Where do you find a reclamation of the earth in Genesis ? At best reclamation is an argument from silence as there is not one verse of scripture that supports it.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!
- Thread starter ThisIsMyUserName
- Start date
NobodyAtAll
Member
Genesis 1:1, etc. The word for Earth can also be translated as land. This is important to note especially elsewhere.
As for reclamation, there are whole books written about the subject. Unless you're going to pay me to educate you, I'll leave you to study that on your own.
As for reclamation, there are whole books written about the subject. Unless you're going to pay me to educate you, I'll leave you to study that on your own.
Why do professing Christians not accept the fact that God created heaven and earth in 6 days as the Bible says?
You can fill the earth that has just been created, however, and that is what the Hebrew word translated "replenish" in Genesis 1:27, KJB, means. Several modern English versions of the Bible translate the word as "fill" in that passage and not "replenish."
And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over every living thing that is creeping upon the earth.'
Genesis 1:27, Young's literal Translation
That Hebrew word is translated in dozens of other KJB verses as "fill." In fact, every time the word "fill" is found in Job, in Jeremiah, in Ezekiel, and a few other books in the KJB, it comes from the same Hebrew word translated "replenish" in Genesis.
Here is an example:
Psalm 81:10
I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
God commanded Adam and Eve to "replenish" or "fill" the earth.
Genesis 1:27-29
King James Version
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Christians who believe God is suggesting there was a pre-existing world and life that was destroyed before the 6 days of our present earth referred to by God as "The Beginning" have a host of problems to try to solve in order to support such a theory. First of all, if the former world was destroyed and no longer existing then there was nothing left to "replenish" about it. Secondly, if life existed before our current world was created in the beginning, what happened to it? Were the life forms human? Did they go to hell? To heaven? They could not have gone to heaven before Jesus purified the altar with His blood. They could not have gone to hell because hell was later created for the devil and his angels, unless the devil was around for the 'first creation' but was not destroyed along with the 'first creation.'
And other problems with the erroneous assumptions also persist.
Whole books of erroneous opinions are one of the earth's sad consequences of Adam's sin.
Ecclesiastes 12:12
And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Which is like saying it's not a poetry book.
Was it meant to say "six days"?
Because it says "six days."
Right Divider
Body part
You suggest I look outside of the Bible to prove what is in the Bible ? I believe that to be backwards. Now I understand why folks deny what scripture actually says to accept what scripture does not teach.
Derf
Well-known member
This is probably a waste of effort, but…
So it’s ok for you to attack God’s competence, but not ok for me to attack yours?
Then you shouldn’t think God is incompetent. Which is worse? You saying God is incompetent, or me saying you think God is incompetent?
You shouldn’t wear your belt around your head! It makes all attacks below the belt, and it cuts off circulation to your brain. But I guess it’s ok for you to call what I say, and what all say that read the Bible as if it’s revealing truth, “ignorant”?
Like that’s relevant. Are you saying Trump haters don’t understand the Bible? Or are you saying Trump wrote the Bible, and he meant it exactly like you want to interpret it? Because I missed where Trump was involved in the conversation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
My favorite is
Exodus 20:11 (KJV) For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
If God made all in heaven in six days, then it wasn’t just the “land” He replenished. It was the whole universe. And if @NobodyAtAll is merely concerned about a portion of the earth, he’s neglecting quite a bit of creation.
No one is going to go through each and every one of those links to read everything there.
Do you not know your own position well enough to discuss it here?
Make the argument yourself, please. I'm not saying you can't post links, but if you're not even going to bother making the argument for your position, then why bother posting the links at all?
And I'm just repeating your words back to you, because you're being a hypocrite, due to the unscientific statements Old Earth Creationists make that are NOT supported by science, yet say they are supported by science making them out to be liars.
I AM calling you a hypocrite, just to be clear.
If you think that's my best argument, you're in for a ride, because I'm just getting warmed up here.
