[_ Old Earth _] Gen 1 Defies Physics Laws

[IRONBARK]

Free moral agents can believe what ever they like. Check this site out, its worth a look for sure.

http://www.kjvbible.org/

Rightly-Dividing Geology and the Book of Genesis Beyond
the "Gap Theory" of Christian Creationism
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1 KJV)?



"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
(Genesis 1:2 KJV)


Is there a time-gap between the first two verses of Genesis? On this website you will learn about a controversial, lesser known literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative that does not contradict the scientific evidence for an Old Earth. Commonly called the "Gap Theory" or Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation, it is based on the Scriptural fact that, in the second verse of Genesis, the Holy Bible simply and clearly states that the planet Earth was already here (but in a ruined state) before the creative process of the seven days even begins. Understanding this Biblical mystery begins with the precise wording of this New Testament cross-reference:
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)

 

[Free]

The Gap Theory is untenable.


dad,

I had a large response written out but it got wiped out. In short, your entire response to my post shows that you completely missed the points I was making.

 

[dad]

The Gap Theory is untenable.


dad,

I had a large response written out but it got wiped out. In short, your entire response to my post shows that you completely missed the points I was making.

Perhaps you should work on being more concise. I think the biggest possible discrepancy of years in your post was Terah. If so, that really is small potatoes. The issue is the years since Adam, and what years the bible gives. The answer is pretty simple and well known, and there is no need to nit pick about a few hundred possible years.

 

[dad]

Free moral agents can believe what ever they like. Check this site out, its worth a look for sure.

http://www.kjvbible.org/

Rightly-Dividing Geology and the Book of Genesis Beyond
the "Gap Theory" of Christian Creationism
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1 KJV)?



"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
(Genesis 1:2 KJV)


Is there a time-gap between the first two verses of Genesis? On this website you will learn about a controversial, lesser known literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative that does not contradict the scientific evidence for an Old Earth. Commonly called the "Gap Theory" or Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation, it is based on the Scriptural fact that, in the second verse of Genesis, the Holy Bible simply and clearly states that the planet Earth was already here (but in a ruined state) before the creative process of the seven days even begins. Understanding this Biblical mystery begins with the precise wording of this New Testament cross-reference:
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)

Hey, thanks for the commercial.

 

[dad]

What can I tell you? If you payed attention to the conversation you wouldn't think that I was insulting you and you wouldn't be trying to insult me.

You can forget who you think is insulting who, and deal in a point. A relative point.

You find nothing of the sort? You mean you don't find that mostly everybody else disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible? And I'm talking about the finer details, not general stuff like: Adam lived.

No. I don't. They can't. Whining doesn't count.

O.K. That explains why you keep insisting that my argument is vague, you obviously forgot about my full page post showing portions of the Gap theory.

No, didn't I address that almost point by point??? Get a grip.

And you also forgot what Free was trying to tell you: the information that you're trying to use as a timetable is not in an absolute chronological order and it cannot be used to rightfully determine the age of the earth, not even to approximate it to the degree which you're trying to do.

Well, what is not in order? The order was sufficient for Usher to get dates, and others. We do not need absolute dates, but the old age pipe dreams simply are not even a remote possibility there. No need to discuss fine tuning with someone that is on the wrong station.

So if you think that my argument was vague, or other people's arguments are vague it's probably because you skipped most of them and you went right back to doing what you do best: making up your own reality.

No, your vague insult is meaningless. The gap theory is about as exciting as a hole in the head. The reason men were driven to that absurd resort, is because they believed that science chased them there. No. There is no need to flee to Big Gap Junction any more. The old age gang were arrested, and brought to justice, and had their guns taken away. You can come out now.

 

[love2live]

The Gap Theory is untenable.


dad,

I had a large response written out but it got wiped out. In short, your entire response to my post shows that you completely missed the points I was making.

It's clear that some people interpret the Bible in different ways, and I'm not saying that the Gap Theory is 100% correct, but it brings some points which try to explain why the Earth is actually old. Whatever the means get you to that conclusion, the fact remain that the Earth is old. So let's not focus on the Gap Theory alone, let's look at the big picture and determine if the Earth is Old or not... I suppose this conversation is getting way out of topic and I apologize for this: the argument took a natural turn.

Perhaps you should work on being more concise. I think the biggest possible discrepancy of years in your post was Terah. If so, that really is small potatoes. The issue is the years since Adam, and what years the bible gives. The answer is pretty simple and well known, and there is no need to nit pick about a few hundred possible years.

Well, I'll leave this to you and Free, I never did really want to get sucked into this conversation. But believe me, it's not about the few hundred possible years, as Free said: "your entire response to my post shows that you completely missed the points I was making."

 

[dad]

It's clear that some people interpret the Bible in different ways, and I'm not saying that the Gap Theory is 100% correct, but it brings some points which try to explain why the Earth is actually old.

That is a belief based view.

Whatever the means get you to that conclusion, the fact remain that the Earth is old.

In no way. Young.

So let's not focus on the Gap Theory alone, let's look at the big picture and determine if the Earth is Old or not... I suppose this conversation is getting way out of topic and I apologize for this: the argument took a natural turn.

