Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What biblical creation is

bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:07:56 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

The only thing that puzzles me is why you think your argument should be taken seriously?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:28:14 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:07:56 PM, chui wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

The only thing that puzzles me is why you think your argument should be taken seriously?
Its not an argument, its a clairification of how things are.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning." This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 10:08:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning." This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 10:25:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 10:08:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning." This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

Contact ThinkBig and lannan13. We are going to start a team debate on the age of the Earth (3 on 3). They need a third person. My team will be myself, NothingSpecial99, and Thiest_1998.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 10:28:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 10:25:34 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:08:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning." This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

Contact ThinkBig and lannan13. We are going to start a team debate on the age of the Earth (3 on 3). They need a third person. My team will be myself, NothingSpecial99, and Thiest_1998.

I'm not talking about a debate. I'm talking about an honest discussion between you and me (and yes, I'm already part of their team).
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 10:36:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 10:28:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:25:34 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:08:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning." This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

Contact ThinkBig and lannan13. We are going to start a team debate on the age of the Earth (3 on 3). They need a third person. My team will be myself, NothingSpecial99, and Thiest_1998.

I'm not talking about a debate. I'm talking about an honest discussion between you and me (and yes, I'm already part of their team).

Have you had correspondence with them?

OK, if you'd like to discuss, let's do so. I'll begin by asking you what you meant by "proven" as this is a more mathmatical term.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 10:52:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 10:36:55 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:28:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:25:34 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:08:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning." This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

Contact ThinkBig and lannan13. We are going to start a team debate on the age of the Earth (3 on 3). They need a third person. My team will be myself, NothingSpecial99, and Thiest_1998.

I'm not talking about a debate. I'm talking about an honest discussion between you and me (and yes, I'm already part of their team).

Have you had correspondence with them?

OK, if you'd like to discuss, let's do so. I'll begin by asking you what you meant by "proven" as this is a more mathmatical term.

The legal definition of the word; as in beyond reasonable doubt.

I'll prove it beyond reasonable doubt to your satisfaction; but it has to be an honest discussion.

Here's what I had in mind.

I am going to ask you one question at a time; if you agree, I'll ask another question. if you disagree, we will discuss your objections to it. Once your objections are resolved, I will ask the next question.

If you, or I make a positive claim about something; (something is true, something is impossible, etc), the other person can request justification in the form of evidence, or an argument that explains what that claim is true.

We deal with one point at a time, and don't raise any new or unrelated points until we have finished dealing with the current point. No ignoring points, or information, or changing the subject by either of us. And lets not get bogged down in replying to other people in the process; just you and me.

I will start off at the very beginning to establish the logical underpinnings of the science; and build towards demonstrating the age of the earth is pretty old, beyond any reasonable doubt, and as will leave you unable to raise any objections, and have to concede your accusations are without merit.

An honest discussion.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 10:52:42 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:36:55 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:28:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:25:34 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:08:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning." This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

Contact ThinkBig and lannan13. We are going to start a team debate on the age of the Earth (3 on 3). They need a third person. My team will be myself, NothingSpecial99, and Thiest_1998.

I'm not talking about a debate. I'm talking about an honest discussion between you and me (and yes, I'm already part of their team).

Have you had correspondence with them?

OK, if you'd like to discuss, let's do so. I'll begin by asking you what you meant by "proven" as this is a more mathmatical term.

The legal definition of the word; as in beyond reasonable doubt.

I'll prove it beyond reasonable doubt to your satisfaction; but it has to be an honest discussion.

Here's what I had in mind.

I am going to ask you one question at a time; if you agree, I'll ask another question. if you disagree, we will discuss your objections to it. Once your objections are resolved, I will ask the next question.

If you, or I make a positive claim about something; (something is true, something is impossible, etc), the other person can request justification in the form of evidence, or an argument that explains what that claim is true.

We deal with one point at a time, and don't raise any new or unrelated points until we have finished dealing with the current point. No ignoring points, or information, or changing the subject by either of us. And lets not get bogged down in replying to other people in the process; just you and me.

I will start off at the very beginning to establish the logical underpinnings of the science; and build towards demonstrating the age of the earth is pretty old, beyond any reasonable doubt, and as will leave you unable to raise any objections, and have to concede your accusations are without merit.

