How Old Is The Earth?

fortyfive

Woodpecker
There is a theory about the Pre-Adamite world from numerous scholars.
Personally, I don't have an opinion on this subject.



That the Earth is more than 6,000 years old and that there were inhabitants on this Earth before Adam? This is true. There have already been 6,172 years from Adam to 1948, as we shall see in our future lessons. Not only this, but the Bible teaches that there was a social system on the Earth that was destroyed by a great flood long before Adam. This flood is pictured in Gen. 1:2 as covering the Earth, before the six days in which Adam was created. It is also mentioned in Ps. 104:5-9. Peter speaks of it as “the world [Greek, kosmos, “social order”] that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now [since the six days of restoration], by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire” to be purified, resulting in “a new heavens and a new earth” (2 Pet. 3:4-13).

The cause of the first flood before Adam was the fall of Lucifer and the rebellion against God of one-third of His own angels, along with the people who lived on the Earth over whom Satan ruled. That Satan ruled the Earth and led an invasion into Heaven to cast God out, is clear from Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:11-17; Lk. 10:18; 1 Tim. 3:6. The devil was defeated and the Earth was then cursed and placed under water as in Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:5-9; 2 Pet. 3:5-7. All life was totally destroyed, including birds, men, vegetation, and all cities were destroyed in which the pre–Adamites lived (Jer. 4:23-26). In the restoration of the Earth in six days, as in Gen. 1:3–2:25, God told Adam to “replenish” the Earth. Adam and Eve were the first inhabitants of this present creation
 
What I want to know is: were Adam and Eve created with or without belly buttons?

When I was young, the earth was supposedly 4 billion years old. Now it's supposedly 14 billion years old.

So I'm 10 billion years old. Scientists please explain.
 

J.E.

Robin
The biggest, most glaring problem with this interpretation is that it pulls a subtle bait and switch into the text. For example, consider that Genesis 1:3-5 says that God created light and then separated it from the darkness, calling the light "day" and the darkness "night". And then there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.
You can replace 'morning' and 'evening' with 'beginning' and 'end'. It's not as complicated as you make it out to be. The creation account is written in symbols and metaphors. As said, you view this through modern eyes. You have to understand how man thought of and viewed the world in ancient, even pre-ancient days.
 
Science is all a mix tapestry, physics, chemistry, biology, geology
physics: your phone, moonlanding, radiation from the big bang, internet
chemistry: petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, gunpowder,
but evo biology and geology is a lie....cant go with you on this one.
I am Christian by the way
 
The Holy Scriptures are a library of ancient history, recorded chronologically and metaphorically. It is the latter we have to consider in passages that seem symbolical. Problem is, we interpret the Bible through modern eyes; modern languages are very literal and lack the depth of symbolism older languages have, and we lack tenses that would make us understand old texts better. Interpreting Scripture by yourself is therefore quite dangerous without the spiritual guidance of a priest, or at the very least the proper resources. You can buy, for example, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible and look up every single word in the King James Version and their Hebrew and Greek meanings and various definitions.

Guess what, the Hebrew word used for 'day' in Genesis 1 is 'yom', which has many meanings, such as:



One of the first meanings is 'age' and this is the only correct way to interpret 'day' in Genesis 1. God didn't create our universe in six 24 hour days but in six eras, ages, periods. How long these were we will never know, but anthropology and many creations myths suggest our universe exists way longer than young earth creationists would like us to believe.

I talked about this very topic with my priest in my catechumen lessons and he told me exactly the same, that 'day' means 'age' and that (apparently) we live in the seventh day (age).

Interpreting the days as ages doesn't solve anything. The sun was created the "day" after the plants, so are we to believe that there was a whole age in which there were plants but no sun? And another age in which there were birds but no other land animals?
 

Blade Runner

Ostrich
Orthodox
There is a theory about the Pre-Adamite world from numerous scholars.
Personally, I don't have an opinion on this subject.