Well, no, it's not.
From Strong's:
| Strong's h3117 - Lexical: יוֹם - Transliteration: yom - Part of Speech: Noun Masculine - Phonetic Spelling: yome - Definition: day. - Origin: From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb). - Usage: age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... Live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger. - Translated as (count): day (306), days (245), the days (149), today (131), on the day (125), the day (120), in day (113), in the day (92), on day (73), this day (57), in the days (53), in days (46), the chronicles (37), And On the day (36), a day (34), as day (19), his days (17), the time (17), your days (17), by day (15), for days (15), forever (15), daily (14), in his days (13), of days (13), day long (11), my days (11), from the day (10), of the day (10), And in the days (9), continually (9), for the day (9), as in the days (8), at time (8), days' (8), Our days (8), a time (7), from day (7), their days (7), when (7), - (6), and the day (6), each day (6), on a day (6), since the days (6), the day long (6), and day (5), And the period (5), as long as (5), as the days (5), his day (5), in time (5), of the days (5), And in the day (4), as it is day (4), for day (4), for each day (4), from the days (4), in age (4), in years (4), in your days (4), life (4), one day (4), since the day (4), time (4), whole (4), yearly (4), according to the days (3), after days (3), And on day (3), as in the day (3), but day (3), but the day (3), every day (3), full (3), full years (3), like the days (3), of a day (3), of every day (3), of today (3), of your days (3), since the time (3), the same day (3), to the days (3), two days (3), year (3), years (3), a while (2), Age (2), all day (2), always (2), and by day (2), and days (2), And the time (2), as in days (2), as long (2), as of this day (2), as on the day (2), as the day (2), but on the day (2), from (2), from days (2), from year (2), in my days (2), in the time (2), now (2), Of day (2), of from day (2), of my days (2), of time (2), perpetually (2), that day (2), the day of (2), the yearly (2), then (2), to days (2), a daily (1), a days (1), a long time (1), a year (1), about (1), about the day (1), about the time (1), about time (1), according to the time (1), after (1), after a time (1), after a while (1), after some time (1), after two days (1), afternoon (1), ago (1), among the days (1), and (1), and a holiday (1), and as (1), and as long as (1), and as your days (1), and daily (1), and from day (1), and her days (1), and in days (1), and in your days (1), and like the days (1), and my days (1), and nevertheless in the day when (1), and the days (1), and today (1), and when (1), as (1), as at day (1), as at other times (1), as at the time (1), As in the days when (1), as long as I live (1), as this day (1), as time (1), as to a day (1), as you are day (1), at any time (1), at day (1), at once (1), awhile (1), before the day (1), but at time (1), but in the day (1), but on (1), but the (1), but the days (1), But when (1), but within days (1), by day by day (1), certain days (1), concerning the days (1), David (1), day by day (1), day still there (1), day's (1), days ago (1), during the time (1), each year (1), even this day (1), first (1), for (1), For a (1), for a time (1), for about a day (1), for daily (1), for one (1), for the days (1), for time (1), from the time (1), from times (1), Have since your days (1), he lives (1), her days (1), him who was in trouble (1), his daily (1), his time (1), in a day (1), in daylight (1), in the course (1), in the course of time (1), in the day when (1), in the days of (1), in their days (1), in weather (1), into day (1), like a day (1), like day (1), like the day (1), midday (1), much elder (1), nowadays (1), of (1), of as every day (1), of every (1), of my life (1), of old (1), of the time (1), of years (1), on his day (1), on its proper (1), on that day (1), on the day of (1), On the day when (1), On the days (1), on the same day (1), On this day (1), one year (1), or day (1), or on a day (1), over the day (1), per year (1), recently (1), regularly (1), remains (1), since (1), still daylight (1), than the day (1), that (1), that days (1), the age (1), the day of his (1), the days of (1), the days Yahweh (1), the evening (1), the full time (1), the life (1), the season (1), the while (1), the with day (1), their day (1), therefore as long as I live (1), these days (1), throughout your days (1), time on (1), to (1), to day (1), to determine the day (1), to the day (1), to year (1), two (1), Until the day (1), unto day (1), when the (1), Whenever (1), while (1), within days (1), year by (1), Yet from the days (1), you live (1), your day (1). |
And from https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3117/kjv/wlc/0-1/:
Was there something in particular on this link that you wished to discuss? Otherwise it's just another link that I don't have time to read.