An honest discussion.

OK, sounds interesting. Would you rather message me, or would you prefer this forum so others can see our discussion?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 5:47:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning."

Which scripture are you referencing?
This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

As I mentioned Exodus 20:11 makes no reference to creating out of nothing. The Hebrew word for this is Bara and its not found here. What we do find is Asah. Theres nothing to argue here these are just the facts.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.
No this truth isn't a response to anything except a proper understanding of scripture. I noticed you didn't even touch on what the difference between 1:1 and 1:2 actually is. Why is the Earth suddenly found Tohu wa-bohu if there was no occurrence inbetween his original first creation at some undetermined period in the past?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:54:39 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:52:42 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:36:55 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:28:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:25:34 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:08:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning." This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

Contact ThinkBig and lannan13. We are going to start a team debate on the age of the Earth (3 on 3). They need a third person. My team will be myself, NothingSpecial99, and Thiest_1998.

I'm not talking about a debate. I'm talking about an honest discussion between you and me (and yes, I'm already part of their team).

Have you had correspondence with them?

OK, if you'd like to discuss, let's do so. I'll begin by asking you what you meant by "proven" as this is a more mathmatical term.

The legal definition of the word; as in beyond reasonable doubt.

I'll prove it beyond reasonable doubt to your satisfaction; but it has to be an honest discussion.

Here's what I had in mind.

I am going to ask you one question at a time; if you agree, I'll ask another question. if you disagree, we will discuss your objections to it. Once your objections are resolved, I will ask the next question.

If you, or I make a positive claim about something; (something is true, something is impossible, etc), the other person can request justification in the form of evidence, or an argument that explains what that claim is true.

We deal with one point at a time, and don't raise any new or unrelated points until we have finished dealing with the current point. No ignoring points, or information, or changing the subject by either of us. And lets not get bogged down in replying to other people in the process; just you and me.

I will start off at the very beginning to establish the logical underpinnings of the science; and build towards demonstrating the age of the earth is pretty old, beyond any reasonable doubt, and as will leave you unable to raise any objections, and have to concede your accusations are without merit.

An honest discussion.

OK, sounds interesting. Would you rather message me, or would you prefer this forum so others can see our discussion?

Lets do it here. That way you have witnesses if I'm being obtuse about anything.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 9:53:07 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 5:47:11 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning."

Which scripture are you referencing?
This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

As I mentioned Exodus 20:11 makes no reference to creating out of nothing. The Hebrew word for this is Bara and its not found here. What we do find is Asah. Theres nothing to argue here these are just the facts.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.
No this truth isn't a response to anything except a proper understanding of scripture. I noticed you didn't even touch on what the difference between 1:1 and 1:2 actually is. Why is the Earth suddenly found Tohu wa-bohu if there was no occurrence inbetween his original first creation at some undetermined period in the past?

Let's have a friendly debate on this topic. Sounds interesting to me.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 10:01:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:54:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

OK let's have at it.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 10:34:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 9:53:07 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 5:47:11 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning."

Which scripture are you referencing?
This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

As I mentioned Exodus 20:11 makes no reference to creating out of nothing. The Hebrew word for this is Bara and its not found here. What we do find is Asah. Theres nothing to argue here these are just the facts.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.
No this truth isn't a response to anything except a proper understanding of scripture. I noticed you didn't even touch on what the difference between 1:1 and 1:2 actually is. Why is the Earth suddenly found Tohu wa-bohu if there was no occurrence inbetween his original first creation at some undetermined period in the past?

Let's have a friendly debate on this topic. Sounds interesting to me.

well sure! I have to start with the fact the term Bara is used when God creates the heavens and the earth in verse 1, 21 and 27 of the first chapter of Genesis. Bara is the term used to create out of nothing. given this, why if the worlds age is supposed to be known, is the earth referenced to be tohu wa-bohu in verse 2?
Wouldn't it be more than reasonable to take this to mean some even not detailed in description occurred between verses 1 and 2 of chapter 1?
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 10:52:30 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 10:34:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/14/2016 9:53:07 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 5:47:11 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning."

