Why is earth's AGE important to you?

[didactics]

So you also see an unspecifiedly length of time interval.

I see it inbetween Genesis 1:1 and verse 2.
You see it inbetween Day#6 and the time Eve's conversation with the serpent.

Now I did not specifically say a heavenly place though.
I think being cast from the mountain of God may refer being cast from the government of God.

I think his jurisdiction extended to below heaven.

Some of this is beyond my ability to interpret what little we are told.
I cannot insist I know the nature of the Cherub's body.

The stones of fire upon which the Anointed Cherub walked could be the glorious paved work of saphire Moses saw beneath the feet of God in Exodus

And they saw the God of Israel, and under His feet there was something like a paved work of sapphire, even like heaven itself for clearness. (Exo. 24:10)
comp.
you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. (Ezek. 28:14b)

He was extremely CLOSE to God Almighty. What a position of high honor.

These angelic "sons of God" who horrendously violated their assigned nature were ESPECIALLY dangerous and CONFINED to the top security part of the abyss. They are the spirits in prison that Jesus in Hades announced His victory over in 1 Peter 3.18-20.

[Christ] . . . being put to death in the flesh, but on the other, made alive in the Spirit;
In which also He went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,
Who had formerly disobeyed when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared; entering into which, a few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through by water. (1 Pet. 3:18b-20)

Particularly heineous was their crime for which they have been especially confined in Tartarus, the deepest regions of the abyss.

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned but delivered them to gloomy pits, having cast them down to Tartarus, they being kept for judgment; (2 Pet. 2:4)
comp.
And angels who did not keep their own principality but abandoned their own dwelling place, He has kept in eternal bonds under gloom for the judgment of the great day; (Jude 6)

Angels in Noah's day did something particularly offensive to the Creator.
These angels who took form as men to impregnate women to derange the creation of God are set apart from others who still roam the heavenlies.

Now we must discuss the 24 elders of CREATION in Revelation.
This class of very ancient and most elderly of created beings is probably the CLASS from which the Anointed Cherub came.

In Revelation the 24 elders are not the elders of Israel. Nor are they the elders of the church. John who is one of the original twelve disciples SEES them. John is not AMONG them. And surely John is elder among the Christians. So as consistent with the theme of Revelation 4 these elders must be the elders of God's creation. These are the oldest beings God created vested with authority, hence the thrones and crowns.

And around the throne there were twenty-four thrones, and upon the thrones twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and upon their heads golden crowns. (Rev. 4:4)

The twenty-four elders will fall before Him who sits upon the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever; and they will cast their crowns before the throne, saying, You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created. (Rev. 4:10,11)

From this class of the most ancient created beings, before God created man, Satan arose.
This is how I would teach, not that Satan was necessarily one of these 24 elders.
But in principle, Satan came from the class of the eldest of created beings who were vested by the Creator with authority.

I agree there must be ranks among spiritual beings. And I assume there are ranks among demons, but who's to say none of them are fallen angels? You say only Satan is a fallen angel I take it. Maybe there are other classes of spiritual beings that are not angelic or cherubic in particular. But I assumed "angel" was a broad term to include any spirit being, a being not originally in a state that houses a body physically.


And right, you are not the only one to see an unspecified length of time in the first chapter of Genesis. Well, actually, I take that back, you are the only one to see that as representing the gap theory, while I do not, as representing the YEC view. Of course though, there are spots in the narrative of the Bible where there is an unspecified length of time. But it's also true that we can come up with a general estimate of timespan based on genealogies that are provided. My point being that Adam's fall into sin couldn't have been a long time, definitely no more than a year. For one, Eve was fertile and in a perfect state when she was made, and Cain was not conceived until Genesis 4:1. And two, they wouldn't wait around too long because they were told to fill the earth and multiply.

 

[oikonomia]

I agree there must be ranks among spiritual beings. And I assume there are ranks among demons, but who's to say none of them are fallen angels?

There is plenty of evil mischief to go around.
A characteristic of the demons is thier desire to inhabit physical bodies of sinners.

You say only Satan is a fallen angel I take it.

No, there are many fallen angels who followed him.

Maybe there are other classes of spiritual beings that are not angelic or cherubic in particular. But I assumed "angel" was a broad term to include any spirit being, a being not originally in a state that houses a body physically.

