outhouse
Atheistically
You have no authority or credibility to talk down or judge anyone sir.
Regardless of allegory it is pseudohistory that never took place.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!
- Thread starter Salvador
- Start date
You have no authority or credibility to talk down or judge anyone sir.
Regardless of allegory it is pseudohistory that never took place.
outhouse
Atheistically
The books make it quite clear a day is a day.
He was mythology by all credible standards, he never lived
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Above all, WHY would God want to lie to make the universe look like it's 6000 years old instead of 13 billion...to make it fit with the Bible???
Shad
Veteran Member
Irrelevant
A number of nation have named a specific day for this. It is still day, 24 hour period by definition of the word.
Days of Noah not day. Your example failed
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2250&t=KJV
Still post hoc rationalization in which the text never provides a specific then you fit a specific, from science, into it.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
There could be any amount of time between the general statement that God created the heavens and the Earth, and the Earth becoming waste and ruin.
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?
It is notable that Satan had already rebelled against God when he was in Eden -and was cast down to Earth -likely back down to Earth.
To attempt that coup, he needed to ascend above the heights of the clouds.... Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
It is possible that rebellion had an adverse effect on the earth -which was joy-inspiring when first completed at some point in the past....
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding..............................Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.
Though the Earth had become (H1961) waste and ruin, there is little detail about its state at the time.
Some assume that there was no life on earth at that point, but that is not actually stated. That which caused its state was not necessarily a complete extinction event.
Though it is stated that God caused certain species to exist at that time, it is not stated that they were the very first physical life forms on earth -or that they were not based on previous life forms.
Though Adam was apparently directly created, that is not to say his DNA would be radically different -or that all DNA would indicate he was the first "man" -as we do not know the process by which he was created -or whether or not information/genes from previous humanoids was referenced. Also, he was the first "man" by biblical definition -to be made in the image and likeness of God, and with the potential to become immortal. That has nothing to do with whether or not there were humanoids on Earth before Adam.
Eve was made based on material from Adam, so why might not Adam be at least genetically similar to other humanoids of the time?
Also note that when Cain left Eden, he went to Nod and somehow found a wife.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I don't see it that way.....
Day Six would be Man as a species.
no names....no garden...no law....
go forth, be fruitful and multiply.
Adam is chosen son of God (new testament)
Eve is a clone....no navel
Adam was given his twin sister for a bride
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
That does not say that unless you pervert context and definition
No he did not. Not one of these people have any historicity as ever existing. It is only a shallow faith based claim with no credibility
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I thought you said that time doesn't exist. How can a day be like thousand years if neither exists?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
There wouldn't be a 6th day if time didn't exist. So you're saying now that time does exist?
Incest is what they call it today.
outhouse
Atheistically
Unsupported rhetoric. You do know we require honesty ?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and open minds....
Thief
Rogue Theologian
oh...you get confused that easily?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
So time both exist and not exists to you?
outhouse
Atheistically
Your calling the pot calling the kettle black?
There is a difference between open mind and those who pervert knowledge to adhere to 100% faith. They are not the same.
You have nothing to support your claim not even the mythology makes the claim you do.
That means you are proselytizing your own mythology by using imaginative leaps of faith and faith alone. Which is the opposite of an open mind.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
There are so many sources of redaction that it takes six years to learn how to "interpret" mass spectrometry readings! That is my point. It is not simply multiply by a power to calculate years "accurately".
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Not lying. The case can be made that a relatively minute number of scientists calculates the ages of rocks and then sets standards, so that a relatively large number of scientists says, "X rock here is like Y rock there, already dated (by other scientists) to X years." This is actually what happens when dating organic life to old dates. A paleontologist who finds a dinosaur fossil cannot use carbon dating on that fossil but may rely on another scientist's examination of neighboring rock that is similar to other rock.