Active Now

Element 99
Malizz
Danilo_G
Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » Should God have destroyed the old Earth and created a new planet Earth that would make story of creation more believable?

Should God have destroyed the old Earth and created a new planet Earth that would make story of creation more believable?

Getting rid of all the dinosaur fossils and other evidence that our planet could have been 4.5 billion years old. 

Posted - April 23, 2017

Responses


  • 7919
    Gosh no. That would suggest that God wasn't perfect. He is, of course, which is why everything on earth is perfect, in his image. O_o
      April 23, 2017 2:29 PM MDT
    2

  • 13395
    Old Earth was around before God's time. The original gods were created in the image of man woman or beasts.  Creation story writers decided it would be more glory for God to turn it around to say man was created in the image of God. 


      April 23, 2017 2:53 PM MDT
    1

  • Perfect? What world are you referring to? 
      April 23, 2017 3:17 PM MDT
    0

  • 7919
    I'm sorry, my sarcasm font is broken. That was a nonsense answer. ;)
      April 23, 2017 3:43 PM MDT
    1

  • Alrighty then. 
      April 23, 2017 3:56 PM MDT
    0

  • Like Candide?
      April 23, 2017 5:51 PM MDT
    0

  • God could've gotten his facts straight to make the story of Creation even plausible. Plants before the sun, day and night separated before light sources, woman from a rib, contradictory accounts, sun moon and stars set into "the firmament". What nonsense. 
    Better yet, had those ancients had THEIR facts straight, there would be no need to insert god as an explanation. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 23, 2017 2:53 PM MDT
      April 23, 2017 2:39 PM MDT
    1

  • 2327
    But where did he get all of the water from? From the other planets? Maybe that's why we're so wet, and the other planets are so dehydrated? Poor aliens. No wonder they're so mad at us. 
      April 23, 2017 2:41 PM MDT
    1

  • 1430
    we dont know anything....

    maybe it been millions n millions of year before the earth was created... thus why the dinosaurs and signs that earth is old....
      April 23, 2017 2:44 PM MDT
    2

  • 2657
    I haven't read in the Bible where it states how old the earth is. Perhaps a sincere person will look up the scriptures and reason on them rather than just parrot and bash? Here's part of an article with a few relevant verses:

    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010234?q=%22Science+and+the+Genesis+Account%22&p=par

    Science and the Genesis Account

    Many people claim that science disproves the Bible’s account of creation. However, the real contradiction is, not between science and the Bible, but between science and the opinions of Christian Fundamentalists. Some of these groups falsely assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation was produced in six 24-hour days approximately 10,000 years ago.

    The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. If it did, then many scientific discoveries over the past one hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific facts. For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses disagree with Christian Fundamentalists and many creationists. The following shows what the Bible really teaches.

    Genesis does not teach that the earth and the universe were created in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago

    When Was “the Beginning”?

    The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) A number of Bible scholars agree that this statement describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening words, the universe, including our planet, Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

    Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science is not at odds with the Biblical text.

    How Long Were the Creative Days?

    What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?

    No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

    How long, then, were the creative days? The Bible does not say; however, the wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.

    Six Creative Periods

    Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or days, help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?
    ...

      April 23, 2017 2:53 PM MDT
    4

  • Nothing like conveniently citing a JW apologist site.
    There is plenty of scientific dispute with Biblical text. It is known that the sun came into being LONG BEFORE the Earth, not on the "fourth day" after the earth (and plants) as alleged in Genesis. Did God make the oceans too? When? Also BEFORE the Sun (?), which we know the earth revolves around, not merely "set into" the heavens. Heliocentric theory. 

    Perhaps reading the contradictory of account of Creation in Genesis Chap 2 might be a revelation to you. Forget science for a moment, Biblical text is at odds with itself, repeatedly.

    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 23, 2017 4:48 PM MDT
      April 23, 2017 3:32 PM MDT
    2

  • 2657
    What a lovely person. Nothing like your smug ad hominem. JW, gotta be wrong. Forget the fact that the Bible doesn't say the earth wasn't created over 4 billion years ago. By your comment about the sun and the earth, you obviously haven't clicked on the link. Unlike you, I've considered both sides, I just happen to listen to more than one opinion and weigh the evidence.