The locusts that are released from the abyss in Revelation 9, have you ever wondered where they came from?

And he opened the pit of the abyss, and smoke went up out of the pit like the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by the smoke of the pit. And out of the smoke came forth locusts to the earth, and to them power was given, as the scorpions of the earth have power.(Rev. 9:2,3)

Do you think they are beings God created before or after Day#6 who somehow got corrupted?
I think they must be beings from that pre-adamic age. They are or are with demons.

From whenever they are they were kept confined until Satan releases them.
Their perculiar appearance suggests to me they were submissive and subservient to the Devil in times past -(hair like the hair of women).

And the locusts were like horses prepared for war, and on their heads there were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were like faces of men. And they had hair like the hair of women, and their teeth were like the teeth of lions. (Rev. 9:7,8)

And right, you are not the only one to see an unspecified length of time in the first chapter of Genesis. Well, actually, I take that back, you are the only one to see that as representing the gap theory, while I do not, as representing the YEC view.

In recent years the presence of flexible blood tissue found in dinosaur bones suggest they lived not as long ago as generally assumed.
It is interesting to me that without the revelation of the bible still scientists assume a cataclysmic end of their world.

Whether they assume a killer comet, or killer gas, or some other killing event, generally researchers ascertain SOME terrible calamity
terminated abruptly that era. I know most of my dear YEC brethren would say "That was the flood of Noah, of course."

Well, it seems uncanny to me that the "revelation" of nature suggests that whole populations of beings can suddenly be terminated.
It is like God shows us in His word. But if we do not heed that, God shows us in the fossil record. An entire world of living things He can end violently.

Of course though, there are spots in the narrative of the Bible where there is an unspecified length of time. But it's also true that we can come up with a general estimate of timespan based on genealogies that are provided. My point being that Adam's fall into sin couldn't have been a long time, definitely no more than a year. For one, Eve was fertile and in a perfect state when she was made, and Cain was not conceived until Genesis 4:1. And two, they wouldn't wait around too long because they were told to fill the earth and multiply.

Before I leave this post, I would like to add something about the nature of demons. I told you before that they roam around in "waterless places" because somehow they rebel against their assigned confinement - the sea.

Revelation 16:13,14 reveals that the demons sent out to deceive human kings and their armies look like frogs.

And I saw, out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits as frogs; For they are spirits of demons doing signs, which go forth to the kings of the whole inhabited earth to gather them to the war of the great day of God the Almighty.

Frogs, as you know are amphibious animals. They live partly in water and partly on land.
My opinion is that this also means the demons who should be confined to the sea in revolt roam around
on the dry land also - like frogs.

When in the last judgment, the sea gives up the dead, it must mean that the demons, along with dead humans, are brought to judgment.
If the dead humans who drowned in the sea are in Hades, there is redundancy for John to say they came out of the sea.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, each of them, according to their works. (Rev. 20:13)

1.) All the dead humans are given up by Hades regardless of how they died.
2.) Therefore the dead given up by the sea are the dead beings who are today's demons.

They all are judged by God according to their works.
And they are cast into the lake of fire according to their names not being in the Lamb's book of life.

And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire. (vs. 14,15)

At that time the demons are tormented at the time they previously dreaded.

And behold, they cried out, saying, What do we have to do with You, Son of God?
Have You come here before the time to torment us? (Matt. 8:29)

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I mean when science is assumed the only way man can know truth, then the contrast is necessary.

It may prove helpful in providing an alternative after destroying the original argument but, in the case you mention, I would say that no contrast is necessary because such a statement is so intellectually bankrupt as to be incredibly stupid. The technical and more sophisticated analysis is that it's self-referentially incoherent. "Science is the only way man can know truth." Is that proposition true? Only if it can be demonstrated scientifically—and it can't. So, it isn't.

There, done. Nothing more amusing than atheists defeating themselves. You need only stand by and watch.

But when people like Richard Dawkins try to force them as necessrily polar opposites, the contrast should be highlighted.

Richard Dawkins has a long history of uttering logical trainwrecks. The only thing you need to do is highlight the logical fallacy and move along. "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you yourself also be like him" (Prov 26:4). Expose his idiotic folly, denying him an opportunity to regard himself or be regarded as clever or wise (v. 5).

