Jump to content


Photo

Can The Earth Be Both Old And Young?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
11 replies to this topic

#1 disruptor

disruptor

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Orkney, UK

Posted 08 February 2006 - 04:04 PM

CAN THE EARTH BE BOTH OLD AND YOUNG?

Punctuated Divine Equilibrium


"And it has been the paleontologist my own breed who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not." Niles Eldredge, Columbia Univ., American Museum Of Natural History, Time Frames, 1986, p.144


It is not enough for God to create the Universe at some unimaginably distant point in the past, and then sit back and let the machinery go on running for billions of years without any interference. It makes no sense to assume God acted on the voidness at one particular point billions of years ago, created the Universe and then took no further interest in His creation. Indeed, it would be un-Biblical:

Eccl. 3:14 "Whatever God doeth, it shall be forever".

So creation must be for ever. Creation must be an on-going process, and not merely a past one-off event. So whenever new creatures or plants appear on a planetary surface, God is responsible for their "creation" and also for their day-to-day existence and maintenance:

Neh 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

So God is both Creator and Preserver. There is only one creation (which takes place outside normal human space-time), but there are frequent and regular "seedings" of the Earth with new creatures. These creatures pre-exist in the Mind of God. They can then be placed on Earth at the appropriate time.

Each "seeding" may be interpreted by us as a "new" creation - a "renewal". But from God's perspective they are still part of one and the same creation. So this is not really a "multiple creation" view. Nor is it a "uniformitarian" view, since God can place different faunas on a changed Earth at different times.

The surface of the Earth is in a state of geological and tectonic flux. Geological behaviour, like biological behaviour, shows variety. The configurations of continents are different in different ages. Different processes dominate at different eras.

Just as "reconfiguring" the fauna at intervals is one of God's tasks, so is "reconfiguring" the Earth. The two processes are in fact one. What God can do with creatures He can certainly do with rocks:

Isa 24.19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.

A number of "geological reconfiguration options" are available to God: pole shifts, magnetic field shut-offs, continental re-positioning (="continental drift"), new climates, ice ages, meteor impacts, atmospheric composition changes, and so forth. These events may occur in various configurations alongside faunal changes.

Both geological and faunal changes are part of the same processes of creation and preservation. Both are of God. Neither are "evolutionary" (except on a micro-scale). Imposing a 1-dimensional linear evolutionary timeline of "billions of years" through these cycles of creation, preservation and destruction is an inadequate representation of a complex process.

So, major faunal and stratigraphic boundaries represent "re-seedings", "re-creations" or "renewals" of the Earth and its flora & fauna. These "renewals" can be of differing levels of intensity and completeness. The last major "renewal" was during the Iast Ice Age - which is how YOUNG our current Earth configuration consequently is. Our time begins then.

But since these renewals are part of a renewal sequence which has been going on for an indeterminate time, the Earth is also, simultaneously, OLD.

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away....

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 08 February 2006 - 08:07 PM

So, major faunal and stratigraphic boundaries represent "re-seedings", "re-creations" or "renewals" of the Earth and its flora & fauna. These "renewals" can be of differing levels of intensity and completeness. The last major "renewal" was during the Iast Ice Age - which is how YOUNG our current Earth configuration consequently is. Our time begins then.

But since these renewals are part of a renewal sequence which has been going on for an indeterminate time, the Earth is also, simultaneously, OLD.


I do not believe you have made your point, i.e.

CAN THE EARTH BE BOTH OLD AND YOUNG?


By your explanation the earth is old, but the stuff on the surface is young (recycling surface), this still makes it an old earth, by any definition. The Moon in contrast is Old and static (non recycling surface).

If one had the means to age individual atoms they would all be the same age yes? The only difference is that some are interacting while others are not.


Re-ice age, not all environments suffered like the northern hemisphere during the ice age, if you had been in Australia at the time it would have passed by without so much as a cool winter.

#3 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 February 2006 - 08:24 PM

It is not enough for God to create the Universe at some unimaginably distant point in the past, and then sit back and let the machinery go on running for billions of years without any interference. It makes no sense to assume God acted on the voidness at one particular point billions of years ago, created the Universe and then took no further interest in His creation. Indeed, it would be un-Biblical:

Eccl. 3:14 "Whatever God doeth, it shall be forever".



The amount of time set aside, I can agree with that.

