God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Salvador]

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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 1:1-2)

I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?

 

[Nietzsche]

This runs arguably into problems even larger than the 'normal' 6,000 year suggestion, because the Egyptians existed more than 6,000 years ago, let alone other cultures around the globe.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Explain archeology and history, then.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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 1:1-2)

I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?

I'd personally go with the conventional interpretation, that Genesis describes the literal creation of not only Earth but the universe/heavens. The essence of Genesis is that there was in fact a specific creation event, a beginning to everything, something academics and atheists had mocked until relatively recently. Also that the Earth used to be entirely covered with water - again an odd assertion before we knew this to be so.-
furthermore that there was later one large land mass (Pangaea) and one large water mass. That life then followed in a specific order with distinct sudden stages, confirmed by natural history.

As far as specific timelines; apart from there being no way to describe '14 billion' in ancient Hebrew- what would be the point? The Bible has been very successful as intended, a guide for humanity. As part of that Genesis lays out a quick, rough but accurate account of creation as, primarily, a gift for humanity to appreciate.

It was not meant to be a scientific cheat sheet for the ponderous details of creation- that's for us to discover ourselves is it not?

 

[metis]

In terms of what we now know based on both science and archaeology, the creation accounts really only make sense if taken as allegory.

 

[Nietzsche]

Also that the Earth used to be entirely covered with water - again an odd assertion before we knew this to be so.

...no. The entire planet has never been covered entirely with water. Large sections yes, but never the whole thing all at once.

furthermore that there was later one large land mass (Pangaea) and one large water mass. That life then followed in a specific order with distinct sudden stages, confirmed by natural history.

Pangaea is one of many different alignments of the continental plates.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

...no. The entire planet has never been covered entirely with water. Large sections yes, but never the whole thing all at once.

pretty much, some say a very small-couple of % land maybe, nobody knows for sure, but it was a water world, as described in Genesis

'The spirit of God was hovering over the waters'

which people used to think was an odd concept- I guess there could have been the footnote '* he also hovered over the 2-3% land!
but as above, it's not a technical manual, it's a poetic summary, and a remarkably accurate, counterintuitive one.

 

[Ouroboros]

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants.

Doesn't fit the geological, physical, chemical, paleontological, anthropological, biological, or archeological evidence.

Take a look at this link, and check out all the different sets of evidence against a recent Earth:
Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki

Take geomagnetic reversals for instance. They occur about every 50-800,000 years, and we know from the magnetic record (the reversals leave magnetic traces that we can measure, like how they restore and read data on a harddisk that's been erased) that there's been at least 171 reversals. Do the math.

Or take something simpler, the layering of ice. The deepest ice core that's been drilled has 700,000 layers, one for each year.

 

[Salvador]

This runs arguably into problems even larger than the 'normal' 6,000 year suggestion, because the Egyptians existed more than 6,000 years ago, let alone other cultures around the globe.

Yes, I do believe that sub-humans/(soulless-apes) did exist in the old Earth before the first human souls were created in Adam and Eve by God 6,000 years ago. I'm not aware of any civilizations with written texts or human languages that are believed to have existed earlier than 4,000 years before Christ.

 

[Salvador]

Doesn't fit the geological, physical, chemical, paleontological, anthropological, biological, or archeological evidence.

Take a look at this link, and check out all the different sets of evidence against a recent Earth:
Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki

Take geomagnetic reversals for instance. They occur about every 50-800,000 years, and we know from the magnetic record (the reversals leave magnetic traces that we can measure, like how they restore and read data on a harddisk that's been erased) that there's been at least 171 reversals. Do the math.

Or take something simpler, the layering of ice. The deepest ice core that's been drilled has 700,000 layers, one for each year.

Ouroboros, I don't doubt the existence of non-human (soulless) life in the old Earth before the Earth was newly formed by God 6,000 years ago for human souls.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ouroboros, I don't doubt the existence of non-human (soulless) life in the old Earth before the Earth was newly formed by God 6,000 years ago for human souls.

We have evidence that Homo sapiens existed at least 50,000 years ago, and they had the ability to conceptual thinking and language. So no, paleontology contradicts the claim of recreation of humans with soul. Or are you suggesting that only humans written in history books had souls but not the people before that? Only people mentioned in an ancient text have souls and everyone else didn't?

 

[Salvador]

Explain archeology and history, then.

I think written history only goes back to some few generations after Adam and Eve. I believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest that sub humans (soulless apes) did exist long before human souls came into existence with Adam and Eve.

 

[lovemuffin]

I don't think it's going to be possible to reconcile this view with what we know scientifically about the world, and I don't think it's necessary for Christian understanding that the Genesis account of creation be understood as history or in a literal way. Especially taking into account also what we know about the history of the texts. So it makes more sense in my opinion to understand Genesis in a different light than to try concoct an implausible literal creation story to try to bridge naturalistic and creationist accounts. Basically I think it is more productive to revisit how the text should be understood and what "biblical authority" and "inerrancy" means than to begin with a premise that the text describes events in a literal way and try to make that harmonize with what we know about the world.