I agree. Again, some atheists will not permit this parallel.

Of course. I mean, they're atheists. I wouldn't expect any different. And they're still either wrong, illogical, or flat-out incoherent. Any opposition to God will inherently be one of those.

 

[oikonomia]

It may prove helpful in providing an alternative after destroying the original argument but, in the case you mention, I would say that no contrast is necessary because such a statement is so intellectually bankrupt as to be incredibly stupid. The technical and more sophisticated analysis is that it's self-referentially incoherent. "Science is the only way man can know truth." Is that proposition true? Only if it can be demonstrated scientifically—and it can't. So, it isn't.

There, done. Nothing more amusing than atheists defeating themselves. You need only stand by and watch.




Richard Dawkins has a long history of uttering logical trainwrecks. The only thing you need to do is highlight the logical fallacy and move along. "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you yourself also be like him" (Prov 26:4). Expose his idiotic folly, denying him an opportunity to regard himself or be regarded as clever or wise (v. 5).




Of course. I mean, they're atheists. I wouldn't expect any different. And they're still either wrong, illogical, or flat-out incoherent. Any opposition to God will inherently be one of those.

 

[oikonomia]

It may prove helpful in providing an alternative after destroying the original argument but, in the case you mention, I would say that no contrast is necessary because such a statement is so intellectually bankrupt as to be incredibly stupid. The technical and more sophisticated analysis is that it's self-referentially incoherent. "Science is the only way man can know truth." Is that proposition true? Only if it can be demonstrated scientifically—and it can't. So, it isn't.

Yes. I am familiar with the term.

There, done. Nothing more amusing than atheists defeating themselves. You need only stand by and watch.

Richard Dawkins has a long history of uttering logical trainwrecks. The only thing you need to do is highlight the logical fallacy and move along. "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you yourself also be like him" (Prov 26:4). Expose his idiotic folly, denying him an opportunity to regard himself or be regarded as clever or wise (v. 5).

Over the years I have heard a few interesting reactions from Christians about how to deal with atheists.
I am always ready to hear from the experience of others.

Here are two which stand out from Christians who weighed in.
One brother told me that when you meet someone like that "Get away from him man !"

Another time I worked with a fellow who had become a believer but had formerly been a strong atheist with a Catholic upbringing.
I specifically asked him, since he had been a strong atheist before, did he have advice on how to deal with them.

He told me what suprised me at the time. He said "First of all, to argue with an atheist like you have a better reason than he for the existence of God, is the exact WORST thing you can do." I remember that being counter intuitive and unusual.

So then asked him HOW then did he deal with atheists having known how one thinks. He said "I let them watch me."
After a little more talk I understood that he meant he relied on his testimony of character over a period of time being around them like in the work place.

You've probably heard the axiom - "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary."

Of course. I mean, they're atheists. I wouldn't expect any different. And they're still either wrong, illogical, or flat-out incoherent. Any opposition to God will inherently be one of those.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

So then I asked him how did he deal with atheists, having known how one thinks. He said, "I let them watch me." After a little more talk, I understood he meant that he relied on his testimony of character over a period of time being around them like in the work place. You've probably heard the axiom, "Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary."

That might work in the context of doing life together over the long-term. It does not work, however, in the context of a godless argument being presented, either by an atheist right there in the moment or by speakers or writers like Richard Dawkins whom you are unlikely to meet—especially when you have fellow Christians wondering how to respond to such arguments. In all such cases, my response is the same: I demonstrate the falsehood, illogic, or incoherence of the godless argument.

 

[oikonomia]

That might work in the context of doing life together over the long-term. It does not work, however, in the context of a godless argument being presented, either by an atheist right there in the moment or by speakers or writers like Richard Dawkins whom you are unlikely to meet—especially when you have fellow Christians wondering how to respond to such arguments. In all such cases, my response is the same: I demonstrate the falsehood, illogic, or incoherence of the godless argument.

When I find myself praying about a person like this, often I feel rather to pray for those influenced by such a man, more than the man.
It just kind of flows in that direction.

I think you would agree that often it is not the atheist you are trying to convert.
But people standing by observing the dialogue may be persuaded.