This however:

So creation must be for ever. Creation must be an on-going process, and not merely a past one-off event.


is not scritpural.

COL 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created by Him and for Him.

HEB 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "As I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter My rest," although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.
HEB 4:4 For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works";

At least on the surface, its pretty clear that God only created the earth once.

It would be interesting to look at the greek tenses to see what kind of past tenses are used to describe the acts of creation. Unless they are imperfect, then I would say its an open and shut case.

Terry

#4 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 February 2006 - 12:40 AM

Because God lives in eternity, eternity would have to apply to His creation as it was being created. So the question is: Is there some sort of time measurement in eternity? Or is time not a factor?

In the physical realm, time helps us understand so many things. We can cook, and not burn our food, or under cook it. We understand speed and distance. And the amount of time it takes to travel the distance. And we also use time to predict things, etc...

But what if time is not a factor in eternity? Things were always perfect, so time was not needed. For us to even start to ponder this would boggle the mind. But what kind of power would that give God during His creation? Could He age things without the passage of time? And did He do it more than once (for confirmation)?

2pet 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heaven were of old...
1) By the word of God.

2) The heavens were of old...... God had commanded age into His creation as it was being created. And this is backed up in the next verse.
ps 102:25 Of old thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

1) Of old... Age without time.

2) hast thou laid the foundation of the earth...... Foundation is the beginning of something that you are building or creating. So if the foundations were of old, age was added to the foundation creation of the earth as well as the heavens. The earth being created with age, but without time is backed up in the next verse.
ps 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.*

The word course* makes the meaning of this whole verse. A course of time is a direction of time. A full semester course would be a full time course. A half semester course would be half course. But what if time were not needed to complete the course?... So we have age without time, which puts the earth out of the course of time, as well as the heavens.
Foundation: basis: the fundamental assumptions from which something is begun or developed or calculated or explained;
Course:
Onward movement in a particular direction; progress: the course of events. (time)
Movement in time; duration: in the course (time) of a year.
Course: http://education.yah...ry/entry/course

When God formed man from the ground, was man fully formed? When God formed woman from man's rib, was woman fully formed? Of course. And if God can form something that is more complicated than the earth, and the whole universe, and add age to it. How much easier would it be to do the same to planets and stars etc...

Example of using an old foundation: Let's say I built a house last year. And I decided to use old material (about 500 years old) because of an old house that got torn down. But the wood the house was built from was a special wood that does not decay, nor do termites like to eat it because it is so hard. And because I save the contractor several 100's of dollars for taking it from his lot, he lets me have it at a good price.

I build the house, and later die. I'm the only owner and leave behind no family. Some Realtors want to know how old the house is, but can't find it in the city records. So they hire someone who can do age dating techniques. They tell the realtors that the house is about 400-800 years old. Upon going to a local store to buy something to drink they run into someone who knew me, and when I built the house. They tell the realtors that the house is less than five years old. So who is right? The time dating expert, or the person at the store who knew me?

They both are. Why? Because the time dating dated the foundation of the house. Which is how old the material was that was used to build the house. The person who knew me knew exactly when the house was built using the old materials.

So the earth was created 6,000 years ago using 4.3 billion year old foundational material. Which is age without time.

Now I know the first response from the non-believer will be this: Does not that make God a liar?

A lie is a deception that is not told to the one who is being deceived. God wrote in His word what He did, so deception is not a factor.

Example: If I dent your car with my door, and tell you nothing. And when you ask, deny it. Then you don't know and become deceived. But when it happens, and I tell you it happened. And then tell you I did it. Where's the deception? It is written in God's word that God used a foundation of old to create the earth.


Besides, I have yet to see an explanation from the big bang that explains all the different ages of all the planets and universe. When it all came from the same matter. Which means the dating itself is flawed because it cannot date the material back to it's origins. Which is the one speck of matter that started it all.

#5 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 12 February 2006 - 09:01 PM

Disruptor, How do you get around the context of Genesis, which clearly teaches a literal six day creation.

#6 disruptor

disruptor

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Orkney, UK

Posted 03 March 2006 - 03:57 PM

92g suggests that my notion of an on-going creation is "not scriptural", quoting Col 1:6 and Heb 4:3-4 in support.

It would be interesting to look at the greek tenses to see what kind of past tenses are used to describe the acts of creation. Unless they are imperfect, I'd say it's an open-and-shut case


I am happy to oblige.

