God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Ben Dhyan]

And I am saying that Genesis 1:9-13 say no such thing about aeon "passed", because the only reference to time in those 5 verses is that the evening and morning would make up a day...just the same as those 5 other verses.

I am not saying this is what happened historically or scientifically. This is what the those verses actually say in the Genesis.

What you are saying about there being "aeon" is not found in any verse in Genesis 1, and you have to twist words around to make what you believe it saying.

The only other time when Genesis speak of time OTHER THAN - "morning" and "evening", or "day" (light) and "night" (darkness) - is on the 4th day (1:19), in which the sun and moon would indicate what year or season is what, concerning the calendar (1:14:19):

There is no aeon, no millennia, no century and no decade, ANYWHERE in Genesis 1.

Why do you think EVERYTIME it mention one of those creative days, it ALWAYS referred to that "day", as being "And there was evening and there was morning..."

This "...there was evening and there was morning..." is specifying what period this day is. It doesn't read "...there was 1000 years, in the 2nd day..." or "...there was one billion years in 4th day..."

It is clear how it specify a creative day...why are you and other creationists are so blind that you can't see what in front of you? You (not just you, but "you" in general) all overlook something that give context

Until the translation specifically say that a day = 1000 years or 1 million years in Genesis 1, you are speculating or making thing up.

What you are speculating or interpreting, doesn't make it true.

What about the geological changes as land and water appeared and water aggregated to form the seas and then plants began and produced seeds for reproduction and trees evolved with fruit and seeds from which they spread....you know the general historical period this took place on planer Earth....an aeon....aka as long period of time...

 

[ebgebg]

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?

New world creationism is a false science...I'm an old world creationist, but not an evolutionist theologian. Yes I accept evolution for the animals, but not for man. Reread Genesis and you will find God created the sun on the 4th day, whereby celestial time did not exist until the 4th day...so new world creationist's estimate of the universe being created 6000 years ago does not take into account the relative period of those "seven days" it took God to create ever thing. New world creationist translate those days to be equal to 7000 days of our time (giving one day for God IS LIKE a thousand days for us)...but that's an interpretation of their own choosing. "Is one day for God IS LIKE a thousand days for us" a biblical statement or metaphor?

Old World Creationist embraces science and find parallel relationships between history, the science, and the bible. For instance: The earth was created billion and billion of years old, but no when can pinpoint the relative time frame between God's seven days and celestial time.

Genesis states that Eve gave birth to children in the garden before she gave birth to Cain and Abel outside the garden of Eden. "Be fruitful and multiple" was commended to Adam and Eve before they were banished from the garden of Eden.

6000 years ago Adam walked out of the garden of Eden...the exact same time Archaeologist estimate the beginning of Agriculture-6000 years ago. What was Adam's curse??? "in sorrow shall thou eat of it all the days of thy life." that's a parallel.

 

[metis]

Agriculture, the movement towards agriculture, and animal husbandry predate 6000 b.p. by quite a margin.

 

[viole]

New world creationism is a false science...I'm an old world creationist, but not an evolutionist theologian. Yes I accept evolution for the animals, but not for man. Reread Genesis and you will find God created the sun on the 4th day, whereby celestial time did not exist until the 4th day...so new world creationist's estimate of the universe being created 6000 years ago does not take into account the relative period of those "seven days" it took God to create ever thing. New world creationist translate those days to be equal to 7000 days of our time (giving one day for God IS LIKE a thousand days for us)...but that's an interpretation of their own choosing. "Is one day for God IS LIKE a thousand days for us" a biblical statement or metaphor?

Old World Creationist embraces science and find parallel relationships between history, the science, and the bible. For instance: The earth was created billion and billion of years old, but no when can pinpoint the relative time frame between God's seven days and celestial time.

Genesis states that Eve gave birth to children in the garden before she gave birth to Cain and Abel outside the garden of Eden. "Be fruitful and multiple" was commended to Adam and Eve before they were banished from the garden of Eden.

6000 years ago Adam walked out of the garden of Eden...the exact same time Archaeologist estimate the beginning of Agriculture-6000 years ago. What was Adam's curse??? "in sorrow shall thou eat of it all the days of thy life." that's a parallel.

If old world creationism does not accept that man and gorilla have a common ancestor, then old world creationism does not embrace science. It just embraces what it finds convenient, for reasons that have nothing to do with science.

Ergo, old world creationism is not significantly different from new world creationism.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

New world creationism is a false science...I'm an old world creationist, but not an evolutionist theologian. Yes I accept evolution for the animals, but not for man. Reread Genesis and you will find God created the sun on the 4th day, whereby celestial time did not exist until the 4th day...so new world creationist's estimate of the universe being created 6000 years ago does not take into account the relative period of those "seven days" it took God to create ever thing. New world creationist translate those days to be equal to 7000 days of our time (giving one day for God IS LIKE a thousand days for us)...but that's an interpretation of their own choosing. "Is one day for God IS LIKE a thousand days for us" a biblical statement or metaphor?