 

[oikonomia]

People who push back always start at the beginning, the earth 6000 years old or millions. Its becoming more and more apparent that the creation story just doesn't hold so we appear naive. As far as adding all the miracles, including the virgin birth, they stand on their own as miracles.
Blessings

Did I mention to you this funny cartoon?

A group of scientists are collected around a chalkboard filled with complexed equations.
And one of them is saying -
"The most depressing thing is that everything we believe here today will one day be proved wrong."

Look how the James Webb telescope is upsetting the Big Bang model of the universe.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Did I mention to you this funny cartoon?

A group of scientists are collected around a chalkboard filled with complexed equations.
And one of them is saying -
"The most depressing thing is that everything we believe here today will one day be proved wrong."

Look how the James Webb telescope is upsetting the Big Bang model of the universe.

Not everything. Blessings.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Well, I do not want to have anything to do with the Beast.

But God can use historical things to also carried allegorical meaning.
Am I right that is it not always an either / or situation?

The ark of Noah, I take as historical.
I take it also as a symbol of Christ and the church.

Manna from heaven, I take as historical.
I also take it as a symbol of Christ the bread which came down from heavem in John chapter 6.

The ark of the covenant, I take as historical.
I also take it as a symbol of Christ.

The Tower of Babel I take as a historical artifact.
I also take it to represent the entire human history of man declaring independence from God.

Yes, I agree that many, many experiences of the OT are "types" of some "antitypical" fulfillment in the NT. For instance, the "Kinsman Redeemer" law requiring that only a near relative could redeem the family debt of one who is incapable of paying it foreshadows the necessity of Christ's incarnation as our "Brother" to the human family, only by which He could pay the penalty for sin every single one of us is hopelessly unable to pay.

The Bible is an inexhaustible mine of precious jewels of truth free to all who would seek after them.

 

[didactics]

Do you think they are beings God created before or after Day#6 who somehow got corrupted?
I think they must be beings from that pre-adamic age. They are or are with demons.

Now I don't know why you're giving me only two options here. I think all spiritual beings were created on day one. And after day six there was a rebellion that took place.

 

[oikonomia]

Now I don't know why you're giving me only two options here. I think all spiritual beings were created on day one. And after day six there was a rebellion that took place.

So you do not believe there was any pre-six days, pre-adamic creation of beings who rebelled?

Now if I believe the Anointed Cherub was created on Genesis Days#1 then I have to believe before God made a garden in Eden, He set this being there.

You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx, jasper, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald, with gold. The workmanship of your tambourines and your pipes was prepared with you on the day that you were created.(Ezek. 28:13)

Okay, to be fair, one could take this as God created this being on Day# 1 and latter in the week placed him in Eden's garden.

Once again, what I think you overlook is that this would be having TWO great deputy authorities at the same time ordained to supervize Eden.
Is there any clue in Genesis one or two that somewhere else in Eden's garden this glorious, splendid, all-wise, kingly / priestly creature co-shared with Adam jurisdiction of Eden?

No, destruction / reconstruction is the way to go.
Lucifer's failure gave occasion for man's creation.

The former preceded the latter not the two running in simultaneity.
God did not create the earth waste.
For thus says Jehovah, / Who created the heavens — / He is the God / Who formed the earth and made it; / He established it; / He did not create it waste, / But He formed it to be inhabited: / I am Jehovah and there is no one else; (Isa. 45:18)

What the seer saw in the revelation of the six days was the earth had become waste through judgment.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters. (Gen. 1:1,2 Recovery Version)

The word there for our English of how he saw the earth is the same for what happened to Lot's wife.
She BECAME a pillar of salt.
But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. (Gen. 19:26)

 

[didactics]

So you do not believe there was any pre-six days, pre-adamic creation of beings who rebelled?

Now if I believe the Anointed Cherub was created on Genesis Days#1 then I have to believe before God made a garden in Eden, He set this being there.

You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx, jasper, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald, with gold. The workmanship of your tambourines and your pipes was prepared with you on the day that you were created.(Ezek. 28:13)

Okay, to be fair, one could take this as God created this being on Day# 1 and latter in the week placed him in Eden's garden.

