was done at the creation, His word endures forever. If God said there was only 6 days in the creation of the physical heavens and earth and all life forms on the earth, who is man to say God is a liar? Man is the liar.
  9. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    01 May '13 16:397 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Of course. God was the witness to what was done at the creation, His word endures forever. If God said there was only 6 days in the creation of the physical heavens and earth and all life forms on the earth, who is man to say God is a liar? Man is the liar.
    I saw the video. It was very interesting.

    But strictly speaking the Bible does not say there were only six days at the creating.

    The word used in regards to the six days in Exodus 20:11 is made not created.

    "For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day ..." (Exo. 20:11)

    So who is man to insist that God created the universe in six days when it says that He made the heaven and earth in six days?

    That word in Hebrew is also used elsewhere for the preparing of a meal, the trimming of one's beard, the trimming of one's nails.

    So it is possible that the earth is seen by the prophetic seer as waste and void and he then sees God made (as in preparing out of what is already there) the heavens and earth in six days.
  10. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    01 May '13 16:553 edits
    I watched your video. Maybe you could view this one.

    Oxford Professor and Christian John Lennox talks about his new book:

    Seven Days That Divide the World - The beginning according to Genesis and Science

    YouTube
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    01 May '13 19:04
    Originally posted by sonship
    I saw the video. It was very interesting.

    But strictly speaking the Bible does not say there were only six days at the [b]creating
    .

    The word used in regards to the six days in Exodus 20:11 is made not created.

    "For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day ..." (Exo. ...[text shortened]... s God made (as in preparing out of what is already there) the heavens and earth in six days.
    No, that is not possible from the literal reading of the text. These days are identified as traditional Jewish days that begin at evening, for it says evening and morning was the first day. This gives a specific time meaning to those days. It is different from saying "in the day God created the heavens and the earth" where the time period could be years.
  12. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    01 May '13 20:033 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No, that is not possible from the literal reading of the text. These days are identified as traditional Jewish days that begin at evening, for it says evening and morning was the first day. This gives a specific time meaning to those days. It is different from saying "in the day God created the heavens and the earth" where the time period could be years.
    No, that is not possible from the literal reading of the text.


    What is not possible from the literal reading of the text ??

    It is not possible that CREATE is not a word used in the definition of ASAH ?

    Let's see if it is not possible that ASAH for (make) and BARA for (create) cannot have specific meanings which are not completely overlapping, though they may sometimes overlap.

    Strong's Exhuastive Concordance for the word used in Exodus 20:11


    6213 - asah - ... a prim root; to do or make , in broadest sense and widest application (as follows): - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, ... have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, ... finish, fit, ... gather, get, go about, govern, grant ... bring to (pass), ... practice, prepare, provide, thoroughly, trim, work, yield, use ..."


    I am copying from most of the significant entries for the word asah from page 122 of the Hebrew dictionary in 46th printing of Strong's Exhuastive Concordance - reprinting of 1961 (first edition 1894).

    The word CREATE does not appear in the definitions listed.

    Now from the same Hebrew Dictionary I go to:

    1254 - bara ... a prim. root; to create to cut down ( a wood), select, create (creator) cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat) ..


    The English word create is in the definition of bara.
    The English word create is not in the definition of asah.

    So it is possible that the Holy Spirit chose a word bara to indicate ex nihilo bringing into existence out of nothing in Genesis 1:1. And He chose another word to indicate what God did in six days in Exodus 20:11.

    Don't tell me it is not possible based on day length, which would be not relevant to the usage of asah and bara.


    These days are identified as traditional Jewish days that begin at evening, for it says evening and morning was the first day.


    This is not relevant to the usage of made in Exodus 20:11 and created in Genesis 1:1.

    The length of days however you wish to argue it is another matter.


    This gives a specific time meaning to those days. It is different from saying "in the day God created the heavens and the earth" where the time period could be years.


    If God created the universe some time in the beginning and it latter became waste and empty as if judged or because of some untold calamity, and then He subsequently formed, fashioned, and appointed it in six 24 hour days, Exodus 20:11 would still be true.