Which scripture are you referencing?
This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

As I mentioned Exodus 20:11 makes no reference to creating out of nothing. The Hebrew word for this is Bara and its not found here. What we do find is Asah. Theres nothing to argue here these are just the facts.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.
No this truth isn't a response to anything except a proper understanding of scripture. I noticed you didn't even touch on what the difference between 1:1 and 1:2 actually is. Why is the Earth suddenly found Tohu wa-bohu if there was no occurrence inbetween his original first creation at some undetermined period in the past?

Let's have a friendly debate on this topic. Sounds interesting to me.

well sure! I have to start with the fact the term Bara is used when God creates the heavens and the earth in verse 1, 21 and 27 of the first chapter of Genesis. Bara is the term used to create out of nothing. given this, why if the worlds age is supposed to be known, is the earth referenced to be tohu wa-bohu in verse 2?
Wouldn't it be more than reasonable to take this to mean some even not detailed in description occurred between verses 1 and 2 of chapter 1?

Oh, I meant in the debate format of this site. I'll send you the challenge if you are interested. Or would prefer to discuss here on this forum.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:03:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 10:01:16 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:54:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

OK let's have at it.

Okay, let's start with something simple. It may not seem relevant, but it will become clear; I am starting right at the beginning with the logical foundation, because if we don't agree on basic concepts, it's a good place to start.

Do you think it I relatively safe to travel by aeroplane?
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:11:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:03:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 10:01:16 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:54:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

OK let's have at it.

Okay, let's start with something simple. It may not seem relevant, but it will become clear; I am starting right at the beginning with the logical foundation, because if we don't agree on basic concepts, it's a good place to start.

Do you think it I relatively safe to travel by aeroplane?

Sure, relative to other forms of automotive locomotion.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:16:27 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:11:57 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:03:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 10:01:16 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:54:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

OK let's have at it.

Okay, let's start with something simple. It may not seem relevant, but it will become clear; I am starting right at the beginning with the logical foundation, because if we don't agree on basic concepts, it's a good place to start.

Do you think it I relatively safe to travel by aeroplane?

Sure, relative to other forms of automotive locomotion.

Okay, that's a good start!

If I said, that in the last 5 years that have been many, many fatal air crashes, would that show that air travel is really unsafe?

If not, could you explain why?
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:22:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:16:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:11:57 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:03:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 10:01:16 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:54:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

OK let's have at it.

Okay, let's start with something simple. It may not seem relevant, but it will become clear; I am starting right at the beginning with the logical foundation, because if we don't agree on basic concepts, it's a good place to start.

Do you think it I relatively safe to travel by aeroplane?

Sure, relative to other forms of automotive locomotion.

Okay, that's a good start!

If I said, that in the last 5 years that have been many, many fatal air crashes, would that show that air travel is really unsafe?

If not, could you explain why?

Not unsafe to other forms of automotive locomotion.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:27:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:22:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:16:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:11:57 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:03:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 10:01:16 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:54:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

OK let's have at it.

Okay, let's start with something simple. It may not seem relevant, but it will become clear; I am starting right at the beginning with the logical foundation, because if we don't agree on basic concepts, it's a good place to start.

Do you think it I relatively safe to travel by aeroplane?

Sure, relative to other forms of automotive locomotion.

Okay, that's a good start!

If I said, that in the last 5 years that have been many, many fatal air crashes, would that show that air travel is really unsafe?

If not, could you explain why?

Not unsafe to other forms of automotive locomotion.

If you ignored other forms of travel, and just looked at air travel on it's own; if I said in the last 5 years there have been many fatal air crashes and so you shouldn't travel by airplane because it's unsafe, would I be justified? If not, could you explain why?

These aren't trick questions by the way!
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:36:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:27:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:22:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:16:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:11:57 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:03:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 10:01:16 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:54:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

OK let's have at it.

Okay, let's start with something simple. It may not seem relevant, but it will become clear; I am starting right at the beginning with the logical foundation, because if we don't agree on basic concepts, it's a good place to start.

Do you think it I relatively safe to travel by aeroplane?

Sure, relative to other forms of automotive locomotion.

Okay, that's a good start!

If I said, that in the last 5 years that have been many, many fatal air crashes, would that show that air travel is really unsafe?

If not, could you explain why?

Not unsafe to other forms of automotive locomotion.

If you ignored other forms of travel, and just looked at air travel on it's own; if I said in the last 5 years there have been many fatal air crashes and so you shouldn't travel by airplane because it's unsafe, would I be justified? If not, could you explain why?