    Here's part of another article that you will enjoy spreading your hateful comments at:

    [Different Viewpoints
    15 Sometimes the Bible writers wrote about the same event from different viewpoints, or they presented their accounts in different ways. When these differences are taken into consideration, further apparent contradictions are easy to resolve. An example of this is in Numbers 35:14, where Moses speaks of the territory east of the Jordan as “on this side of the Jordan.” Joshua, however, speaking of land to the east of the Jordan, called it “the other side of the Jordan.” (Joshua 22:4) Which is correct?
    16 In fact, both are correct. According to the account in Numbers, the Israelites had not yet crossed the Jordan River into the Promised Land, so to them east of the Jordan was “this side.” But Joshua had already crossed the Jordan. He was now, physically, west of the river, in the land of Canaan. So east of the Jordan was, for him, “the other side.”
    17 Additionally, the way a narrative is constructed can lead to an apparent contradiction. At Genesis 1:24-26, the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19, 20, it seems to say that man was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.—Genesis 2:5–4:26.
    18 The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive “days.” The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “Jehovah God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.—Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26.]
      April 23, 2017 5:08 PM MDT
    4

  • Yea, hateful. Thats what we always hear from the pious when presented with counterpoints to their flawed dogma. Excuses and persecution. 
    Way to divert from the point at hand though, were we discussing Joshua? Contradictions are --differing points of view, yet the chronologies dont match each other?  Isn't this the unerring word of God? Puh leaze.

    I made no mention of any billions of years, and you know nothing about me to assert I haven't weighed both sides. Talk about Ad Hominem.
    You don't address my contentions about scientific disagreements with Biblical texts, and my few examples are barely but a scratch on that. The fact is there isn't a single fact to support a word of what the OT claims, not a shred of tangible evidence, so it defies imagination what it is you could have possibly "weighed" in your position. 

    It is overwhelmingly clear to anyone with a modern understanding of science that Adam and Eve are vacant myths, the Garden of Eden is a fanciful fable, and the Bible is neither a science book nor a credible historical textbook. Quoting as you do from such an unreliably uncorroborated,  translation of a translation of a translation of ancient folklore in addressing the question at hand is more an indictment of your own misapprehension of science and detachment from logic than any proof of biblical accuracy on these points. 

    You have generously presented examples of your interpretive rationalizations of scriptural inconsistencies, but achieve nothing in verifying their factuality. Thanks Reverend, but I've studied the Bible, and it is wanting. 


    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 23, 2017 7:59 PM MDT
      April 23, 2017 6:38 PM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    It is both a pleasure and a new experience to watch this played out from my newly acquired (potentially temporary) position as "spectator." This post was edited by tom jackson at April 24, 2017 9:28 AM MDT
      April 23, 2017 6:54 PM MDT
    3

  • Hi Tom, it has become an issue in this case to differentiate between a discussion of facts and science, and interpretation of beliefs. Texas pete here sees hate where there is only informed opposition. 

      April 23, 2017 7:17 PM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    Hi, Z---That's one of the reasons I'm enjoying this.  Your ability to clarify the points in the discussion is quite satisfying to observe.


      April 23, 2017 7:22 PM MDT
    2

  • 2657
    Didn't you say: "Nothing like conveniently citing a JW apologist site"? Isn't that attacking the source rather than whats being stated? You consider that to be loving while I consider it to be a bit hateful as if JW's are less than human. Hitler felt the same way so your in good company. Perhaps Russia would be a good fit for your kind of hatefulness.

    Quote: "I made no mention of any billions of years"

    Excuse me, that's from the original question that I was responding to in my answer. You seemed to evade that point and brought up your own false interpretations as I don't see where the Bible says that the earth was created before the sun
      April 23, 2017 7:08 PM MDT
    2

  • Really?
    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the EARTH.

    Genesis 1:16-19 God made two great lights...and set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth...and the evening and the morning were the FOURTH day. 

    So ends our objective lesson on Biblical chronology. BTW, Hitler was a Christian, I'm decidedly not.
    We're done here. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 23, 2017 7:56 PM MDT
      April 23, 2017 7:34 PM MDT
    0

  • 2657
    [Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the EARTH.]
    It is my understanding that the sun is in the heavens and therefore created before the fourth creative day. I do see how many as yourself interpret Gen 1:16-19 as the sun being created before the earth but that is neither consistent with Genesis 1:1 or science. 

    [First “Day”
    8 “‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3, 5.
    9 Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.
    10 Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.—See footnote b for verse 14.
    ...
    ...
    Fourth “Day”
    20 “‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.
    21 Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohrʹ, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohrʹ in verse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.
    22 An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life.
    23 Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on.—Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.]