There are several cases in the Bible of Greek PRESENT and FUTURE tenses (not even just imperfects) referring to the act of creation. There are also many cases of Hebrew imperfect tenses referring to the act of creation (there is only a choice of 2 tenses in Hebrew, perfect or imperfect). Some examples:

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

...where “create” is Hebrew active participle, translated as Greek εσται which is FUTURE tense!

This teaching on God's “re-creations” of the heavens and the earth is thus entirely Biblical, despite 92g's claim to the contrary. This “re-creation” teaching is confirmed in the New Testament at Rev 21:1. But in a way I do agree, 92g: God created the universe only once (but outside time); but the unfolding of the universe for creatures like us who are “trapped” in time means creation has to appear to be both repeated and continuous for us. There is no real contradiction. Our perceptions are simply limited compared to those of God.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

.... with all verbs as PRESENT participles in Greek, translating Hebrew qal participles.

Even Gen 2:2 On the seventh day God ended his work which he had made

“ended” is, surprisingly, IMPERFECT tense in both Hebrew and Greek!

As you say, 92g, it's an open-and-shut case (in my favour).

Willis, thanks for your question. The Six Days of Creation are of course a separate and complicated topic. On the seventh day, when God rested (Gen 2:2), “rested” is also IMPERFECT tense, also implying that it is still going on. Incidentally I see no need to take the 6 preceeding days literally as 6 earth days, since our sun and moon are not made until Gen 1:16-18, the 4th day (...and to rule over the day and over the night). Again, I believe this confirms the view that God creates the universe outside time but unfolds it for us in time, thus resolving the contradiction between young and old earths, and between cycles of divine creation (days 1-6) and preservation (day 7). The past, the present and the future are all equally God's:

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

#7 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2006 - 06:25 AM

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

...where “create” is Hebrew active participle, translated as Greek εσται which is FUTURE tense!

This teaching on God's  “re-creations” of the heavens and the earth is thus entirely Biblical, despite 92g's claim to the contrary.


That's a fine verse, but it doesn't tell us anything about the past, which you claim God has been in the act of making many creations, only that in the future the current creation will be destroyed, and a new one will be established, for eternity.

REV 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

and,

2PE 3:3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
2PE 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."
2PE 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
2PE 3:6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
2PE 3:7 But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
2PE 3:8 ¶ But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2PE 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
2PE 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
2PE 3:11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
2PE 3:12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
2PE 3:13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

The most that we have a clear picture of, is the act of creation, the act of destruction, and another act of creation, anything beyond that is speculation not supported by scritpure.


This “re-creation” teaching is confirmed in the New Testament at Rev 21:1. But in a way I do agree, 92g: God created the universe only once (but outside time); but the unfolding of the universe for creatures like us who are “trapped” in time means creation has to appear to be both repeated and continuous for us.


Erroneous conclusion.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

.... with all verbs as PRESENT participles in Greek, translating Hebrew qal participles.


Light, dark, peace, evil, yes,......., the earth, or universe, no.......

Even Gen 2:2 On the seventh day God ended his work which he had made

“ended” is, surprisingly, IMPERFECT tense in both Hebrew and Greek!

As you say, 92g, it's an open-and-shut case (in my favour).


I wonder....... The greek from Heb 3:4;

HEB 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "As I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter My rest," although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Finshed= genhqentwn, uses an arorist passive participle which means that the act of creation took place at a point in time, or was at least "finished" at a point in time, which contradicts your position.

Another example;

EPH 3:9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things;

created = ktisanti, uses and aorist, active partciple, which means that the act of creation was completed, not ongoing.

I think if you continue to look at these passaged you will see a picture of a completed act.

Sure, God is working on his creation, but that's not the same as truly "creating" again, and again, that will happen only 2 times as stated above.

Terry

#8 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 05 March 2006 - 08:04 AM

As you say, 92g, it's an open-and-shut case (in my favour).


Not really, it's kind of hard to imagine that if we weren't talking about 6 literal days of creation then it would be kind of hard for the plants and grass and trees which were created on the 3rd day, to wait millions of years for the sun to come up on the 4th day...I mean after all, plant life is about photosynthesis.

:)

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.


I know most people have a hard time dealing with these issues about it being 6 literal days of Creation, but, you just have to stop putting limitations on God in order to understand it.