That the Earth is more than 6,000 years old and that there were inhabitants on this Earth before Adam? This is true. There have already been 6,172 years from Adam to 1948, as we shall see in our future lessons. Not only this, but the Bible teaches that there was a social system on the Earth that was destroyed by a great flood long before Adam. This flood is pictured in Gen. 1:2 as covering the Earth, before the six days in which Adam was created. It is also mentioned in Ps. 104:5-9. Peter speaks of it as “the world [Greek, kosmos, “social order”] that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now [since the six days of restoration], by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire” to be purified, resulting in “a new heavens and a new earth” (2 Pet. 3:4-13).

The cause of the first flood before Adam was the fall of Lucifer and the rebellion against God of one-third of His own angels, along with the people who lived on the Earth over whom Satan ruled. That Satan ruled the Earth and led an invasion into Heaven to cast God out, is clear from Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:11-17; Lk. 10:18; 1 Tim. 3:6. The devil was defeated and the Earth was then cursed and placed under water as in Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:5-9; 2 Pet. 3:5-7. All life was totally destroyed, including birds, men, vegetation, and all cities were destroyed in which the pre–Adamites lived (Jer. 4:23-26). In the restoration of the Earth in six days, as in Gen. 1:3–2:25, God told Adam to “replenish” the Earth. Adam and Eve were the first inhabitants of this present creation
Nor do I. This is possible.

Most of the Giants (Nephilim) were destroyed in the flood, at least that which was recounted in the Noahide story.

One thing is certain, modern man has a confusing story and evolution, and races or "the nations" are even more confusing regarding "origins" - but are definitely real.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
For a comprehensive exposition of the Patristic understanding on Creation and early Man:


***
And a small note on archeology and related studies:

«These few indications are enough to make it clear how vain are all the discussions to which the profane (the word is used here to include all who are affected by the modern spirit) may wish to devote their time on matters connected with the earlier periods of the Manvantara , with the ‘golden age’ or the ‘primordial tradition’, or even with much less remote events such as the biblical ‘deluge’, taking this last only in its more immediately literal meaning, in which it relates to the cataclysm of Atlantis; these matters are among those that are wholly beyond their reach and will always be so. That of course is why they deny them, as they deny indifferently everything that goes beyond them in any way, for all their studies and all their researches, being undertaken from a point of view both false and restricted, can most certainly result in nothing but the denial of everything that is not comprehended in that point of view. And on top of all this, these people are so far persuaded of their own ‘superiority’ that they are unable to admit the existence or even the possibility of anything whatever that eludes their investigations; blind men would surely have equally sound reasons for denying the existence of light and then using that as a pretext for boasting of their superiority over normal men!»

René Guenon, The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, The Limits of History and Geography
 

typtre

Woodpecker

Ecclesiastes​

1:9

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

I struggle with the above- referenced verse more than others, because obviously there are new things under the sun every day, like Tinder, the internet, etc. Even though, sexual immorality itself is not new, the means by which sexual immorality is accomplished do change. I believe we, as Christians need to understand and be aware of these changes. I often feel like this verse leads one to inaction, or passivity. One of several perceived contradictions I've noticed in reading the Bible. Maybe I am misinterpreting. Thoughts?

I found this to be interesting in regards to our Earth's cyclical nature.


I think a warning might be in order, because while I am still not very far into the Bible, I think there is a passage where God cautions or warns against looking into the workings of His Earth. I might have misunderstood, but still.

-----------------------

On Giants:

 
Last edited:

DeWoken

Woodpecker
Orthodox Inquirer
So if we go by the "age" interpretation of day, this implies that the Earth was in darkness for millions of years, and the light for millions of years, and that this repeated for the other five "ages". Except, that's not what science says happened. Science says days on the primeval Earth were still about 24 hours. Also, science says that Earth is slowing down its revolution, not speeding up. For Earth to have started out with a day-cycle of millions of years and then sped up to the 24 hour cycle is completely anti-science.

I am behind in my study of the bible, and can't really add too much to the conversation because of that. But I definitely agree that interpreting things symbolically at times makes sense. In this above section the earth being in darkness or in light for long periods of time could obviously be interpreted as an ice age or a period of warmth.