    Hitler was Catholic, not a Christian as described in the Christian Greek scriptures. If you think he was, you might read the scriptures again.

    I could claim to be an atheist but since I now believe in God I wouldn't really fit the definition of an atheist as described in a dictionary.



    Being as you have studied the Bible I don't understand why you didn't correct the questioner on his assumption that the Bible somehow says the earth isn't at least four billion years old. You even quoted Gen 1:1 where it says the earth was created in the beginning.

    And again: [Didn't you say: "Nothing like conveniently citing a JW apologist site"? Isn't that attacking the source rather than whats being stated? You consider that to be loving while I consider it to be a bit hateful as if JW's are less than human. Hitler felt the same way so your in good company. Perhaps Russia would be a good fit for your kind of hatefulness.

    Quote: "I made no mention of any billions of years"

    Excuse me, that's from the original question that I was responding to in my answer.]

    EDIT: What translation have you studied, King James?
    This post was edited by texasescimo at April 23, 2017 9:37 PM MDT
      April 23, 2017 8:16 PM MDT
    1

  • Geez, Texas, So much extra-biblical rationalizing ---- spinning scripture to your own ends? 

    Those two luminaries, the sun and moon were "made" after the creation of heaven and earth. Its nonsense, but scripturally accurate nonetheless. 

    The "No True Scotsman Fallacy", huh? Since when aren't Catholics  Christians? 

    You have lost all credibility in this discussion. 
      April 23, 2017 8:46 PM MDT
    0

  • 2657
    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the EARTH.
    You don't think the sun would be in the heavens?


    Quote: "Since when aren't Catholics  Christians?"
    You studied the Bible and you think Hitler was a Christian? 
    You do know that Christians get their teachings from the Christian Greek scriptures, yes?

    I know it doesn't fit your agenda but did you ever figure out that the original question had something to do with rather or not the Bible allows for the earth to have been here for billions of years?
      April 24, 2017 2:26 AM MDT
    0

  • I have no doubt whatsoever the sun was shining before the earth formed, but that isnt what Genesis says. 
    Yes I have studied the bible (also the Quran, the Talmud, the Vedas, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, among many others) and I know Christians get their primary teachings from the New Testament Gospels. I also know that every one of the Christian spinoff sub-cults (like yours) cherrypicks, reimagines, retranslates and repackages some form of those texts to contrive their own version of truth, as you do. Proof enough of the fallacies inherent in all of them.
    Id say you'll have a tough time convincing a couple billion Catholics (at the very least) that they aren't Christians, no matter whether you think they are or not.  Not credible.
    Nothing in your arguments is persuasive, only that you know slightly less about Adolph Hitler than what paltry little you know about Christianity or science. Of course there is no mention of how old the earth is in Genesis because the ignorant, fearful ancients who wrote it had no idea of such large expanses of time as the concept of billions of years. Religion arose in the absence of science, science arose despite the presence (and interference) of religion, and at some point in the all-too-distant future, theist religion will be rendered irrelevent by science. The bible will join the dinosaurs and Neanderthals it knew nothing about. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 24, 2017 7:48 AM MDT
      April 24, 2017 6:33 AM MDT
    0

  • 2657
    Okay Mr Know It All, show me what translation/mistranslation and what verses in the Christian Greek scriptures support Hitler's atrocities and previous atrocities committed by the Catholic Church throughout history. I guess to you that someone can claim to be a Trump supporter while trying to impeach or kill Trump and you will still believe that they are a Trump supporter because they say so. If I say I am Napoleon Bonaparte who died in 1821 that I am truly Napoleon because I said so. 

    (Matthew 7:21-23) “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’
      April 24, 2017 7:59 AM MDT
    0

  • You go on with your No True Scotsman Fallacy and your interpretations of who is or isn't this or that. Means nothing to those who profess their particular faith in their own ways. Funny how its exactly what you do too. Cherrypicking scripture (or even which version)for ones own ends is nothing new for Theists. As Shakespeare said: "The devil can site scripture for his purpose". 

    Btw, are you wearing mixed fabrics? Do your menfolk shave their beards or stone non-virgins to death on their daddy's doorstep? No doubt you follow Leviticus like every other book, Right?  This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 24, 2017 10:08 AM MDT
      April 24, 2017 9:54 AM MDT
    0