Peace
CJ

#9 disruptor

disruptor

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Orkney, UK

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:10 AM

My personal view is that the “6 days” refers to a SINGLE process of creation, therefore they don't refer to six separate “ages” or anything like that. Plant-life is thus safe, CJ!

The 7th "day", by contrast, is still going on (hence the Hebrew imperfect at Gen 2:2, translated by a Greek aorist “timeless” tense, not imperfect as I said). The “7 days” description applies to each creation, and each “7 days” is a single age consisting of six stages of creation and then one stage of rest. So the single creation is complete in six days, but its preservation is ongoing. The tenses bear this out. So does the 6-7 numbering, on the basis that the  system is also used elsewhere in the Bible with certain lists. So Pro 6:16 has:

These six doth the lord hate, yea, seven are an abomination to him

Other examples are at Job 5:19, Pro 30:21, 30:18, 30:29 and many references in Amos (mostly 3 versus 4). This is a stylistic device which implies that the list is not complete.

But as I said before, I do in a way agree with you 92g. The creation is complete. But the manifestation of creation for us is not.

This is the root cause of all the misunderstanding and confusion over the old-versus-young earth issue.

Edit: I accidently deleted part of your post. In admin mode the edit button is next to the reply. So when I thought I was replying to your post, I was actually in edit mode. And by the time I realized it, it was to late. Sorry :) . The only thing I can remember was that you were directing a question to 92g.

Sorry: Admin3

#10 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 March 2006 - 07:33 PM

My question to you, 92g, is this: why would God stop at 2 creations?


I never said God would stop at 2 creations, only that as far as we, and His Word are concerned, that's all we know about.

Is this not a somewhat arbitrary number limiting God's infinite abilities?


Its the number that he's revealed to us at this point in time.

I agree that only 2 creations are relevant for us (the one we inhabit now and the one to come), but God has no reason for telling us about creations not relevant to us and our situation. What God gets up to elsewhere in the non-human Universe is His business.


Agreed.

Terry

#11 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:27 PM

My personal view is that the “6 days” refers to a SINGLE process of creation, therefore they don't refer to six separate “ages” or anything like that. Plant-life is thus safe, CJ!

The 7th "day", by contrast, is still going on (hence the Hebrew imperfect at Gen 2:2, translated by a Greek aorist “timeless” tense, not imperfect as I said). The “7 days” description applies to each creation, and each “7 days” is a single age consisting of six stages of creation and then one stage of rest. So the single creation is complete in six days, but its preservation is ongoing. The tenses bear this out. So does the 6-7 numbering, on the basis that the  system is also used elsewhere in the Bible with certain lists. So Pro 6:16 has:

These six doth the lord hate, yea, seven are an abomination to him

Other examples are at Job 5:19, Pro 30:21, 30:18, 30:29 and many references in Amos (mostly 3 versus 4). This is a stylistic device which implies that the list is not complete.

But as I said before, I do in a way agree with you 92g. The creation is complete. But the manifestation of creation for us is not.

This is the root cause of all the misunderstanding and confusion over the old-versus-young earth issue.

View Post


I have yet to see OEC explain why the 4 parts of a day are used to explain the first day they call age or undefined time. As well as parts of a day used to explain every other day as well.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Day one=day, night, evening, morning.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Day two=evening and morning.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Day three=evening and morning.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Day four=evening and morning.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Day five=evening and morning.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Day six=evening and morning.

Name any other amount of time that is named: day, night, morning or evening?

So another question might be: Why did God name the four parts of a day on the first day, but not the rest? On the first day, there were several things that happened that did not happen on any other day.

1) In the begining=time being created. Which also means that anything else that is used to calculate time, such as the rotation of the earth, is already happening upon the earth being created. Because God does not say he spun the earth to create night and day, He divided the light to created night and day. So the earth was in rotation the moment it was created.

2) God created the heaven and the earth=First the realm or universe (heaven) is created, then the earth is placed in it. This is the reason heaven is mentioned first.

3) 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=The key to what is actually happening here is in the word spirit (spirit is used only once in creation). The without form and void is a referrence to the spiritual realm. God is setting up boundereis for good, evil (which are both spiritual), and us (physical).

4) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light=God manifesting Himself to our realm. The first light came from God. This is why it had to be divided. And because light shines from God in the spiritual realm all the time. When it shined in the physical realm, it took on a dual meaning,
1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. So when the light was divided to make darkness, evil was given a place to exist. But, because God's light (God's manifested glory) also shined in our realm (the physical) it made both day and night.