These aren't trick questions by the way!

Since "unsafe" is a subjective qualification, unless you compare it to something else, it is hard to say. If I was unaware of the degree of danger I face ever day driving to work, I may concede that airplane travels seems to be unsafe, however given the greater statistical probability of danger driving to work, I would conclude that airplane travel, while dangerous to a degree, is not unsafe relative to driving a car.

My point is, qualitative statements require a point of reference for comparative analysis or an objective standard by which to judge.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:41:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:36:17 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:27:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:22:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:16:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:11:57 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:03:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 10:01:16 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:54:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

OK let's have at it.

Okay, let's start with something simple. It may not seem relevant, but it will become clear; I am starting right at the beginning with the logical foundation, because if we don't agree on basic concepts, it's a good place to start.

Do you think it I relatively safe to travel by aeroplane?

Sure, relative to other forms of automotive locomotion.

Okay, that's a good start!

If I said, that in the last 5 years that have been many, many fatal air crashes, would that show that air travel is really unsafe?

If not, could you explain why?

Not unsafe to other forms of automotive locomotion.

If you ignored other forms of travel, and just looked at air travel on it's own; if I said in the last 5 years there have been many fatal air crashes and so you shouldn't travel by airplane because it's unsafe, would I be justified? If not, could you explain why?

These aren't trick questions by the way!

Since "unsafe" is a subjective qualification, unless you compare it to something else, it is hard to say. If I was unaware of the degree of danger I face ever day driving to work, I may concede that airplane travels seems to be unsafe, however given the greater statistical probability of danger driving to work, I would conclude that airplane travel, while dangerous to a degree, is not unsafe relative to driving a car.

My point is, qualitative statements require a point of reference for comparative analysis or an objective standard by which to judge.

I guess that's fair; let me rephrase a little bit, then:

If I said that you're almost certainly going to die if you get on a plane; because there have been multiple fatal air crashes, would that be a reasonable statement for me to make?
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:55:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:41:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:36:17 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:27:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:22:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:16:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:11:57 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:03:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 10:01:16 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:54:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

OK let's have at it.

Okay, let's start with something simple. It may not seem relevant, but it will become clear; I am starting right at the beginning with the logical foundation, because if we don't agree on basic concepts, it's a good place to start.

Do you think it I relatively safe to travel by aeroplane?

Sure, relative to other forms of automotive locomotion.

Okay, that's a good start!

If I said, that in the last 5 years that have been many, many fatal air crashes, would that show that air travel is really unsafe?

If not, could you explain why?

Not unsafe to other forms of automotive locomotion.

If you ignored other forms of travel, and just looked at air travel on it's own; if I said in the last 5 years there have been many fatal air crashes and so you shouldn't travel by airplane because it's unsafe, would I be justified? If not, could you explain why?

These aren't trick questions by the way!

Since "unsafe" is a subjective qualification, unless you compare it to something else, it is hard to say. If I was unaware of the degree of danger I face ever day driving to work, I may concede that airplane travels seems to be unsafe, however given the greater statistical probability of danger driving to work, I would conclude that airplane travel, while dangerous to a degree, is not unsafe relative to driving a car.

My point is, qualitative statements require a point of reference for comparative analysis or an objective standard by which to judge.

I guess that's fair; let me rephrase a little bit, then:

If I said that you're almost certainly going to die if you get on a plane; because there have been multiple fatal air crashes, would that be a reasonable statement for me to make?

No, statistically you would not almost certainly die.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:57:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 10:52:30 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 10:34:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/14/2016 9:53:07 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 5:47:11 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning."

Which scripture are you referencing?
This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

As I mentioned Exodus 20:11 makes no reference to creating out of nothing. The Hebrew word for this is Bara and its not found here. What we do find is Asah. Theres nothing to argue here these are just the facts.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.
No this truth isn't a response to anything except a proper understanding of scripture. I noticed you didn't even touch on what the difference between 1:1 and 1:2 actually is. Why is the Earth suddenly found Tohu wa-bohu if there was no occurrence inbetween his original first creation at some undetermined period in the past?