Go ahead, then, focus. Hit us with your best shot.

Well, I'll leave this to you and Free, I never did really want to get sucked into this conversation. But believe me, it's not about the few hundred possible years, as Free said: "your entire response to my post shows that you completely missed the points I was making."

When either of you can say clearly and concisely what those points were, you will be getting somewhere.

 

[love2live]

It's clear that some people interpret the Bible in different ways, and I'm not saying that the Gap Theory is 100% correct, but it brings some points which try to explain why the Earth is actually old.

That is a belief based view.

OK, then what is NOT based on belief when it comes to the Bible?

So let's not focus on the Gap Theory alone, let's look at the big picture and determine if the Earth is Old or not... I suppose this conversation is getting way out of topic and I apologize for this: the argument took a natural turn.

Go ahead, then, focus. Hit us with your best shot.

I think you missed the point again, I hope you notice the part where I say: "...let's not focus on the Gap Theory alone..."

That's why we get this problem:

Well, I'll leave this to you and Free, I never did really want to get sucked into this conversation. But believe me, it's not about the few hundred possible years, as Free said: "your entire response to my post shows that you completely missed the points I was making."

When either of you can say clearly and concisely what those points were, you will be getting somewhere.

As I said, I never intended to start a discussion with you because I will be facing exactly that problem: you simply ignore large portions of the response. Go back to Free's response and read what it said, the quote says it all: you simply missed the point of the ENTIRE post.

 

[dad]

OK, then what is NOT based on belief when it comes to the Bible?

The bible also is belief based, but has historical evidences.

I think you missed the point again, I hope you notice the part where I say: "...let's not focus on the Gap Theory alone..."

Right, I understand I pummeled it enough already, that you are looking for some other support.

As I said, I never intended to start a discussion with you because I will be facing exactly that problem: you simply ignore large portions of the response.

No I don't. I focus on the heart of an issue.

Go back to Free's response and read what it said, the quote says it all: you simply missed the point of the ENTIRE post.

What was that point? Maybe you are the one missing something here. Do you even know what it was? If so, you should be able to put a few sentences together.

 

[love2live]

OK, then what is NOT based on belief when it comes to the Bible?

The bible also is belief based, but has historical evidences.

And your belief is different than mine, and it's different from pretty much everybody else out here.

Go back to Free's response and read what it said, the quote says it all: you simply missed the point of the ENTIRE post.

What was that point? Maybe you are the one missing something here. Do you even know what it was? If so, you should be able to put a few sentences together.

You should go back and find out for yourself... then maybe you can put the sentences together yourself .

 

[dad]

And your belief is different than mine, and it's different from pretty much everybody else out here.

Not really, it is just pretty new. The basics agree.

You should go back and find out for yourself... then maybe you can put the sentences together yourself .

I dealt with the post long ago. I thought I addressed the core issues. If there is some issue I missed, you claim, you ought to be able to simply put it on the table. As it is, you appear to not know what you are talking about.

 

[love2live]

And your belief is different than mine, and it's different from pretty much everybody else out here.

Not really, it is just pretty new. The basics agree.

Indeed, the basics agree, but on the finer points mostly everybody doesn't agree with your interpretation and belief.

You should go back and find out for yourself... then maybe you can put the sentences together yourself .

I dealt with the post long ago. I thought I addressed the core issues. If there is some issue I missed, you claim, you ought to be able to simply put it on the table. As it is, you appear to not know what you are talking about.

As Free said, you missed the point of the ENTIRE post, so if I am to tell you all of the things you didn't understand I would have to repeat the ENTIRE post. That's why I'm telling you that YOU should go back and check it out for yourself.

 

[Free]

dad,

The whole point of my post is that the evidence is sufficient enough to cast doubt on the chronologies within genealogies. To use the genealogies to determine the age of the Earth is quite unreasonable.

 

[dad]

dad,

The whole point of my post is that the evidence is sufficient enough to cast doubt on the chronologies within genealogies. To use the genealogies to determine the age of the Earth is quite unreasonable.

Well, casting doubt, and having it get where it is trying to be cast is another matter. Looking just at the timeline from Adam, it is close enough to be declared young earth. If you want to start tossing in other lines there, to make a tangled web, why it would take a little untangling. The way to do that is look at each line, and straighten that out, not look at the mess someone strings together.

Of all the doubts you cast, which one line do you think is a great example?

 

[dad]

Indeed, the basics agree, but on the finer points mostly everybody doesn't agree with your interpretation and belief.

On what? Many agree with my take on salvation. My take on a young earth. My take on a new heavens coming, and these heavens being temporary. Etc.

As Free said, you missed the point of the ENTIRE post, so if I am to tell you all of the things you didn't understand I would have to repeat the ENTIRE post. That's why I'm telling you that YOU should go back and check it out for yourself.

You could not do what Free just did. Explain the point in a concise manner. I suspect that may be because you don't really have a handle on it.