So the division of the first light:
a) spiritually made bounderies between good and evil.
B) physically made both day and night.

So is all this about the light backed up in God's word? As you read this verse, this is how light works on the spiritual side.

Rev.21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

Verse 23 has the same situation as in the first light of creation. No sun, no moon. Verse 23 also explains where spiritual light comes from, it comes from God. It also explains that this light is not made up of physical photons. For the substance of it the lamb (Christ).

Verse 24 shows that spiritual light can sustain life. For there will be people who walk in it.

Verse 25 confirms why the first light has to be divided. No night means no darkness.

Those three verses give us the very laws of the first light and where it came from. This is where we misunderstand what God was doing. For we forget that God is also spiritual, and that what He creates is not always physical, and can have a dual meaning as well.

To confirm the spiritual side of creation, as well as the physical. If you notice all through the six days of creation. The word heaven stays singular. It does not turn plural until Genesis 2. So how many heavens did God create during the six days?

2cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Heaven 1=physical. Also where light creates night and day.
Heaven 2= spiritual evil. This is where there is no light, it was created when the first light was divided.
Heaven 3=where God is. This is where light shines all the time, there is no darkness (evil) here.

I can do a post on time also, and show where God even shows he made the earth older that the time that is passed.

#12 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 26 March 2006 - 03:30 AM

CAN THE EARTH BE BOTH OLD AND YOUNG?


It is not enough for God to create the Universe at some unimaginably distant point in the past, and then sit back and let the machinery go on running for billions of years without any interference. It makes no sense to assume God acted on the voidness at one particular point billions of years ago, created the Universe and then took no further interest in His creation. Indeed, it would be un-Biblical:

You have assumed billions of years occured. I'll leave that for later but just want it noted that there is no requirement in the Bible for any amount of time other than listed within literal context; less than 10,000 years.


Eccl. 3:14 "Whatever God doeth, it shall be forever".

So creation must be for ever. Creation must be an on-going process, and not merely a past one-off event. So whenever new creatures or plants appear on a planetary surface, God is responsible for their "creation" and also for their day-to-day existence and maintenance:

Your supporting passage only affirms that what God created will continue to exist. It does not support the assumption that there is anything being added.


Neh 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

So God is both Creator and Preserver. There is only one creation (which takes place outside normal human space-time), but there are frequent and regular "seedings" of the Earth with new creatures. These creatures pre-exist in the Mind of God. They can then be placed on Earth at the appropriate time.

Each "seeding" may be interpreted by us as a "new" creation - a "renewal". But from God's perspective they are still part of one and the same creation. So this is not really a "multiple creation" view. Nor is it a "uniformitarian" view, since God can place different faunas on a changed Earth at different times.

The surface of the Earth is in a state of geological and tectonic flux. Geological behaviour, like biological behaviour, shows variety. The configurations of continents are different in different ages. Different processes dominate at different eras.

Just as "reconfiguring" the fauna at intervals is one of God's tasks, so is "reconfiguring" the Earth. The two processes are in fact one. What God can do with creatures He can certainly do with rocks:

Isa 24.19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.

A number of "geological reconfiguration options" are available to God: pole shifts, magnetic field shut-offs, continental re-positioning (="continental drift"), new climates, ice ages, meteor impacts, atmospheric composition changes, and so forth. These events may occur in various configurations alongside faunal changes.

Both geological and faunal changes are part of the same processes of creation and preservation. Both are of God. Neither are "evolutionary" (except on a micro-scale). Imposing a 1-dimensional linear evolutionary timeline of "billions of years" through these cycles of creation, preservation and destruction is an inadequate representation of a complex process.

So, major faunal and stratigraphic boundaries represent "re-seedings", "re-creations" or "renewals" of the Earth and its flora & fauna. These "renewals" can be of differing levels of intensity and completeness. The last major "renewal" was during the Iast Ice Age - which is how YOUNG our current Earth configuration consequently is. Our time begins then.

But since these renewals are part of a renewal sequence which has been going on for an indeterminate time, the Earth is also, simultaneously, OLD.

Where are these frequent and regular seedings and reconfigurations discussed in the Bible? You seem to read more than I in these passages.




Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away....

View Post






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users