Mature Universe Theory

[tim_from_pa]

On 10/31/2024 at 9:52 PM, The Barbarian said:

Yes.   If you read the Bible with a strict literalist bent, it does say that the Earth is flat.   But it would be a very strict literalist bent.

Yes, and that's my point.  We know the earth is not flat (I can prove that mathematically) thus there's probably an issue with Biblical interpretation IF we believe the Bible is indeed true. And that can be the same regarding time, the age of the universe and creation of life was also my point.  The way I know the Bible is true is based on Jesus Christ who testified to the accuracy of all the (OT) Scriptures.  Besides his testimony, and tons and tons of archaeological/historical evidence, I can't per se prove the Bible true, but if it's verified by something or someone that we have evidence for, then by that connection I can have faith in what it says, but at the same time never to dismiss the evidence we objectively see as well.  It's the same God who made everything. I never want to say something is "proven" or a "fact" other than something we have a reliable mathematical equation for. But there is evidence.  And with enough evidence to state a hypothesis, and ultimately a theory, we then assume its fact.  But even then .... 

[BeyondET]

15 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

With closed eyes and ears, no light will ever get through.

I'm sorry your going through that. 

[BeyondET]

15 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Yeah, kind of a wild thought, huh.  But scholars who study such things are well aware of the fact that facts do get passed down from parents to children, etc.

Open your eyes.  I cited several scholarly sources who said it.

No, at best, it's the truth.  But you are satisfied with your tradition, which is based on faulty translation.  It happens.

 

Yea you've got a wild imagination.

You cited several scholarly sources, who are the seven? or was that you exaggerating again.

Edited November 3, 2024 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, BeyondET said:

FreeGrace said:

With closed eyes and ears, no light will ever get through.

I'm sorry your going through that. 

Everyone understands who I was referring to.  But I see that you've taken up one of the tactics of the Dems;  twist what others say.

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Yea you've got a wild imagination.

That would describe yours, of course.  Claiming 2 Hebrew words describe God's creative skill in Gen 1:2 but also describe what an invading army will do to the land, which is total destruction.  

10 hours ago, BeyondET said:

You cited several scholarly sources, who are the seven? or was that you exaggerating again.

Huh?  7?  What are you referring to?  The sources I quoted from were included in my post.  I really wish you'd at least READ my posts before firing off those wild shots and missing everything.

[RV_Wizard]

On 11/2/2024 at 6:22 AM, FreeGrace said:

I'm not wedded to any viewpoint.  When evidence is presented to me, which refutes or contradicts what I have been taught, I repent (change my mind) and go with the evidence.

I challenge this statement.  Here is what has been established.

You believe billions of years of earth's history happened between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.  This theory was first popularized in 1814 by Thomas Chalmers, who cited Simon Episcopius, a 17th-century Dutch Arminian theologian.  It is a MODERN claim, aka, new doctrine. 

ALL of the modern texts you quote come from the Alexandria, Egypt scrolls which are considered to be corrupted.

Light came about in verse three, atmosphere in verses 6-7, dry land in verse 9, vegetation in verse 11, the sun, moon and stars in verses 14-17 and the first living things in verses 20-21.  By this we know that NONE of these existed prior to verse 2.

You have not been able to come up with a single answer as to how billions of years of earth history could have occurred without any of the above.  You have not come up with an explanation of how a pre-existing universe could have been destroyed completely except for the now liquid earth.  You haven't presented ANY evidence of a force strong enough to destroy God's original creation.

You base your entire claim on your inability to comprehend why Jeremiah would quote a desolate planet at the beginning of creation to paint the picture of a desolate region after being totally destroyed.  You also create a new definition of the word "was" to say it meant "became." 

You believe you have a special knowledge that most people throughout history have not had.  It is not so.  You are deceived.  You are as much deceived as those who expound on the claims of evolution.  Both are modern heresies.  Neither are true.

Your claim is refuted.  Until you can show how, in the absence of anything created subsequent to verse two, the earth existed, thrived and then somehow reverted to a water covered blob in total darkness, your claim has no validity.  

 

 

 

[RV_Wizard]

When God created the stars, He obviously created them mature and fully functional and for a specific purpose—to be for signs and for seasons. When God created Adam and Eve and told them to be fruitful and multiply, He gave them mature bodies that were ready to produce children.

