Old earthers vs. II Peter 3 & Revelation 21:1

[church mouse guy]

The “big bang” is a story about how the universe came into existence. It proposes that billions of years ago the universe began in a tiny, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity. This singularity supposedly contained not only all the mass and energy that would become everything we see today, but also “space” itself. According to the story, the singularity rapidly expanded, spreading out the energy and space.

It is supposed that over vast periods of time, the energy from the big bang cooled down as the universe expanded. Some of it turned into matter—hydrogen and helium gas. These gases collapsed to form stars and galaxies of stars. Some of the stars created the heavier elements in their core and then exploded, distributing these elements into space. Some of the heavier elements allegedly began to stick together and formed the earth and other planets.

....Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a state that astronomers call “heat death.”2 But the Bible teaches that the world will be judged and remade. Paradise will be restored. The big bang denies this crucial biblical teaching.

Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?

Not only do old earthers contradict Genesis that the universe was created in six days but also they subscribe to a scientific notion that the universe will die of a heat death which is in direct contradiction of the New Testament. For example, 2 Peter 3:10 (KJV) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. And, Revelation 21:1 (KJV) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

 

[Van]

I do not want to be rash, but is it possible to believe that the Big Bang explains how God created the universe out of nothing, or an infinitely small singularity? Yes, one must adopt the view that the creation days were indeterminate periods, rather than 24 hour days.

What does the Big Bang having going for it, scripture wise?

1) The universe had a beginning, and that is consistent with scripture saying God created the heavens and the earth.

2) According to our current understanding of science, the singularity should have remained a singularity, no power or force known to man could cause it to expand. So the theory is consistent with an unknown force or cause (God Almighty) bringing the Universe into existence.

Bottom line, we were not there (in the beginning) and therefore we do not know how God created everything, only that He did. To use time saying my pet theory is more biblical than your pet theory does not expand the body of Christ or hasten the day of Christ's return.

 

[church mouse guy]

I do not want to be rash, but is it possible to believe that the Big Bang explains how God created the universe out of nothing, or an infinitely small singularity? Yes, one must adopt the view that the creation days were indeterminate periods, rather than 24 hour days.

What does the Big Bang having going for it, scripture wise?

1) The universe had a beginning, and that is consistent with scripture saying God created the heavens and the earth.

2) According to our current understanding of science, the singularity should have remained a singularity, no power or force known to man could cause it to expand. So the theory is consistent with an unknown force or cause (God Almighty) bringing the Universe into existence.

Bottom line, we were not there (in the beginning) and therefore we do not know how God created everything, only that He did. To use time saying my pet theory is more biblical than your pet theory does not expand the body of Christ or hasten the day of Christ's return.

But God was there so we do have an eyewitness and He says that He created everything in 6 days.

So you support the science of heat death for the universe?

 

[asterisktom]

There are more than those two interpretations. I believe in a six day creation but also that the Earth abides forever, Psalm 104:5, Ecc. 1:4. As far as those "elements" are concerned please consider the other uses of that term (STOICHEA) in the NT.

 

[church mouse guy]

There are more than those two interpretations. I believe in a six day creation but also that the Earth abides forever, Psalm 104:5, Ecc. 1:4. As far as those "elements" are concerned please consider the other uses of that term (STOICHEA) in the NT.

Not all old earthers believe in big bang but if you are going to believe in millions and millions of years, then you are somewhat like a believer in big bang.

Apparently, you reject II Peter 3 and Revelation 21 for other reasons. I know JWs believe they are going to live on this current earth, but here heat death also says that the sun will turn into a red star and burn the earth up.

 

[Van]

But God was there so we do have an eyewitness and He says that He created everything in 6 days.

So you support the science of heat death for the universe?

Like so many others, you ask a question to imply I hold unbiblical views.

God says you were not there and you do not know how God created everything.

 

[asterisktom]

Not all old earthers believe in big bang but if you are going to believe in millions and millions of years, then you are somewhat like a believer in big bang.

Apparently, you reject II Peter 3 and Revelation 21 for other reasons. I know JWs believe they are going to live on this current earth, but here heat death also says that the sun will turn into a red star and burn the earth up.

1. I believe that God created everything in six days. How in the world is that anything like a big bang?

2. JWs do not believe Christ is God, do not believe in salvation by faith. Theirs is a works salvation.

I do not reject those other verses. I ask that you look at them more carefully.

I am trying to take your comments seriously but you are making it pretty hard. Have you even looked up the other uses of STOICHEA in the NT?