    If God destroyed the world today and left it in a heap of darkened ruination and then some years from now MADE [from asah] heaven and earth in six days, it would still be true that God MADE the heaven and earth in six days.

    That is true regardless of how you argue the length of the days in terms of hours.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    01 May '13 20:47
    Originally posted by sonship
    No, that is not possible from the literal reading of the text.


    What is not possible from the literal reading of the text ??

    It is not possible that CREATE is not a word used in the definition of ASAH ?

    Let's see if it is not possible that ASAH for (make) and BARA for (create) cannot have specific meanings which are not completely ...[text shortened]... .

    That is true regardless of how you argue the length of the days in terms of hours.
    Most translations says the earth "was" and not "became" as your translation has it. The idea of the text is that God did not complete the earth and it was not ready for habitation at the end of the first day. The earth was covered with water and without any source of light and therefore God created light. There is no gap in time as some try to say with their "Gap Theory" of creation.

    On the second day God works on the heaven just above the earth before turning back to work more on completing and preparing the earth for habitation on the third day. By our modern count that would be a period of 72 hours.
  14. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    01 May '13 22:02
    When did the big grumpy sky fairy drop the 175 big rocks on the earth? When did that happen?
  15. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    01 May '13 22:262 edits
    Most translations says the earth "was" and not "became" as your translation has it.


    I am aware that most English translations do not say "became."

    Some translators do. And some have pointed out that the same word usage is used in Genesis 19:26 where the English usually reads "But his [Lot's] wife looked back from behind him, and she BECAME a pillar of salt."

    You may not realize it but in believing that God first created a chaotic mess and then fashioned it into something meaningful you are adopting the cosmogeny of most ancient pagan mythologies.

    So while you are concerned that I am skating close to modern evolution theory, I'm concerned that you are unaware that you are being enfluenced by ancient Greek, Roman, and Babylonian creation myths.

    However, if we took the first verses by itself as it seems to indicate it should be taken, we are only told in the divine record that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning.

    You are reading into that that God created a messy chaos.


    The idea of the text is that God did not complete the earth and it was not ready for habitation at the end of the first day.


    It says God said "Let there be light."

    You are supplying your interpretation that that means God created light. This is not necessarily the meaning.

    As a matter of fact both the Apostles John and Paul, when utilizing this passage speak in terms of light not being able to be hindered by darkness.

    "And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness was not able to overcome it." (John 1:5)

    "Because the God who said, Out of darkness light shall shine, is the One who shuned in our hearts ..." ( 2 Cor. 4:6)


    Both of these NT passages could be understood as light busting through an opposing darkness which is not able to obscure its glory.

    "Let there be light" therefore does not have to mean God CREATED light at that time. It could mean that the temporary opposing darkness was rebuked and restricted.

    The earth may have lain in darkness after a divine judgment for a long time.



    The earth was covered with water and without any source of light and therefore God created light. There is no gap in time as some try to say with their "Gap Theory" of creation.


    There is probably an interval of unspecified time between Gen. 1:1 and verse 2. God judged a previous world and it may have lain in darkness and emptyness for billions of years.

    The anointed cherub was unable to do anything about it as he could not create anything completely original. This would explain why he is on the scene at man's creation. It also goes would explain his intense hatred of man and his desire to derail God's new administration with Adam.

    There details of this are strongly indicated elsewhere in Scripture.


    On the second day God works on the heaven just above the earth before turning back to work more on completing and preparing the earth for habitation on the third day. By our modern count that would be a period of 72 hours.


    He may have done some preparing and completing in a sense other than CREATING.

    After all if we look at the sequence in Zechariah 12:1 God is said to have stretched forth the heavens laid the foundation of the earth and formed the spirit of man within him.

    If that is sequencial that would have God stretching forth the heavens prior to laying the foundation of the earth. See Zechariah 12:1.

    So the appointing or making of the great light of the sun was probably just allowing it to shine through the obscuring haze. The Hebrew word can be translated as light holders or light bearers. So rather than Him creating the sun He appointed of made the light holder of the sun.

    Previous to this appointing the light in the sky was diffuse and difficult to localize to the seer.
Back to Top