Once again, what I think you overlook is that this would be having TWO great deputy authorities at the same time ordained to supervize Eden.
Is there any clue in Genesis one or two that somewhere else in Eden's garden this glorious, splendid, all-wise, kingly / priestly creature co-shared with Adam jurisdiction of Eden?

No, destruction / reconstruction is the way to go.
Lucifer's failure gave occasion for man's creation.

The former preceded the latter not the two running in simultaneity.
God did not create the earth waste.
For thus says Jehovah, / Who created the heavens — / He is the God / Who formed the earth and made it; / He established it; / He did not create it waste, / But He formed it to be inhabited: / I am Jehovah and there is no one else; (Isa. 45:18)

What the seer saw in the revelation of the six days was the earth had become waste through judgment.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters. (Gen. 1:1,2 Recovery Version)

The word there for our English of how he saw the earth is the same for what happened to Lot's wife.
She BECAME a pillar of salt.
But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. (Gen. 19:26)

Well in context it sounds to me like "did not create it waste" means he did not create earth to be empty but to be inhabited, that is it's purpose.


Also, I think Ezekiel is using poetic language here to allude to Satan's position and rank before he fell. It is not talking about a physical garden.

 

[oikonomia]

Well in context it sounds to me like "did not create it waste" means he did not create earth to be empty but to be inhabited, that is it's purpose.

The first edition of Joseph Rotherham's "Emphazied Bible" had this note for Genesis 1:2 - "waste and wild"
----------------------------------
Heb. : tohu wa vohu Evidently an idomatic phrase, with a play on the sounds ("assonance"). The two words occur together
only in Is. xxxiv; Jer. iv. 23 ; examples which favour the conclusion that here also they describe the result of previous overthrow. Tohu
by itself is found in several other texts (Deu. xxxii.10; Job xii, 24; Ps. evil. 40; Is xxiv.10 xxxiv. 111; etc.,
------------------------------------

Tohu wa vohu is a play on sound like the expression "topsy-turvy" or "helter-skelter".
I believe "waste and void" or "without form and void" indicates past divine judgment occured by God.

Also, I think Ezekiel is using poetic language here to allude to Satan's position and rank before he fell. It is not talking about a physical garden.

Let me ask you this then. If this angelic being was in heaven and cast down to earth after revolt as junk to God,
are you saying God used the Garden of Eden where Adam was as a carbage can like place to discard Satan ?

That would be strange to thrown out of Heaven into the Edenic paradise as a place to throw away a bad angel.

 

[didactics]

The first edition of Joseph Rotherham's "Emphazied Bible" had this note for Genesis 1:2 - "waste and wild"
----------------------------------
Heb. : tohu wa vohu Evidently an idomatic phrase, with a play on the sounds ("assonance"). The two words occur together
only in Is. xxxiv; Jer. iv. 23 ; examples which favour the conclusion that here also they describe the result of previous overthrow. Tohu
by itself is found in several other texts (Deu. xxxii.10; Job xii, 24; Ps. evil. 40; Is xxiv.10 xxxiv. 111; etc.,
------------------------------------

Tohu wa vohu is a play on sound like the expression "topsy-turvy" or "helter-skelter".
I believe "waste and void" or "without form and void" indicates past divine judgment occured by God.


Let me ask you this then. If this angelic being was in heaven and cast down to earth after revolt as junk to God,
are you saying God used the Garden of Eden where Adam was as a carbage can like place to discard Satan ?

That would be strange to thrown out of Heaven into the Edenic paradise as a place to throw away a bad angel.

Well, the way I see it is when there was a revolt in heaven, Satan lost his position but that didn't mean there was a literal fall from heaven as God probably did not create hell yet, but what do I know, really I don't know. But for Satan to lose his job is like falling from his place. The literal fall doesn't happen until he is cast into the lake of fire.


And yes, the words used in Gen. 1:2 does describe confusion and emptiness as in Is. 34:11 to describe Edom's judgment. But it does not mean I must conclude earth had a previous overthrow because these words are used. I like how Matthew Henry puts it in his commentary:



The Creator could have made his work perfect at first, but by this gradual proceeding he would show what is, ordinarily, the method of his providence and grace.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why is the age of the earth an important matter to you (if it is)?

It isn't important to me. It's just something interesting to study.