 

[Calminian]

Like so many others, you ask a question to imply I hold unbiblical views. ...

Me, on the other hand, I would never imply such a thing. I believe in being explicit.

 

[Calminian]

There are more than those two interpretations. I believe in a six day creation but also that the Earth abides forever, Psalm 104:5, Ecc. 1:4. As far as those "elements" are concerned please consider the other uses of that term (STOICHEA) in the NT.

This does not imply that earth is eternal with no beginning. It rather says earth will be renewed at the end of the age and endure forever, with the New Jerusalem as the new Eden.

You'll need much more than this.

 

[Van]

Me, on the other hand, I would never imply such a thing. I believe in being explicit.

Even when explicitly inexplicit

 

[AustinC]

Let me just put this to rest.

I don't care how old the earth is. All that is important is that Adam sinned, all humanity is cursed because of that sin and we need a redeemer to save us. That's what matters.
Carry on...

 

[Calminian]

Let me just put this to rest.

I don't care how old the earth is. ......

Let me put it a different way. Do you care about the history of the Earth? Do you think the history of the Earth matters?

 

[church mouse guy]

1. I believe that God created everything in six days. How in the world is that anything like a big bang?

2. JWs do not believe Christ is God, do not believe in salvation by faith. Theirs is a works salvation.

I do not reject those other verses. I ask that you look at them more carefully.

I am trying to take your comments seriously but you are making it pretty hard. Have you even looked up the other uses of STOICHEA in the NT?

I guess that I don't understand your point. How old do you say that the earth is? I have agreed that not all old earthers believe in the big bang.

Science says that the universe dies of heat death but Peter said that the earth will be burnt up.

 

[asterisktom]

I guess that I don't understand your point. How old do you say that the earth is? I have agreed that not all old earthers believe in the big bang.

Science says that the universe dies of heat death but Peter said that the earth will be burnt up.

I am Not an old earther. The Earth is around 6000 years old.

Peter does not say the EARTH will be burnt up but that the "elements" would be dissolved. Those "elements" are not physical elements but the "rudiments" of the Jewish religion. This is actually what happened when the Temple was destroyed. The foundations of the old system were done away with. For the third time now, look up the uses of this word. I am not making this up

 

[asterisktom]

This does not imply that earth is eternal with no beginning. It rather says earth will be renewed at the end of the age and endure forever, with the New Jerusalem as the new Eden.

You'll need much more than this.

I could say the same about your scriptureless assertions. What verse speaks of a "new Eden"? And I never said the earth has no beginning. I don't know how I could have stated it plainer.

Also, both Isaiah and Revelation are books full of apocalyptic images. The New Heavens and New Earth passages in both books need to be examined carefully.

 

[Salty]

Bottom line - h

Let me just put this to rest.

I don't care how old the earth is. All that is important is that Adam sinned, all humanity is cursed because of that sin and we need a redeemer to save us. That's what matters.
Carry on...

Austin - you scare me! I actually agree with you

 

[Salty]

Found this web page - interesting:

 

[Calminian]

...Peter does not say the EARTH will be burnt up but that the "elements" would be dissolved. Those "elements" are not physical elements but the "rudiments" of the Jewish religion. ...

Oy! This is such nonsense. The word is translated elements because of the context. Words can mean many things (they have a semantic range), but that does not give you license to apply any possible meaning a word may have in any context. This passage is not speaking of rudiments of an intellectual or religious system. It could and does mean that in other contexts. When it does, it's obvious.

 

[Calminian]

I could say the same about your scriptureless assertions. What verse speaks of a "new Eden"? And I never said the earth has no beginning. I don't know how I could have stated it plainer.

Also, both Isaiah and Revelation are books full of apocalyptic images. The New Heavens and New Earth passages in both books need to be examined carefully.

Like others, I don't know what point you're making. You say Isaiah and Revelation need to be examined carefully? Um yeah. As do Peter's epistles and the rest of Scripture. Apocalyptic Scripture needs to be approached carefully, but more importantly, read in a straightforward fashion and believed. You don't run it through your philosophies and preconceived notions first.

 

[church mouse guy]

Let me just put this to rest.

I don't care how old the earth is. All that is important is that Adam sinned, all humanity is cursed because of that sin and we need a redeemer to save us. That's what matters.
Carry on...

Thanks. I think that you represent almost all Americans in your viewpoint. Do you think that the earth and the universe will be burnt up or will they die a heat death as science postulates?