Graham Hancock talks about skeletons of giants and cataclysms on the scale of the Great Flood. The way the establishment recoils at him makes me trust him. Graham smokes pot and disavows Christianity, though.

I don't know much about dinosaurs but now and then someone will say something to me like, "did you know that now they are saying dinosaurs were furry!". Politely, I try not to refrain from saying, "so the F what?! Get in my gas tank, dinos!". I get the feeling that things like dinosaurs and astronomy (black holes, dark matter, time travel, etc) are promoted as a purposeful distraction for today's youth. Immersing yourself in these things instead of learning about your ancestors, humanity, and where you came from is a waste of mental capacity. And learning about nature is more useful (if you can avoid having to slog through climate-tard stuff). While fascinating, science truly is full of pitfalls to be avoided.
 

FourMarks

Pigeon
For a comprehensive exposition of the Patristic understanding on Creation and early Man:


***
And a small note on archeology and related studies:

«These few indications are enough to make it clear how vain are all the discussions to which the profane (the word is used here to include all who are affected by the modern spirit) may wish to devote their time on matters connected with the earlier periods of the Manvantara , with the ‘golden age’ or the ‘primordial tradition’, or even with much less remote events such as the biblical ‘deluge’, taking this last only in its more immediately literal meaning, in which it relates to the cataclysm of Atlantis; these matters are among those that are wholly beyond their reach and will always be so. That of course is why they deny them, as they deny indifferently everything that goes beyond them in any way, for all their studies and all their researches, being undertaken from a point of view both false and restricted, can most certainly result in nothing but the denial of everything that is not comprehended in that point of view. And on top of all this, these people are so far persuaded of their own ‘superiority’ that they are unable to admit the existence or even the possibility of anything whatever that eludes their investigations; blind men would surely have equally sound reasons for denying the existence of light and then using that as a pretext for boasting of their superiority over normal men!»

René Guenon, The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, The Limits of History and Geography

A word of caution on the dangers of René Guénon and his Neo-Gnostic thinking:
The person and the work of René Guénon cannot be indifferent to anyone who deals with true and false Tradition. An old follower of the Guénonian school, Jacques-Albert Cuttat, defined Guénonian doctrine as, “A neo-traditionalism … as if Guénon had taken and scaled up a wider knowledge … from the Orient the three fundamental theses of traditionalism from the beginning of the 19th century (in particular by Joseph de Maistre and of Lamennais), namely: anti-rationalism, the traditional Unanimity as a criterion of truth, and, above all, the spiritual primacy of the Orient.” (1)

It is well-known that Guénon relativises and reduces Christian Mysticism (which, moreover, is not solely Western) to the level of sentimentalism or ‘devotionalism’ (which has nothing to do with true Mysticism, whereas it does have points of contact with false Mysticism). And this demonstrates the insufficient knowledge of Catholic ascetic and mystical theology on the part of Guénon himself, or at least his anti-Christian spirit. Indeed, the principal dogmas of the Catholic Faith are poorly understood and emptied of their true meaning in the Guénonian work. Guénon, imbued with Cabalist and Masonic esotericism, tried to inject into traditional Catholic circles the false idea of a universal and fundamental primordial Tradition which encompasses all the different religions, whilst keeping his affiliation to Monist Sufism and Scottish Masonry a secret.

With “the Second Vatican Council, it turns out that the Catholic intelligentsia … is orientated in the direction of a perspective which considers the intention of unity of the new generations. (...) to favour meeting points … with non-Christian religions… The tone is no longer to be that of refutation and of exclusion, but of assuming the diversity of human potential and of universal religious patrimony.” (2) It is in this way that Masonic-Esoteric Traditionalism embraced Esoteric-Masonic Modernism.

***
The Perennialist School, also known as the Sophia Perennis and the Traditionalist School, was founded around the 1920s by apostate René Guénon and has accrued many followers since. It is also therefore sometimes referred to as Guénonism, though it is actually just a repackaging, and presentation to modern Westerners, of ancient errors. This particular Neo-gnostic cult seems to be the only one which presents an immediate concern to Catholics (who recognise that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, and who consequently reject its heretical hierarchy) because some of its adherents have purportedly embraced “traditional Catholicism” and even the “Sedevacantist position” and thus have been active within Catholic circles, even up to the present day....”

