E
EarlyActs
Guest
The objective here is to combine observations about 2 Peter 3 and Genesis 1 that would support a universe that is older than our solar system.
Here are a few of the blocks that make this a worthy question.
1, 2 Peter 3 uses contrasting verbs about the heavens and our earth. 'asan ekpalai' is a settled status from long ago. 'asan' is simply the plural past tense of 'to be.' That's about the heavens. But the earth is 'sunestosa' or formed from and through water, once again validating the opening of Genesis that moves from a dark watery chaos to a completed thriving human-supporting earth. Peter immediately references the power of the word/speaking of God three times:
1st, creation of the earth was through the speaking (contrast that the universe was simply 'there'--existing.)
2nd, God's command destroyed that world (the Cataclysm)
3rd, God's fiat will end it with fire in our future.
2, it seems that if you track Genesis 1 about light, you will arrive nearly at the same astronomical conclusion. There is light on the first day, but it is not our solar system. Our solar system is 'spoken' into existence on the later day 3.
*we nearly have a statement about visual resolution here as well. The light of day 1 is general, but on day 3, with the canopy there, there is enough visibility to make out stars. In Hebrew, our systems planets and larger distant stars (as we now call them) were together called stars. Ie, there is not a distinction at this time. This is an inconclusive detail, but it does give us a description where 'if you were there in person, this is what you would have seen.'
3, when Viking flew by Jupiter for radiometry, NASA was mad at Velikovsky for predicting it would be 'warm.' It was. Suppressing this is a huge feature of modern gradualist science. It was supposed to be 'cold' (radiometrically). Thus the book VELIKOVSKY RECONSIDERED is an attempt to restore some of his insights to the recognition they deserved; he was a pal of Einstein. Velikovsky believed this because of other astronomical data, but also because he was familiar with Genesis and related ancient cosmology accounts, some of which depicted 'colliding worlds'--a Velikovsky title.
We should try to go back to the opening setting of Genesis, the dark, watery chaos. The chaos part means that something that was structured and full, was no longer. We thus have an orb, a space object, with no light, yet enough atmosphere that there is a wind over the dark waters, "the deep." We should then say our solar system was added, but that the earth was there, and that it is merely one part of the distant 'heavens' or universe. The mention of this kind of object may be illuminated by a completely different feature or dimension: the same text of Peter, and its cousin document Jude, refer to a blackness darkness location as a prison of rebellious entities.
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. --Jude
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness[b] to be held for judgment; --2 Peter 2
As you can see, besides the matching physical features, there is the custody, or holding, of these entities. Peter (but not Jude) uses the term 'tartarosas' for this place, which is in Greek mythology where 'titans' were confined.
These angel revolts are apart from human time and location, but are mentioned as parallels to historic events on earth in Peter and Jude's argument about the coming judgement day. It is possible to put 2 and 2 together here, but it is not necessary either direction, as far as I can tell. It sets up the question: did God 'reform' one of these locations for mankind, called earth?
Here are a few of the blocks that make this a worthy question.
1, 2 Peter 3 uses contrasting verbs about the heavens and our earth. 'asan ekpalai' is a settled status from long ago. 'asan' is simply the plural past tense of 'to be.' That's about the heavens. But the earth is 'sunestosa' or formed from and through water, once again validating the opening of Genesis that moves from a dark watery chaos to a completed thriving human-supporting earth. Peter immediately references the power of the word/speaking of God three times:
1st, creation of the earth was through the speaking (contrast that the universe was simply 'there'--existing.)
2nd, God's command destroyed that world (the Cataclysm)
3rd, God's fiat will end it with fire in our future.
2, it seems that if you track Genesis 1 about light, you will arrive nearly at the same astronomical conclusion. There is light on the first day, but it is not our solar system. Our solar system is 'spoken' into existence on the later day 3.
*we nearly have a statement about visual resolution here as well. The light of day 1 is general, but on day 3, with the canopy there, there is enough visibility to make out stars. In Hebrew, our systems planets and larger distant stars (as we now call them) were together called stars. Ie, there is not a distinction at this time. This is an inconclusive detail, but it does give us a description where 'if you were there in person, this is what you would have seen.'
3, when Viking flew by Jupiter for radiometry, NASA was mad at Velikovsky for predicting it would be 'warm.' It was. Suppressing this is a huge feature of modern gradualist science. It was supposed to be 'cold' (radiometrically). Thus the book VELIKOVSKY RECONSIDERED is an attempt to restore some of his insights to the recognition they deserved; he was a pal of Einstein. Velikovsky believed this because of other astronomical data, but also because he was familiar with Genesis and related ancient cosmology accounts, some of which depicted 'colliding worlds'--a Velikovsky title.
We should try to go back to the opening setting of Genesis, the dark, watery chaos. The chaos part means that something that was structured and full, was no longer. We thus have an orb, a space object, with no light, yet enough atmosphere that there is a wind over the dark waters, "the deep." We should then say our solar system was added, but that the earth was there, and that it is merely one part of the distant 'heavens' or universe. The mention of this kind of object may be illuminated by a completely different feature or dimension: the same text of Peter, and its cousin document Jude, refer to a blackness darkness location as a prison of rebellious entities.
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. --Jude
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness[b] to be held for judgment; --2 Peter 2
As you can see, besides the matching physical features, there is the custody, or holding, of these entities. Peter (but not Jude) uses the term 'tartarosas' for this place, which is in Greek mythology where 'titans' were confined.
These angel revolts are apart from human time and location, but are mentioned as parallels to historic events on earth in Peter and Jude's argument about the coming judgement day. It is possible to put 2 and 2 together here, but it is not necessary either direction, as far as I can tell. It sets up the question: did God 'reform' one of these locations for mankind, called earth?