 

[love2live]

As Free said, you missed the point of the ENTIRE post, so if I am to tell you all of the things you didn't understand I would have to repeat the ENTIRE post. That's why I'm telling you that YOU should go back and check it out for yourself.

You could not do what Free just did. Explain the point in a concise manner. I suspect that may be because you don't really have a handle on it.

Actually I did exactly what Free did in one of my previous posts, but you seemed to have forgotten about it. If you go back and look at my posts you will find this quote on page 11:

"As Free said, the references in the Bible cannot be used as a strict chronological map of the existence of the Universe. They are not strictly related to each other in an order which can be precisely defined... you are right, there is some room for interpretation, but your interpretation is dramatically erroneous. The Bible does many things but it does not provide a chronological road-map for the existence of the Earth. You would like it to be so, but the reality is just not as such."
Was this too complicated to understand?

This is why I don't want to have this conversation with you, you simply forget about the details which are inconvenient for you.

 

[dad]

Actually I did exactly what Free did in one of my previous posts, but you seemed to have forgotten about it.

You could not even get it together to make a point, several times. The gap stuff you posted, I addressed. If there is anything in it you claim I missed, say what it is. Or do you just like to put long post commercials for the gap nonsense in??

If you go back and look at my posts you will find this quote on page 11:

"As Free said, the references in the Bible cannot be used as a strict chronological map of the existence of the Universe. They are not strictly related to each other in an order which can be precisely defined... you are right, there is some room for interpretation, but your interpretation is dramatically erroneous. The Bible does many things but it does not provide a chronological road-map for the existence of the Earth. You would like it to be so, but the reality is just not as such."
Was this too complicated to understand?

Well, it is a map, and pretty strict. The point Free was trying to make is that the other stuff, aside from the times since Adam are in doubt somewhat, by some folks. So, guilt by association, we are supposed to also doubt the timeline to creation week. The records are clear, Adam lived so many thousands of years ago.

This is why I don't want to have this conversation with you, you simply forget about the details which are inconvenient for you.

You have no details of consequence. About the only point you can make is to invent some imaginary timeline you like to stick in the creation week, to try to extend the times so it meets the idiotic claims of science.

 

[love2live]

If you go back and look at my posts you will find this quote on page 11:

"As Free said, the references in the Bible cannot be used as a strict chronological map of the existence of the Universe. They are not strictly related to each other in an order which can be precisely defined... you are right, there is some room for interpretation, but your interpretation is dramatically erroneous. The Bible does many things but it does not provide a chronological road-map for the existence of the Earth. You would like it to be so, but the reality is just not as such."
Was this too complicated to understand?

Well, it is a map, and pretty strict. The point Free was trying to make is that the other stuff, aside from the times since Adam are in doubt somewhat, by some folks. So, guilt by association, we are supposed to also doubt the timeline to creation week. The records are clear, Adam lived so many thousands of years ago.

OMG< what's wrong with you? Can you NOT READ?! The only time line I'm addressing is the one which you are proposing. In that quote I say nothing about the Gap Theory! What is wrong with you? Get it: read before you respond!

 

[dad]

If you go back and look at my posts you will find this quote on page 11:

"As Free said, the references in the Bible cannot be used as a strict chronological map of the existence of the Universe. They are not strictly related to each other in an order which can be precisely defined... you are right, there is some room for interpretation, but your interpretation is dramatically erroneous. The Bible does many things but it does not provide a chronological road-map for the existence of the Earth. You would like it to be so, but the reality is just not as such."
Was this too complicated to understand?

Well, it is a map, and pretty strict. The point Free was trying to make is that the other stuff, aside from the times since Adam are in doubt somewhat, by some folks. So, guilt by association, we are supposed to also doubt the timeline to creation week. The records are clear, Adam lived so many thousands of years ago.

OMG< what's wrong with you? Can you NOT READ?! The only time line I'm addressing is the one which you are proposing. In that quote I say nothing about the Gap Theory! What is wrong with you? Get it: read before you respond!

You referred us back to your big article, did you not? I already dealt with Free's. Was it not you flogging the gap stuff?

Now, if you want to address the sons of Adam on down, do it. Quit beating around the bush. The bottom line is that the years are know from that, to within a small margin. Face it.

 

[love2live]

You referred us back to your big article, did you not? I already dealt with Free's. Was it not you flogging the gap stuff?

Nope, I referred you back to page 11 where I say this:
"As Free said, the references in the Bible cannot be used as a strict chronological map of the existence of the Universe. They are not strictly related to each other in an order which can be precisely defined... you are right, there is some room for interpretation, but your interpretation is dramatically erroneous. The Bible does many things but it does not provide a chronological road-map for the existence of the Earth. You would like it to be so, but the reality is just not as such."

If you had actually payed attention you would have know where I said that and you wouldn't be making ridiculous comments. PAY ATTENTION!

Now, if you want to address the sons of Adam on down, do it. Quit beating around the bush. The bottom line is that the years are know from that, to within a small margin. Face it.

How can I even have a reasonable debate with you when you can't even pay attention to what I'm saying? All you do is IGNORE what I say and repeat whatever is on your mind... so let's face it, you are not worth that much of my time.