Let's have a friendly debate on this topic. Sounds interesting to me.

well sure! I have to start with the fact the term Bara is used when God creates the heavens and the earth in verse 1, 21 and 27 of the first chapter of Genesis. Bara is the term used to create out of nothing. given this, why if the worlds age is supposed to be known, is the earth referenced to be tohu wa-bohu in verse 2?
Wouldn't it be more than reasonable to take this to mean some even not detailed in description occurred between verses 1 and 2 of chapter 1?

Oh, I meant in the debate format of this site. I'll send you the challenge if you are interested. Or would prefer to discuss here on this forum.

Iv never done that here on this forum but I'm down for whichever, just figured since we are here speaking about it. whichever youd prefer
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:57:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:55:22 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:41:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:36:17 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:27:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:22:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:16:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:11:57 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:03:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 10:01:16 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:54:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

OK let's have at it.

Okay, let's start with something simple. It may not seem relevant, but it will become clear; I am starting right at the beginning with the logical foundation, because if we don't agree on basic concepts, it's a good place to start.

Do you think it I relatively safe to travel by aeroplane?

Sure, relative to other forms of automotive locomotion.

Okay, that's a good start!

If I said, that in the last 5 years that have been many, many fatal air crashes, would that show that air travel is really unsafe?

If not, could you explain why?

Not unsafe to other forms of automotive locomotion.

If you ignored other forms of travel, and just looked at air travel on it's own; if I said in the last 5 years there have been many fatal air crashes and so you shouldn't travel by airplane because it's unsafe, would I be justified? If not, could you explain why?

These aren't trick questions by the way!

Since "unsafe" is a subjective qualification, unless you compare it to something else, it is hard to say. If I was unaware of the degree of danger I face ever day driving to work, I may concede that airplane travels seems to be unsafe, however given the greater statistical probability of danger driving to work, I would conclude that airplane travel, while dangerous to a degree, is not unsafe relative to driving a car.

My point is, qualitative statements require a point of reference for comparative analysis or an objective standard by which to judge.

I guess that's fair; let me rephrase a little bit, then:

If I said that you're almost certainly going to die if you get on a plane; because there have been multiple fatal air crashes, would that be a reasonable statement for me to make?

No, statistically you would not almost certainly die.

And even if air travel is really safe, it would still be reasonable to expect exceptions; that planes can be really safe, and still occasionally crash; right?
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 12:06:37 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:57:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:55:22 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:41:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:36:17 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:27:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:22:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:16:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:11:57 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:03:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 10:01:16 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:54:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/14/2016 4:02:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.

Scientists have proven an old earth.

You don't accept it, but it's proven nonetheless; and if you wish, If you're willing to have an honest discussion, I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction.

OK let's have at it.

Okay, let's start with something simple. It may not seem relevant, but it will become clear; I am starting right at the beginning with the logical foundation, because if we don't agree on basic concepts, it's a good place to start.

Do you think it I relatively safe to travel by aeroplane?

Sure, relative to other forms of automotive locomotion.

Okay, that's a good start!

If I said, that in the last 5 years that have been many, many fatal air crashes, would that show that air travel is really unsafe?

If not, could you explain why?

Not unsafe to other forms of automotive locomotion.

If you ignored other forms of travel, and just looked at air travel on it's own; if I said in the last 5 years there have been many fatal air crashes and so you shouldn't travel by airplane because it's unsafe, would I be justified? If not, could you explain why?

These aren't trick questions by the way!

Since "unsafe" is a subjective qualification, unless you compare it to something else, it is hard to say. If I was unaware of the degree of danger I face ever day driving to work, I may concede that airplane travels seems to be unsafe, however given the greater statistical probability of danger driving to work, I would conclude that airplane travel, while dangerous to a degree, is not unsafe relative to driving a car.

My point is, qualitative statements require a point of reference for comparative analysis or an objective standard by which to judge.

I guess that's fair; let me rephrase a little bit, then:

If I said that you're almost certainly going to die if you get on a plane; because there have been multiple fatal air crashes, would that be a reasonable statement for me to make?

No, statistically you would not almost certainly die.

And even if air travel is really safe, it would still be reasonable to expect exceptions; that planes can be really safe, and still occasionally crash; right?