Old World Creationist embraces science and find parallel relationships between history, the science, and the bible. For instance: The earth was created billion and billion of years old, but no when can pinpoint the relative time frame between God's seven days and celestial time.

Genesis states that Eve gave birth to children in the garden before she gave birth to Cain and Abel outside the garden of Eden. "Be fruitful and multiple" was commended to Adam and Eve before they were banished from the garden of Eden.

6000 years ago Adam walked out of the garden of Eden...the exact same time Archaeologist estimate the beginning of Agriculture-6000 years ago. What was Adam's curse??? "in sorrow shall thou eat of it all the days of thy life." that's a parallel.

There is a big logical problem when people try and fit out of context mythology in historical and scientific reality.

While I think you have a great outlook compared to others, your still reading Genesis semi literally which does not have a positive or credible methodology.

No one can figure out anything in reality by shoving square blacks in a round hole, and it cheapens the beauty in the biblical text.

When we study credible history, we see the Israelite cultures were factually influenced using previous mythological creation narratives while in exile in Babylon.

Human evolution is fact as any fact can be. Its not up for debate. What we see is some people refusing education and knowledge, and its just terribly sad.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We are more salt water then any other element. But thanks for playing.

The reason is mammal life factually evolved from the sea.

What is the "something more" beyond mere chemicals and chemical interactions?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You agree with what?

Flood narratives show up in about 2/3 of all religious traditions, which leaves 1/3 that doesn't. In most of those societies that have that tradition, guess what: they occasionally at least have some issues with flooding. Not only isn't there one shred of evidence for a worldwide flood, the real evidence points in the other direction, namely that there hasn't been any.

But the most important thing is that you're missing the importance of the Flood narrative as found in Genesis, namely the values and morals that are taught within it. In that context, whether the Flood had occurred or not is superficial to the lessons taught within.

I think it's far more than 2/3 of all ancient traditions, let alone all religious traditions. And most of the narratives have a universal flood in a universal judgment of human sin, a god and a devil.

I'm glad you appreciate the morals of Genesis, however the NT mentions the ark and judgment as pictures of Jesus Christ that are vital to better understanding the nature of human salvation.

 

[Parsimony]

What is the "something more" beyond mere chemicals and chemical interactions?

Unlike Outhouse, I wouldn't try to say that humans are just "bags of saltwater". An object can be more than the sum of its components, having functions and properties that the individual pieces do not. There is certainly a difference between a fully-functioning car and car that has been ground into powder.

 

[outhouse]

Unlike Outhouse, I wouldn't try to say that humans are just "bags of saltwater".

Its all in the context, I know your not taking me literal. We as humans factually evolved from the water, so it makes sense we are for the most part sea water.

 

[outhouse]

What is the "something more" beyond mere chemicals and chemical interactions?

This is where you pick up a biology book, and study credible facts regarding evolution.

 

[metis]

I think it's far more than 2/3 of all ancient traditions, let alone all religious traditions. And most of the narratives have a universal flood in a universal judgment of human sin, a god and a devil.

I'm glad you appreciate the morals of Genesis, however the NT mentions the ark and judgment as pictures of Jesus Christ that are vital to better understanding the nature of human salvation.

Sorry, but anthropologists have studied this general belief, and the fraction of 2/3 is theirs. And the evidence points to the direction that we took the well-known Babylonian narrative and then altered it to fit our own morals and values, and peoples all over the world do this.

Finally, there is not one single reason why one would have to accept that narrative at the literal level in order to believe in Jesus, and most Christian theologians today don't.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is where you pick up a biology book, and study credible facts regarding evolution.

I have read biology and evolution works. I also believe we are numinous, spiritual beings. Why do you find that notion so unsettling that as a die-hard atheist, you make thousands of posts on ReligiousForums?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but anthropologists have studied this general belief, and the fraction of 2/3 is theirs. And the evidence points to the direction that we took the well-known Babylonian narrative and then altered it to fit our own morals and values, and peoples all over the world do this.

Finally, there is not one single reason why one would have to accept that narrative at the literal level in order to believe in Jesus, and most Christian theologians today don't.

The evidence points to the Babylonian narrative being a derivative not only of Genesis but of the Flood event itself. Rather fascinating, particularly in the light of the Gilgamesh hero seeking out Noah's family!

As for the argumentum ad populum, even if most people aren't Bible literalists, the Bible itself claims that God's words are flawless, and that all scripture is profitable for teaching--which would be untrue if there were contradictions within.

I have a religious axe to grind, which is why I'm here. You have one, surely, too, just be careful it isn't found grinding against God!

