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

[asterisktom]

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.

Good idea. Let us take a look at your "semantic range" of STOICHEIA. The word appears in the following passages, noun and related verb form.

As a noun:
Gal. 4:3, 9
Col. 2:8, 20-22
Heb. 5:12
2 Peter 3:10-13

As a verb:
Acts 21:24
Phil. 3:16
Gal. 5:25
Gal. 6:16
Rom. 4:12

In every single usage the idea of "rule" or "rudiment" is not far away. In none of the non-Petrine passages is the idea of a periodic table even possible. Now when seven out of eight passages are in semantic range A - and a narrow, non-physical one it is - then the possibility should be considered that the eighth one should also be considered likewise along the same lines.

I am not the one writing nonsense. You look at the word "element" and think physical element because that is what you have been taught. I also was taught that - and taught and preached it for decades. But there came a time when I considered the possibility I was wrong. And I did my own studying.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

No, my notions I have now are post-conceived. The preconceived ones I had (past tense) were probably just like yours. That started when I picked up my first Hal Lindsey book back in 1975. And it began to get shaken when I read "The Parousia" by J. Stuart Russell.

Your biggest mistake, perhaps, is your thinking that reading in a "straightforward fashion" is the most important way to read the Bible. Straightforward understanding (over-literalness) is what caused the Jews to not recognize the first coming of their Messiah. And to misunderstand the nature of His Kingdom and the Parousia. Over-literalness was also a problem for His own disciples. They had a lot to unlearn.

Many Christians today do too.

 

[church mouse guy]

No, my notions I have now are post-conceived. The preconceived ones I had (past tense) were probably just like yours. That started when I picked up my first Hal Lindsey book back in 1975. And it began to get shaken when I read "The Parousia" by J. Stuart Russell.

Your biggest mistake, perhaps, is your thinking that reading in a "straightforward fashion" is the most important way to read the Bible. Straightforward understanding (over-literalness) is what caused the Jews to not recognize the first coming of their Messiah. And to misunderstand the nature of His Kingdom and the Parousia. Over-literalness was also a problem for His own disciples. They had a lot to unlearn.

Many Christians today do too.

Are you a preterist?

 

[asterisktom]

Are you a preterist?

Yes, I am.

 

[Van]

Returning to the OP and 2 Peter 3:10. Some in science think our sun is about 5 billion years old, and stars of that size last about 10 billion years, then die in a process that begins with an expansion of sun such that it encapsulates the earth, bringing about a fiery death.

God of course could bring about our sun's death whenever that day arrives.

Salty's link did provide useful information concerning the known errors in radiometric dating. One term we find in the material is "inclusion" which says an old rock can be found within material of a different radiometric date. So if you date an "inclusion" within a lava flow, you might get a date of millions of years ago, when the lava flow occurred in recorded history, i.e. less than 5000 years ago.

So if the earth (and our solar system) was formed from a pre-existing nebula, some of the nebula material might be an "inclusion" within earth (or other solar system) material.

As far as the date of creation from biblical calculations, they all seem to be based on calculating the date of Adam (6000 or so years ago) and assuming the creation days are 24 hour days, thus the universe is about 6000 years old. Old earthers challenge that "24 hour creation day assumption" thus opening the door to thousands, millions and billions of years.

All this seems like a house built on sand, and so I cling to the "I do not know" defense.

 

[church mouse guy]

Returning to the OP and 2 Peter 3:10. Some in science think our sun is about 5 billion years old, and stars of that size last about 10 billion years, then die in a process that begins with an expansion of sun such that it encapsulates the earth, bringing about a fiery death.

God of course could bring about our sun's death whenever that day arrives.

Salty's link did provide useful information concerning the known errors in radiometric dating. One term we find in the material is "inclusion" which says an old rock can be found within material of a different radiometric date. So if you date an "inclusion" within a lava flow, you might get a date of millions of years ago, when the lava flow occurred in recorded history, i.e. less than 5000 years ago.

So if the earth (and our solar system) was formed from a pre-existing nebula, some of the nebula material might be an "inclusion" within earth (or other solar system) material.