“...this esoteric cult is not only a form of Neo-Gnosticism but in some ways overlaps with the New Age occultism. Their fundamental belief is that of the "Transcendent Unity of Religions" which includes what they refer to as the major world religions in their pure original form. They preach that in order to seek “Truth” and “Union” with "The Absolute" one must embrace and follow properly any one of the main “Traditional Religions...
...The followers of this sect insist that their beliefs are supported by their chosen religion and seek to find ways to prove that these religions (including Catholicism) preach their “Transcendent Unity of Religions” – and some seem to believe these religions' majority of followers (i.e. all of us who are uninitiated into their Gnostic cult) are ignorant of this higher truth and the true metaphysics of their, and our, religion. This becomes apparent when a Catholic tries to tell them that one cannot be a Catholic and a Perennialist at the same time because the latter is condemned by the Church. However, a Perennialist is likely to claim that St. Augustine (whom they tend to simply call “Augustine”), other early Church Fathers and Catholic mystics throughout the history of the Church, supported their philosophy of a “primordial wisdom” found in all religions. They also hold Meister Eckhart and Plato in high esteem (being Neo-Platonists), whilst not being fans of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; they tend to denigrate Scholastic/Thomistic Philosophy.

The following articles:

-What is Perennialism and Why Should we Know About It?

-A Great Initiate: René Guénon
 
Last edited:

Mike_Key

Woodpecker
Wicked and evil ...

I was going to share a video with RVF from David Tong, a professor of theoretical physics at Cambridge University. Unfortunately it appears the only copies that exist on the Internet now have conveniently excluded the Q&A session from after the lecture. The last question was from a woman - something to the effect of -

"So what happened the instant or the moment right before the singularity?"

To which David Tong replied, "We don't know."

Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong


The version of this lecture that I heard many years ago was 1 hour and 20 minutes. You only get to see and hear 1 hour.

John 3:16
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
A word of caution on the dangers of René Guénon and his Neo-Gnostic thinking:

The following articles:

-What is Perennialism and Why Should we Know About It?

-A Great Initiate: René Guénon

Lots of nonsense in those texts, and the subject is rather complex ; so I can only deal very briefly with a few issues here.

1a) "The Perennialist School, also known as the Sophia Perennis and the Traditionalist School, was founded around the 1920s"

There is no perennialist "school", only a perennialist "current of ideas" ; "perennialism" itself is only a convenient conventional term, and none of the so-called "perennialists" call or called themselves that.

1b) The "perennialist" label becomes especially vague when you use it to lump together groups who often ferociously oppose each other, such as the Schuonians and the Guenonians, or the Blavatsky crowd about whom Guénon wrote a whole book denouncing them.

2) "Guénon (...) keeping his affiliation to Monist Sufism and Scottish Masonry a secret."

Initially Guénon wrote a few things anonymously and there is a possibility that he hid some of his activities to some people including his first wife (he didn't hide his involvement in Masonry or Hinduism, though), but for the most part he has written freely and "approvingly" under his own name on miscellaneous non-Christian stuff such as Freemasonry or Sufism.

To say that Guénon "hid" his involvement in non-Christian traditions is like saying Roosh is "hiding" his involvement in Orthodoxy.

3) "apostate Guénon"

As a Catholic I definitely see something weird in Guénon having been brought up in his childhood as a typical French Catholic of the time, but writing in all his public writings of his adult period as a complete outsider to Catholicism and the Catholic tradition (an "Easterner" as he always called himself).

All the same, in the interest of justice I cannot help noticing that all those "conspiracy" and "infiltration" theories are nothing but slander. It should be said that Guénon himself has had the occasion to answer those accusations. When he was accused of heresy in a Catholic periodical to which he had contributed regularly for some time, he replied that 1) He had never been a Christian, and never pretended to be in any of the public writings under his name, and 2) Any request for explanations about anything other that the public writings he wrote under his name was a gross infringment on his right to privacy as a law-abiding citizen.