Some people conclude that God would have created them with the appearance of age, say 20 or 30 years old. But would “age” have any effect on Adam’s body before he sinned? If the first people—and the universe—were originally designed to last forever, would you expect to see any difference between a man at age 30 or at age 3,000?

When doctors look at the human body today, they can estimate age from various evidences in the body. But before sin, nothing aged—everything was created “very good.” The human body did not experience the effects of sin or aging.    source

There is no need for any time gaps in Genesis Chapter 1 because God created a mature universe. He created soil that was ready to produce (1:11); it didn’t gradually develop from decaying rock. He created animals and humans in maturity (1:20-21, 1:26-27); they didn’t hatch from eggs or start as babies. He created plants and trees already yielding seed, not grown from seeds (1:12). He created stars with light trails so that they could be seen (1:16-17). God even communicated with Adam in mature language, not caveman gibberish (2:16-17). 

God’s universe was fully functional from the very start.  source

 

[RV_Wizard]

On 10/31/2024 at 9:52 PM, The Barbarian said:

If you read the Bible with a strict literalist bent, it does say that the Earth is flat.  

Actually, it does not.

In the case of the earth's shape, scripture never explicitly states the shape of our planet, nor does the Bible propose to teach the physical design of earth explicitly at any point, but it does confirm a round earth implicitly in various places. For example, the Creation account in Genesis 1 says that the earth began as water only, and water suspended in space always takes the form of a sphere due to the surface tensions of water molecules.

Furthermore, when dry land appeared, Genesis 1 describes all the land as existing "in one place" in Genesis 1:9 while all waters are gathered likewise. Geometrically, this can only happen on a sphere, and therefore Genesis 1 implies a round earth. 

Nevertheless, the Bible is not our only (or even our best) source of information on the shape of the planet. Science long ago confirmed the spherical shape of the earth. As early as the 6th century B.C., men had mathematical proofs demonstrating the earth is spherical in shape. In the following centuries, many scientists have devised simple experiments validating the earth is a sphere, and more recently high-altitude aircraft, satellites orbiting our planet, and manned space travel have confirmed those earlier findings.

Even our own observations from the ground confirm the earth to be a sphere. When standing on the shore looking out on the horizon, the curvature of the earth cuts off the bottom of ships in the distance.

Simply put, men have known the earth was round for centuries, and the Bible confirms this truth implicitly. Unfortunately, some Christians have become victims of false teaching and conspiracy theories that misinterpret various scriptures to support bizarre conclusions. The claim of a “flat” earth is one such false teaching.   source

[NConly]

19 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Actually, it does not.

In the case of the earth's shape, scripture never explicitly states the shape of our planet, nor does the Bible propose to teach the physical design of earth explicitly at any point, but it does confirm a round earth implicitly in various places. For example, the Creation account in Genesis 1 says that the earth began as water only, and water suspended in space always takes the form of a sphere due to the surface tensions of water molecules.

Furthermore, when dry land appeared, Genesis 1 describes all the land as existing "in one place" in Genesis 1:9 while all waters are gathered likewise. Geometrically, this can only happen on a sphere, and therefore Genesis 1 implies a round earth. 

Nevertheless, the Bible is not our only (or even our best) source of information on the shape of the planet. Science long ago confirmed the spherical shape of the earth. As early as the 6th century B.C., men had mathematical proofs demonstrating the earth is spherical in shape. In the following centuries, many scientists have devised simple experiments validating the earth is a sphere, and more recently high-altitude aircraft, satellites orbiting our planet, and manned space travel have confirmed those earlier findings.

Even our own observations from the ground confirm the earth to be a sphere. When standing on the shore looking out on the horizon, the curvature of the earth cuts off the bottom of ships in the distance.

Simply put, men have known the earth was round for centuries, and the Bible confirms this truth implicitly. Unfortunately, some Christians have become victims of false teaching and conspiracy theories that misinterpret various scriptures to support bizarre conclusions. The claim of a “flat” earth is one such false teaching.   source

Isa 40:22

22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

I'm not wedded to any viewpoint.  When evidence is presented to me, which refutes or contradicts what I have been taught, I repent (change my mind) and go with the evidence.

I challenge this statement.

I am always open to correction.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Here is what has been established.

You believe billions of years of earth's history happened between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Here is a correction of your statement.  I have said repeatedly that I don't care how many years have occurred between Gen 1:1 and 2.  Because it doesn't matter.  

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  This theory was first popularized in 1814 by Thomas Chalmers, who cited Simon Episcopius, a 17th-century Dutch Arminian theologian.  It is a MODERN claim, aka, new doctrine.