As far as the date of creation from biblical calculations, they all seem to be based on calculating the date of Adam (6000 or so years ago) and assuming the creation days are 24 hour days, thus the universe is about 6000 years old. Old earthers challenge that "24 hour creation day assumption" thus opening the door to thousands, millions and billions of years.

All this seems like a house built on sand, and so I cling to the "I do not know" defense.

Well, Jesus seemed to know as he said that Adam and Eve were at the beginning of Creation. Mark 10:6 (KJV) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

[church mouse guy]

Yes, I am.

Okay, So you reject the notion that the earth will be destroyed. All these layers of fossils that are sometimes a couple of miles thick or a little more are the remains of the animals that the sins of people before Noah caused. Not much of a place to live if you would like to get away from reminders of sin.

 

[Van]

Well, Jesus seemed to know as he said that Adam and Eve were at the beginning of Creation. Mark 10:6 (KJV) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

I am sure you have a point, Sir, but God made them male and female on day 6, so the beginning in view is day 6. And I believe the Bible is explicit, the first man, and mankind began about 6000 years ago. No debate, the Bible provides the generations and even if you throw in dozens of "missing generations" you still get about 6000 years ago.

 

[asterisktom]

Okay, So you reject the notion that the earth will be destroyed. All these layers of fossils that are sometimes a couple of miles thick or a little more are the remains of the animals that the sins of people before Noah caused. Not much of a place to live if you would like to get away from reminders of sin.

Maybe you are confusing me with a JW. When we die and are with the Lord we will not necessarily be on the Earth. I suspect the expansive universe is here for a grander purpose.

 

[AustinC]

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?

No, I don't think the forming of the elements of the earth matters. I do think that Adam's original sin matters. The important argument in the debate is whether we have original sin or whether there was an origin of sin. On that front, it is important to go with what God tells us, which is that Adam and Eve originally sinned and that brought the curse of sin upon all their offspring.
As to whether the days previous to Adam were 24 hour days...that's a meaningless debate that is a distraction to the issue of sin.

 

[AustinC]

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?

God destroyed humanity (all but Noah and his family) with a worldwide flood (even other cultures share the universal flood story). God says he won't destroy the world by flood anymore, but he does tell us that the earth will be burned with fire. I believe God.
That's enough for me. I don't have a desire to spend my time speculating beyond what God has revealed.

 

[Calminian]

No, I don't think the forming of the elements of the earth matters. I do think that Adam's original sin matters. The important argument in the debate is whether we have original sin or whether there was an origin of sin. On that front, it is important to go with what God tells us, which is that Adam and Eve originally sinned and that brought the curse of sin upon all their offspring.

You keep saying this, but Paul went further. He said the curse applies to the entire creation (Romans 8). The entire creation groans waiting for Christ to return. Isaiah talked about the restoration in which Animals return to the vegetarianism of Gen. 1:29-30.

Evolutionary history contradicts biblical history, in that it teaches that death has been reigning millions of years prior to Adam's sin. This is why the history of the earth is a very meaningful debate, theologically.

I can tell you firsthand, kids in the Church light up and vividly understand the Gospel, when you tell them the backstory.

 

[Calminian]

Good idea. Let us take a look at your "semantic range" of STOICHEIA. The word appears in the following passages, noun and related verb form.

Um no, that's not what you do. That's not how language and communication works. You look at how words are used in the immediate context. A words range is determined by just that, how it is used in specific contexts.

In every single usage the idea of "rule" or "rudiment" is not far away. ...

Completely and totally irrelevent. What matters his how the word is used in 2Peter 3. Finding a word used in a different context with different meanings does not mean you can apply those meanings to this word in a different context. This same error is made with the word day in Genesis.

I am not the one writing nonsense. You look at the word "element" and think physical element because that is what you have been taught......

LOL! Says the guy ignoring the immediate context? Yes, you are posting nonsense.

 

[AustinC]

You keep saying this, but Paul went further. He said the curse applies to the entire creation (Romans 8). The entire creation groans waiting for Christ to return. Isaiah talked about the restoration in which Animals return to the vegetarianism of Gen. 1:29-30.