You can accuse Guénon of a lot of things, but not of "infiltrating" anything. When he met opposition, he replied, and when the replies did not satisfy his listeners he went away.
 

MFV

Chicken
Devil's Advocate here...

As a Christian, I can tell you that science, and the scientific method is nothing to fear, or discount. Christians, and the Christian worldview, invented the scientific method.

In John 1:1, God is described as "Logos" we get our word "Logic" from that Greek word. Christians then said: "God is logical. God must make sense, and the world God created must make sense." The demonic (and clown world) doesn't make sense. Because God makes sense, and the world God created makes sense, we can test it, and understand it.

I fear that in Christianity today there is movement similar to what happened in islam with "Occasionalism". They did away with cause and effect, at least in islam their "philosophical and theological system" allows for such nonsense when the god they worship is "pure will." When your answer to every scientific question is: "allah wills it!" Then progress grinds to halt.

There is the fact the Scientific Method was invented and firmly established in the 19th century. The Holy Bible was written long before then, c. 1400 BC for Genesis to c. 100 AD with John's Gospel . It was not written as a scientific textbook, and to treat it as such is a misuse of Sacred Scripture. I wouldn't want a Newton's Laws recited in place of the Gospel at Mass, and I wouldn't want Sacred Scriptures read in a scientific classroom or lab.

In Christianity, the sort of thinking that happened in islam doesn't work. You're asking me to believe in a God who lies, "It looks like it's old, and everything you can come up with to test it shows it is very old... But really it's only one day old."

That is a lie, and the scientific method should be thrown out entirely.

Lying is a sin, and God cannot sin. If God can deceive us about that, then what else can God deceive us about? If you really believe that God CAN LIE, and that God is lying about that, then what else can God lie about? Maybe God is lying about this: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

I think that young-earth creationism is from The Devil himself, meant to horribly distort people's view of The Almighty's Wonderful and Awe-Inspiring Creation. (I also think taking things too far in the other direction and removing The Almighty entirely is equally wrong.)
Yes, YEC is wrong. The Devil sends his errors in pairs so that the faithful running from one will stumble into another. That is why I hold to the findings of the Catholic Magisterium in matters of what is literal and what is not.

A man is blameless in the presence of a mystery.

Roosh wants to be holy. For him to think as a child is blameless, and we should not dissuade him from working out his faith with fear and trembling as he sees fit.
 

FourMarks

Pigeon
Lots of nonsense in those texts, and the subject is rather complex ; so I can only deal very briefly with a few issues here.

1a) "The Perennialist School, also known as the Sophia Perennis and the Traditionalist School, was founded around the 1920s"

There is no perennialist "school", only a perennialist "current of ideas" ; "perennialism" itself is only a convenient conventional term, and none of the so-called "perennialists" call or called themselves that.

1b) The "perennialist" label becomes especially vague when you use it to lump together groups who often ferociously oppose each other, such as the Schuonians and the Guenonians, or the Blavatsky crowd about whom Guénon wrote a whole book denouncing them.

2) "Guénon (...) keeping his affiliation to Monist Sufism and Scottish Masonry a secret."

Initially Guénon wrote a few things anonymously and there is a possibility that he hid some of his activities to some people including his first wife (he didn't hide his involvement in Masonry or Hinduism, though), but for the most part he has written freely and "approvingly" under his own name on miscellaneous non-Christian stuff such as Freemasonry or Sufism.

To say that Guénon "hid" his involvement in non-Christian traditions is like saying Roosh is "hiding" his involvement in Orthodoxy.

3) "apostate Guénon"

As a Catholic I definitely see something weird in Guénon having been brought up in his childhood as a typical French Catholic of the time, but writing in all his public writings of his adult period as a complete outsider to Catholicism and the Catholic tradition (an "Easterner" as he always called himself).