 

[Shad]

The evidence points to the Babylonian narrative being a derivative not only of Genesis but of the Flood event itself. Rather fascinating, particularly in the light of the Gilgamesh hero seeking out Noah's family!

No the Babylonian account predates the biblical one by centuries. In no way does it confirm a factual global flood. It can not even confirm a local flood. The biblical account is derived from the Babylonian story which in turn was based upon Sumerian poems. Never mind geology has shown the flood never happened anyways.

 

[Agathion]

Hahahahahaha... god created the Earth in the last 6000 years. Ridiculous. This is just another piece radical Christian propaganda. The Earth is over 4 billion years old. Sorry fundies but your theory has been weighed, measured, and found wanting. I'm not going to even bother making any more replies here. Peace out.

 

[gnostic]

The evidence points to the Babylonian narrative being a derivative not only of Genesis but of the Flood event itself. Rather fascinating, particularly in the light of the Gilgamesh hero seeking out Noah's family!

Except that there are no Hebrew version of Gilgamesh in which the hero seek out Noah, eg in Genesis.

Two, the Babylonian narrative wasn't derivative of Genesis, but the other way around. Genesis only appeared in the 1st millennium Iron Age, perhaps as early as the 9th century BCE (J-source), but certainly from 7th century BCE onward (E-source early 7th century BCE; D-source late 7th century BCE; P-source 6th century and 5th century BCE).

Where as (A) the Sumerian Ziusudra have been around the 2nd half of 3rd millennium BCE, (B) Old Babylonian Atrahasis has been around since 19th or 18th century BCE, (C) mid-2nd millennium BCE (to 1st century BCE) Middle Babylonian Utnapishtim.

Tablets of Gilgamesh have been found in Sumerian poems, and Old Babylonian tablets, all the way to time of Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. There have never been complete Bronze Age tablets discovered, but when you compared the Standard Version from Neo-Assyrian tablets from the Library of Nineveh to all the fragments of the 2nd millennium Bronze Age tablets, you would see that they are almost word-for-word the same, indicated that Old Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh most likely have the almost identical contents and styles as that of later Standard Version, whether the Flood hero be named Atrahasis or Utanapishtim.

It is during the Middle Babylonian period that story of Gilgamesh and the Flood had spread outside of Mesopotamia, and clay tablets (fragments) were found in Egypt (city of Amarna that was built by Amenhotep IV, better known as Atkenaten, 1353 - 1336 BCE), Hattusa (Old Hittite Kingdom), in the city of Ugarit (Ras Shamra) and in the Canaanite city of Megiddo, all dated to between 16th and 14th centuries BCE, long before the historical existence of Israel.

The only historical evidence to Bronze Age Israel is from the Egyptian inscriptions on the Merneptah (1213 - 1203 BCE), son of Ramesses II, from the New Kingdom 19th dynasty.

There are no evidences to support monotheism in Bronze Age Canaan. The Hebrew god by the name of El, only exist in 8th or 7th century BCE, but it originated from Bronze Age Canaan, Syria and Ugarit, during the 2nd millennium BCE.

You really don't know what you are talking about, when you say the Babylonian epics were derivative of Genesis. Genesis didn't exist when Ziusudra first appeared. There are no evidences to support any Bronze Age Hebrew Noah, as written tradition or as oral tradition.

 

[outhouse]

The evidence points to the Babylonian narrative being a derivative not only of Genesis but of the Flood event itself.

Factually false.

Its not up for debate the bible plagiarized these earlier accounts.

Israelites did not exist before 1200 BC

But thanks for playing

particularly in the light of the Gilgamesh hero seeking out Noah's family!

Factually false.

Literary accounts don't do anything. Noah factually has no historicity as ever existing.

I have a religious axe to grind,

Yes we know you hate education and knowledge and academia. And you fight against it in favor of what most know as mythology.

just be careful it isn't found grinding against God!

Which god of thousands men have created are you even talking about?

Your mythology does not scare me. It has never done one thing in nature we can attribute anything to.

Your mythology factually does not exist scientifically, and your faith on these academic subjects is known as fanaticism.

 

[outhouse]

Except that there are no Hebrew version of Gilgamesh in which the hero seek out Noah, eg in Genesis.

Many people make things up in desperation. He has been fighting academia a very long time. He has failed and hit walls where ever he goes.

 

[outhouse]

Sorry fundies but your theory has been weighed, measured, and found wanting.

This is how the world views this fundamentalism.

 

[outhouse]

You really don't know what you are talking about,

No he does not. The mental hurdles in peoples imagination, do they just build up and have a special room?


He also refuses to provide a date for said flood. because logic and reason corner him in a place he cannot get out of.

If something does not happen, there is no date for it. That is the real reason he cannot provide one.