The arguments that I made apply to ANY AND ALL old earth creationist positions. None of them mentioned evolution, at least not in the post you were quoting.
There is no room for a gap between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3. The context doesn't allow it, the sentence structure doesn't allow it, and the words of Jesus don't allow it.
Wrong.
Genesis 1:1-5 describe God creating the universe and matter, and then creating light, and describes Him starting the rotation of the earth. There is no gap. There is no "reclamation."
What judgement? Make the argument, NAA.
This is a topic I've been learning about for the past 6 almost 7 years, and the person I learned most of what I know from (now deceased) has an entire website dedicated to defending the truth of the Bible using science, RSR.org. There is also the Hydroplate theory (creationscience.com, put together by Dr. Walter Brown), which goes into great detail regarding the Flood of Noah, and kgov.com (for the 30+ year ongoing talk show that discusses everything from Biblical truth to politics and morality. And while the amount of overall combined knowledge and time spent doesn't make me right, it should give a bit of weight to my words when I tell you that I'm not the one who needs to "crack open some books or surf the web for answers," though I recommend just using the resources mentioned here as a starting point instead, rather than just doing a random Google search.
My Bible uses the word "fill," and the word "replenish" doesn't even appear in it, except as a perfect tense verb "replenished" in Jeremiah 31:25.
Thus, your argument falls apart as the straw man that it is.
Not glossed over, just a straw man.
Make the argument yourself, please.
It's irrelevant.
What was made in Genesis 1:1 is revealed in the verses following and in other passages throughout scripture.
God created the heavens and the earth a a ball of unformed rock covered in water. By the end of day 2, it looked something like this:
And by the end of day 3, it would have looked like this:
And from a bird's eye view of the earth:
And then from there God would have begun to populate the earth with life.
(For day 1's image, simply remove the crust from the first cross section image above.
Sorry, but it's not my job to make your argument for you. You have to do that yourself, and no, you probably won't get paid for it. You're the one making the claims, therefore the onus is on you to defend those claims.
So Gleason Archer was not a flawed, sinful human being? He is supposed to be God?
"Science" is the product of flawed, sinful human beings so it is flawed itself. Flawed, sinful human beings, especially those who deny the power, righteousness and existence of God, cannot produce a perfect product.
NobodyAtAll
Member
Because the Bible is being misinterpreted by the YEC cultists.
NobodyAtAll
Member
(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth—
(Genesis 1:2) the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, [Young's Literal Translation]
Since you appear to be cherry-picking translations to get it to say what you want like most cults do, I guess you missed what the Young's Literal Translation says in Genesis 1:1-2. In verse 2, Genesis clearly indicates that the heavens and earth existed prior to the six days of creation, thereby proving the supposition of Old Earth Creation. QED
NobodyAtAll
Member
I have no problem with the scripture you quoted. I have a problem with your biased interpretation to support your chosen cult of YEC.
You miss that there was a process of creation happening as scripture explains in Genesis 1. I’ll play the game. Who do you believe destroyed the first earth ? If you believe Satan destroyed the first earth then you would have to believe that SATAN IS MORE POWERFUL THAN GOD.No one has to cherry pick anything to understand that God created the heaven and earth, and everything therein, in 6 days, because that is exactly what scripture teaches.
NobodyAtAll
Member
There were no books written or in existence when the Book of Ecclesiastes was written.
NobodyAtAll
Member
What you wrote is irrelevant so I didn't read it.