All the same, in the interest of justice I cannot help noticing that all those "conspiracy" and "infiltration" theories are nothing but slander. It should be said that Guénon himself has had the occasion to answer those accusations. When he was accused of heresy in a Catholic periodical to which he had contributed regularly for some time, he replied that 1) He had never been a Christian, and never pretended to be in any of the public writings under his name, and 2) Any request for explanations about anything other that the public writings he wrote under his name was a gross infringment on his right to privacy as a law-abiding citizen.

You can accuse Guénon of a lot of things, but not of "infiltrating" anything. When he met opposition, he replied, and when the replies did not satisfy his listeners he went away.
Like the blind guides who strain gnats to swallow a camel, all this quibbling misses the
real point: there is a radical irreconcilability between Guénonism (or any form of esotericism in general) and Catholicism; that it is not for no reason that Guénon presents himself as a “spiritual author” and contributor of an oriental wisdom superior even to that of the Catholic Church. He despised the idea of eternal salvation or damnation, peculiar to Catholicism, and champions a Gnosis or “metaphysics” which leads to the supreme identification with the undifferentiated Absolute (which the reader notices how “initiates” use big words like a smokescreen that hides emptiness of their spirituality.)
 

MFV

Chicken
For being a Christian with such an emphasis on the word lie, would you believe the Bible is true? If so, how can it be true and not mean what it says when the words are quite unambiguous in Genesis?

Brother, there is no scientific method in a LOT of the purported sciences:

Was there any reproducible experiment in ascertaining the causality, or aetiology, of the so called "Wuhan pneumonia"? Go back for the papers published in January and February 2020. That's a productive devil's advocate to play.
We can trust that The Bible is true in the same way we trust that a parable is true. I have the Catholic Magisterium to sort these things out.

You have to believe that the fullness of the truth, i.e., men praying for centuries for wisdom and using it to found the Councils, the martyrs and doctrines of the faith, has an insight that a layman will never have. Evolution is, indeed, a tautology, but no one forces you to accept it.

And it is easier to accept a Flat Earth than to believe a man can become a woman through an act of will or a emotional declaration of intent. That does not make Flat Earth a serious argument for what we observe, but it does not disqualify it as a model meme for resisting the scourges of scientism.
 

FourMarks

Pigeon
Evolution is, indeed, a tautology, but no one forces you to accept it.

Evolution is an absurd system which is based on an absurd principle: that something comes from nothing, that the greater comes from the lesser, that the more perfect comes from the less perfect, that order and constancy come from chance. Evolution is a modern mythology which makes the systems of the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses look rational. It is to say that there is design without a designer. It is a creed that is too unbelievable to recite. One would have to be psychotic to really believe that it is true. It would be psychotic, for example, to say that the music of Mozart was composed by his cat’s walking on a piano. Yet evolution asserts this very principle. What is possible is something commonly called microevolution, which is not evolution according to the Darwinian sense. It is to say that species, by means of a natural ability built into them by the Creator, can adapt over time to certain environments, producing variants that are not new species, but simply subspecies which do not differ substantially from other animals or plants within the same species. There is a lot of evidence for this. Darwinian evolution has no evidence to support itself, and there is indeed much evidence against it.
 

MFV

Chicken
Evolution is an absurd system which is based on an absurd principle: that something comes from nothing, that the greater comes from the lesser, that the more perfect comes from the less perfect, that order and constancy come from chance. Evolution is a modern mythology which makes the systems of the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses look rational. It is to say that there is design without a designer. It is a creed that is too unbelievable to recite. One would have to be psychotic to really believe that it is true. It would be psychotic, for example, to say that the music of Mozart was composed by his cat’s walking on a piano. Yet evolution asserts this very principle. What is possible is something commonly called microevolution, which is not evolution according to the Darwinian sense. It is to say that species, by means of a natural ability built into them by the Creator, can adapt over time to certain environments, producing variants that are not new species, but simply subspecies which do not differ substantially from other animals or plants within the same species. There is a lot of evidence for this. Darwinian evolution has no evidence to support itself, and there is indeed much evidence against it.
I think we agree for the most. Perhaps what will be discovered is something utterly alien to what we know now, something to be unlocked with new reasoning, to explain the changes and divergences we notice. In any event, how the species change is not because of the irrational survival of the fittest argument. That argument does not explain anything.