Evolutionary history contradicts biblical history, in that it teaches that death has been reigning millions of years prior to Adam's sin. This is why the history of the earth is a very meaningful debate, theologically.

I can tell you firsthand, kids in the Church light up and vividly understand the Gospel, when you tell them the backstory.

Why do we care what scientists declare? Preach the gospel and those whom God chooses to save will be saved. Those who remain in darkness will remain in darkness. Just preach the gospel.

 

[Calminian]

Why do we care what scientists declare? Preach the gospel and those whom God chooses to save will be saved. Those who remain in darkness will remain in darkness. Just preach the gospel.

And here's where make your biggest mistake. Genesis proclaims the Gospel, from the "very good" creation to the Fall to the first gospel prophesy in Gen. 3:15. Genesis gives vital background and context to the Gospel.

Here is, in essence, what you're saying.

 

[church mouse guy]

God destroyed humanity (all but Noah and his family) with a worldwide flood (even other cultures share the universal flood story). God says he won't destroy the world by flood anymore, but he does tell us that the earth will be burned with fire. I believe God.
That's enough for me. I don't have a desire to spend my time speculating beyond what God has revealed.

Here's the problem. You believe that the universe may be about 14 billion years old in contradiction of Genesis but you think that the earth will be burnt up but science says that the universe ends in heat death. Why don't you believe science both times or believe God both times?

 

[church mouse guy]

Maybe you are confusing me with a JW. When we die and are with the Lord we will not necessarily be on the Earth. I suspect the expansive universe is here for a grander purpose.

Yeah, it is here to be destroyed because it has all been cursed and is not worth saying because it is sin stained. The universe is not so grand because it is all out of kilter and is winding down to a heat death anyway except it will be destroyed before that happens. You can't just slap a coat of paint on it and call it like new.

 

[AustinC]

Here's the problem. You believe that the universe may be about 14 billion years old in contradiction of Genesis but you think that the earth will be burnt up but science says that the universe ends in heat death. Why don't you believe science both times or believe God both times?

The Bible never gives an exact age. Never once does the Bible say that the days of creation were 24 hour, earth-cycle, days. Peter reminds us that God's time is different than ours. Therefore, I do not care how long the earth and God's creation have existed in the timeline. It doesn't matter. What matters is the curse that is upon all mankind due to Adam's rebellion.

 

[church mouse guy]

The Bible never gives an exact age. Never once does the Bible say that the days of creation were 24 hour, earth-cycle, days. Peter reminds us that God's time is different than ours. Therefore, I do not care how long the earth and God's creation have existed in the timeline. It doesn't matter. What matters is the curse that is upon all mankind due to Adam's rebellion.

Genesis is based upon a 24-hour day. And then using chronology, the years are counted until the Genesis Flood 4300 years ago, as you know.

Do you believe that the earth will die of a heat death or do you believe Peter, whom you reference on Genesis?

 

[Calminian]

The Bible never gives an exact age.

You're right. That's why Creationists never bicker about the age of the earth to the day or month or ever year. You're arguing this, but it's a straw man.

We do, however, see the importance of the sequence of events, particularly sin preceding death and struggle in creation. We believe God when he says all animals originally were vegetarian (Gen. 1:29-30) and we believe God when he says animals will once again be vegetarian (Is. 11:6-9), which Christ establishes his kingdom on earth.

Never once does the Bible say that the days of creation were 24 hour, earth-cycle, days.

Of course it does. Each day has a morning and evening. These components make it clear the author was talking about literal days with these components. Also, Moses compared the days of creation to the work week, also signifying literal 24 hour days (Ex. 20:9-11).

Peter reminds us that God's time is different than ours.

No, Peter does not say this. He says God's patience with time is greater than ours. A thousand years to God passes like a day to us. He was not telling us that the Israelites marched around Jericho for perhaps months or thousand of years. He was not telling us the word day in Scripture can mean anything.

I care about what God says. I especially care about those who misrepresent him.