Indubitably.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 12:09:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:57:20 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/14/2016 10:52:30 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 10:34:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/14/2016 9:53:07 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/14/2016 5:47:11 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/13/2016 10:05:05 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:23:04 PM, bigotry wrote:
I think many well meaning Christians have this feeling that because the generation from adam to now are calculated around 6000 years that this is grounds to go off and say the earth must also be 6000 years old and things like this. A few things point in a different direction.
Those familiar with vernon mgee might already know where this is going. I will largely be drawing on his understanding because I do think its the right one.
First in foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited".
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its dissaperence has something to do with the fall of lucifer.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.

As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?

So in summary of my points. The earth was created along with everything else at an undiscolsed time in the past. We are alluded to some catastrophe between origional creation at the begging and the result of the earth being left in a state of tohu was bohu. Several places in the bible point to God forming our earth into the earth we recognize in 6 days after an undisclosed period of time. The age of man according to the bible makes no timestamp as to humanitys age so why should we?
That is all.

Unfortunately your gap hypothesis falls flat when you take what Jesus said about the first man and woman, that they were created "in the beginning."

Which scripture are you referencing?
This correlates to Genesis 1:1 and is consistent with the straitforward interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which tells us that "all" things were created in a single week, essentially at the same time. The idea of a pre-creation and recreation are simply not supported by scripture.

As I mentioned Exodus 20:11 makes no reference to creating out of nothing. The Hebrew word for this is Bara and its not found here. What we do find is Asah. Theres nothing to argue here these are just the facts.

Gap ideas sprung out of the late 1800's as a response to the old Earth science of uniformitarianism and as a way to allow for deep-time and a literal reading of Genesis. However, the so called science was in fact philosophy which was bent on ridding academia of the supposed constraints of Genesis. Scientists have no more proved an old Earth than they have proved life on other planets. Deep-time is a construct of anti-biblical philosophy that has masqueraded for far too long.
No this truth isn't a response to anything except a proper understanding of scripture. I noticed you didn't even touch on what the difference between 1:1 and 1:2 actually is. Why is the Earth suddenly found Tohu wa-bohu if there was no occurrence inbetween his original first creation at some undetermined period in the past?

Let's have a friendly debate on this topic. Sounds interesting to me.

well sure! I have to start with the fact the term Bara is used when God creates the heavens and the earth in verse 1, 21 and 27 of the first chapter of Genesis. Bara is the term used to create out of nothing. given this, why if the worlds age is supposed to be known, is the earth referenced to be tohu wa-bohu in verse 2?
Wouldn't it be more than reasonable to take this to mean some even not detailed in description occurred between verses 1 and 2 of chapter 1?

Oh, I meant in the debate format of this site. I'll send you the challenge if you are interested. Or would prefer to discuss here on this forum.

Iv never done that here on this forum but I'm down for whichever, just figured since we are here speaking about it. whichever youd prefer

I would prefer the debate format due to its spacial parameters and ability to set up an agreed on structure. I'll send you the challenge and let me know if you disagree with the debate rules before accepting.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 12:14:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
No, statistically you would not almost certainly die.

And even if air travel is really safe, it would still be reasonable to expect exceptions; that planes can be really safe, and still occasionally crash; right?

Indubitably.

Cool!

So, we know that there are some very common reasons that planes crashed. Intentionally ignoring human factors, for example, lets say poor maintenance; flying through clouds of volcanic ash, bird strikes.

If you could inspect the maintenance record of the plane your flying in, in detail, you had accurate information that told you there aren't any active volcanos in or near your flight path, and the airport your flying out of and landing at has complex bird scare-away technology; would you be able to be much more confident that the plane won't crash due to those factors than a randomly selected plane?
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 12:25:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 12:14:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
No, statistically you would not almost certainly die.

And even if air travel is really safe, it would still be reasonable to expect exceptions; that planes can be really safe, and still occasionally crash; right?

Indubitably.

Cool!

So, we know that there are some very common reasons that planes crashed. Intentionally ignoring human factors, for example, lets say poor maintenance; flying through clouds of volcanic ash, bird strikes.

If you could inspect the maintenance record of the plane your flying in, in detail, you had accurate information that told you there aren't any active volcanos in or near your flight path, and the airport your flying out of and landing at has complex bird scare-away technology; would you be able to be much more confident that the plane won't crash due to those factors than a randomly selected plane?

I would imagine, sure.