Science is a Christian practice corrupted by The Devil over many centuries. I would argue that the corruption begins with the Reformation and ends with The Woke.
 

MFV

Chicken
The biggest, most glaring problem with this interpretation is that it pulls a subtle bait and switch into the text. For example, consider that Genesis 1:3-5 says that God created light and then separated it from the darkness, calling the light "day" and the darkness "night". And then there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.

The KJV says "And the evening and the morning were the first day."

The Orthodox Jewish Bible says "And the erev (evening) and the boker (morning) were Yom Echad (Day One, the First Day)".

The Blue Letter Bible website also points out that this is what the Hebrew says, that it clarifies the first day as being the evening and the morning.

So if we go by the "age" interpretation of day, this implies that the Earth was in darkness for millions of years, and the light for millions of years, and that this repeated for the other five "ages". Except, that's not what science says happened. Science says days on the primeval Earth were still about 24 hours. Also, science says that Earth is slowing down its revolution, not speeding up. For Earth to have started out with a day-cycle of millions of years and then sped up to the 24 hour cycle is completely anti-science.

But the standard theistic evolutionist's cop-out is to introduce a kind of bait and switch, and claim that this is just saying that the millions of years consisted of the standard day cycle. But this is not supported by the text, as the text makes no distinction there. The text clearly says that the first day was the evening and the morning, which clearly establishes the context that "yom" refers to day, and is correctly translated as day.


The scientific method as invented by Christian scientists isn't even in use anymore in modern mainstream science. Scientism and scientistry are not scientody.


You're right, you really are an advocate for the Devil. Sacred Scriptures should be a guide for science, because scientists too are fallen beings that can sin, and it would be better if scientists made a regular study of the Bible so that they could learn to hold their studies in alignment with Truth, and conduct their science with honor. If anything, we need it more in the scientific classroom, because the profession of science should be governed by faith and the awe of God, not by the funding of greedy oligarchs. The early Christian scientists would also call you anathema for suggesting this.


I've talked with others of similar mind as you on this forum, and I've seen this line used before. It's such a ridiculously stupid argument, especially coming from someone who purports to practice a belief in the miraculous resurrection of dead bodies to life. Was it lying when Jesus turned water into wine? By your logic, it would be, because if we had a sample of that wine and tested it, the tests would show that it was just ordinary wine. But where did the grapes for it come from? Where did the alcohol come from? Where did the water go? But really, it's just wine. Oh, and not just wine. Aged wine. Jesus turned water into ostensibly aged wine, which provoked compliments as to its flavor. That's right, Jesus "poofed" fully mature wine. It looks like it's old, and everything you can come up with to test it shows it is old... but really, it's only one minute old.

So congratulations, I guess you'd be calling Jesus Christ a liar. Nice job, Devil's Advocate.


I've been really restraining myself from calling you Satanic, because even the archangel Michael would balk at making an accusation of such gravitas. But with this last bit, you are blaspheming that which you do not understand. Beware, for making such statements bring you in danger of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, which is the one unforgivable sin.

You need to reread the rules of Roosh's forum:

1. Don't talk down to members. Don't call someone an idiot, moron, or hater. Don't use condescending language such as "WTF are you talking about?" Don't be a drama queen or be quick to get into arguments. Defer to senior members, who help make the forum what it is.

7. Do not blaspheme God. You are not permitted to insult, ridicule, mock, or desecrate Christian beliefs or practices on the forum. While you can participate in polite intellectual discussions concerning Christianity, attacks against God that come from a place of atheism, hedonism, or secularism are not allowed. You are also not allowed to have heated debates with a fellow Christian for his views, dogmas, or doctrines. Do not emotionally argue with fellow Christians.

**

I'm new here, so I just read the rules for the first time about an hour ago. I happen to agree with Slide Rule, but that does not mean I want to be called a Satanist, or accused of Satanic advocacy, because my Church has a teaching principle in conflict with yours. Alright?
 
Top