And here is the correction of this statement.  The REASON Jeremiah and Isaiah both used the very same words from Gen 1:2 to describe the coming total destruction of the land is because that's what "tohu wabohu" means.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

ALL of the modern texts you quote come from the Alexandria, Egypt scrolls which are considered to be corrupted.

How silly.  Here is the correction of this statement.  My FACTS are based on the words used by Jeremiah (700 BC) and Isaiah (600 BC) who used the same words as Moses (1400 BC).  So your repeated error about 'modern texts' really lies with YOU.  You have accepted the KJV translation, which has been shown to be FALSE because in this 3 dimensional universe, the earth CANNOT ever have been "formless".  This FACT is beyond debate.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Light came about in verse three, atmosphere in verses 6-7, dry land in verse 9, vegetation in verse 11, the sun, moon and stars in verses 14-17 and the first living things in verses 20-21.  By this we know that NONE of these existed prior to verse 2.

And this is simply a manifestation of your bias that won't allow you to accept any FACT that the earth was perfect in its creation (Gen 1:1) but became "tohu wabohu".  And we have no details about the state of the earth when created.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You have not been able to come up with a single answer as to how billions of years of earth history could have occurred without any of the above.

Sure I did.  Many many times.  You just don't like the answer, or are just unable to comprehend it.  They were obviously all there before the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You have not come up with an explanation of how a pre-existing universe could have been destroyed completely except for the now liquid earth.

Well, as to this bit of error, you'll have to complain to God about why He didn't give any details about what and how the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  I'm not responsible for explaining when God didn't give details.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You haven't presented ANY evidence of a force strong enough to destroy God's original creation.

This wrongly assumes that God wasn't able to protect His creation.  Where do you get your assumption from, since the Bible gives no such information.  God allowed His Son to die on a cross.  You could use your irrational claim about that, so why haven't you?  Go ahead and give the atheists some ammo.  As if God wasn't able to protect His Son.  

I have to think that you aren't aware that God PERMITS many things to occur.  Sin, for example, is one.  Whatever destroyed the earth was PERMITTED by God.  No real mystery.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You base your entire claim on your inability to comprehend why Jeremiah would quote a desolate planet at the beginning of creation to paint the picture of a desolate region after being totally destroyed. 

Another huge error.  I fully understand WHY Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2.  His context was the total destruction of the land, and he fully understood what Moses wrote.  

The real question is why you seem unable to comprehend that FACT.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You also create a new definition of the word "was" to say it meant "became."

I've already proven from Scripture that the very same form of the verb in Gen 1:2 IS IS IS translated as "became" in a number of verses throughout the OT.  I'm really surprised that this FACT has escaped your understanding.

Anyone can go to biblehub.com and see for themselves.  Put in Gen 1:2, then click on "interlinear" and then put the mouse on the Hebrew word above "was".  Click it and then see all the verses where that exact verb form is found elsewhere.

I haven't hidden anything, but revealed HOW I have reached my conclusions.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You believe you have a special knowledge that most people throughout history have not had.  It is not so.

What "isn't so" is your faulty claim about what I believe, and your claim is nonsense.  I have come to my conclusions based on the FACTS that I have given.  But you have rejected.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You are deceived.  You are as much deceived as those who expound on the claims of evolution.  Both are modern heresies.  Neither are true.

Well, thank you for revealing your REAL MOTIVATION.  Your "fear" of evolution, which I've thoroughly REJECTED.  My view has NOTHING to do with evolution, but it seems you are not able to comprehend that.

While evolution demands an old earth, my understanding of Gen 1:1 and 2 has no use for evolution.  Is that clear or not?

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Your claim is refuted. 

It seems you have no understanding of what "refute" means.  You have certainly disagreed with my claim.  So what?  That is not even close to a refutation.  

In order to refute my claim, you would have to prove that all that I've presented regarding the verb in Gen 1:2 and the 2 Hebrew words, tohu wabohu, do NOT mean what they mean in other verses, which youn haven't done, nor even tried to do.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Until you can show how, in the absence of anything created subsequent to verse two, the earth existed, thrived and then somehow reverted to a water covered blob in total darkness, your claim has no validity.  

What has no validity is any part of your claims, since you've demonstrated a misunderstanding of the FACTS that I have presented.

All you've provided is a lot of opinions, but no facts.

And I have had to correct most of your opinions, as I have just done again in this post.