 

[Salvador]

...no. The entire planet has never been covered entirely with water. Large sections yes, but never the whole thing all at once.


Pangaea is one of many different alignments of the continental plates.

I believe that God's energy could have caused supercharge plate tectonics as well as icy comets and dark clouds to reform the Earth . Perhaps the Earth was mostly but never fully covered in water.

 

[Nietzsche]

Yes, I do believe that sub-humans/(soulless-apes) did exist in the old Earth before the first human souls were created in Adam and Eve by God 6,000 years ago. I'm not aware of any civilizations with written texts or human languages that are believed to have existed earlier than 4,000 years before Christ.

And you would be mistaken. Look up Neolithic China, specifically the Jiahu symbols. It is a clear example of a written language, and one can clearly see how it evolved into modern Chinese script. Those date to around 6600BCE, however given the completeness & structure of it, it's clear that they existed before even that. A written language doesn't just pop up over night, after all.

 

[Nietzsche]

I believe that God's energy could have caused supercharge plate tectonics as well as icy comets and dark clouds to reform the Earth . Perhaps the Earth was mostly but never fully covered in water.

Then what'd he do with all mountains of evidence that there would have to be if there was indeed a nigh-entirely-global flood of some kind? The fossil record simply doesn't work with a global flood, unless God decided to arrange the post-flood world in such a way as to make it look like there was never a flood, which begs the question of why bother.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think written history only goes back to some few generations after Adam and Eve. I believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest that sub humans (soulless apes) did exist long before human souls came into existence with Adam and Eve.

I disagree about the apes. I believe they have a soul. They have feelings, can reason, and communicate what they want, like, dislike, etc. And we do know that early hominid species (H. habilis and erectus) 2 million years ago had figured out how to make the first simple stone axes (found in Olduvai Gorge). Also, based on how these axes were made, they must've had the ability to transfer the knowledge (teach and learn) and explain purpose of the tool (consciousness and mental reasoning). Also, we do know that apes can feel sorrow when a fellow ape dies. They also show signs of being able to help each other out when in danger, which suggests a primitive sense of being. It's also been shown that they know the difference between "you and me", i.e. they have a personal identity of "me", which suggests self-awareness (the foundation of a soul) in them.

So sorry, all of it points to the "soul" existing for at least 7-10 million years (history of ape species).

 

[Ouroboros]

... Basically I think it is more productive to revisit how the text should be understood and what "biblical authority" and "inerrancy" means than to begin with a premise that the text describes events in a literal way and try to make that harmonize with what we know about the world.

Right on!

Philo from Alexandria (25-50 AD) knew this. And thanks to the early Christians, who saved his texts, we can read his material. So they knew this too. Somewhere along the line, literalism took root. But as the Bible says, "for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

The Bible is meant to be read as a guide towards something. But literalists worship the letters of the Bible, like an idol.

Who has ever had a map of a city that is 100% correct, has every stone, door, parked car, dog running on the street mapped out? No they don't. Why? Because they're supposed to give a general idea. Not a literal idea.

 

[Salvador]

We have evidence that Homo sapiens existed at least 50,000 years ago, and they had the ability to conceptual thinking and language. So no, paleontology contradicts the claim of recreation of humans with soul. Or are you suggesting that only humans written in history books had souls but not the people before that? Only people mentioned in an ancient text have souls and everyone else didn't?

I believe that Adam and Eve were the first living beings on Earth to be given souls by God. I don't

Then what'd he do with all mountains of evidence that there would have to be if there was indeed a nigh-entirely-global flood of some kind? The fossil record simply doesn't work with a global flood, unless God decided to arrange the post-flood world in such a way as to make it look like there was never a flood, which begs the question of why bother.

Well, I don't necessarily believe that the entire Earth had to be covered with water for it to have been recreated. For example, there is a widely accepted theory that dinosaurs became extinct because of an asteroid impact and subsequent climate change.

 

[Nietzsche]

Well, I don't necessarily believe that the entire Earth had to be covered with water for it to have been recreated. For example, there is a widely accepted theory that dinosaurs became extinct because of an asteroid impact and subsequent climate change.

I think you misunderstood. Let's assume there was a flood, and that it occurred about 6000 years ago. Let's also say that it was wide-spread, but the places with significant elevation were more or less untouched.

Where are all the salt-water fish remains in areas currently above water?

Let's go a step further now. The animals that survived. Why are they spread out the way they are, if they were all migrating from one point(Noah's Ark)? Why are the only marsupials in Australia? Why aren't there giraffes in the Americas? Ect.