What is the most important thing that knowing the age of the earth will tell you?

There's not much that is important in this topic; it especially doesn't apply to the discussion of whether there is a God or not, or whether or not the Bible is "true."

So, I'd say, study science and the Bible and don't worry about it.

 

[oikonomia]

It isn't important to me. It's just something interesting to study.


There's not much that is important in this topic; it especially doesn't apply to the discussion of whether there is a God or not, or whether or not the Bible is "true."

Of course there is God. Am I right?
Creationism - implies a Creator.

I did not include this discussion in the Science threads.
Here this discussion is of those who take God's existence for granted.

So, I'd say, study science and the Bible and don't worry about it.

We study science to see how things work.
We listen to the Bible to learn WHY there is a world.

I think the linear view of history revealed in God's word is important to know where things came from and why and
where things will ultimately end up, and why.

Important to this imo is man was created after the failed rebellion of another being and his subjects duped by him.
I think Psalm 8 shows that man was created to still the Avenger, the one who desired revenge against God for the overthrown of his pre-human kingdom.


O Jehovah our Lord, / How excellent is Your name / In all the earth, / You who have set Your glory over the heavens! (v.1)
This is a Psalm about the mystery of creation.

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings / You have established strength / Because of Your adversaries, / To stop the enemy and the avenger. (v.2)
There is an avenger with his enemies that man (even the baby men) were created to STOP.

When I see Your heavens, the works of Your fingers, / The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, (v.3)
Compared to the majesty of things created, man might feel insignificant.

What is mortal man, that You remember him, / And the son of man, that You visit him? (v.4)
This certainly rings bells. Modern man is indictrinated with the thought that there is nothing special about us.

You have made Him a little lower than angels / And have crowned Him with glory and honor. (v.5)
The first angelic ruler was vested with such authority. But he rebelled.
God then created a seemingly lower creature, man. Out of the dust God created him.
But the plans for this dusty seemingly inferior creation will bring utter glory to God.

We see Jesus as the man mingled with God reigning forever as our Elder Brother.
And we saved to be conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son to be followed by many brothers.

Hebrews 2:8-10 -
You have subjected all things under His feet.” For in subjecting all things to Him, He left nothing unsubject to Him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to Him,

But we see Jesus, who was made a little inferior to the angels because of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death on behalf of everything.

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in leading many sons into glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
For You have caused Him to rule over the works of Your hands; / You have put all things under His feet:

 

[oikonomia]

Well, the way I see it is when there was a revolt in heaven, Satan lost his position but that didn't mean there was a literal fall from heaven as God probably did not create hell yet, but what do I know, really I don't know. But for Satan to lose his job is like falling from his place. The literal fall doesn't happen until he is cast into the lake of fire.

How do you feel about the Lord saying He saw Satan fall from heaven here?
And He said to them, I was watching Satan fall like lightning out of heaven. (Luke 10:18)

I believe this He saw in relation to His disciples casting out demons. defeating the devil's damage, and opposing Him
by means of the kingdom of God.

And yes, the words used in Gen. 1:2 does describe confusion and emptiness as in Is. 34:11 to describe Edom's judgment. But it does not mean I must conclude earth had a previous overthrow because these words are used. I like how Matthew Henry puts it in his commentary:

The Creator could have made his work perfect at first, but by this gradual proceeding he would show what is, ordinarily, the method of his providence and grace.

That is a good comment from Brother Matthew Henry imo.

It appears that God creating things pefect includes the creation of free will in His beings.
Of course free will entails that some will have their will oppose the eternal will of God.

I would also bring to attention that poetic or no, the New Jerusalem possess in the END what the Anointed Cherub seems to have had.
I speak of the glory of the precious stone covering.

Ezekiel 28:13a - You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx, jasper, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald, with gold.

The New Jerusalem whose wall is adorn with precious stones keeps God's interest in and protects from any damage.
The precious stones represent, if you can receive it, the transformed human beings. They have been made living stones to be built up a spiritual house - sons of God conformed and transformed into the image of the Firstborn Son of God, Jesus. You yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house into a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 2:5)

Now look.

Revelation 21:19,20 -
The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every precious stone: the first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst.

We were created to replace the deputy authority of the Anointed Cherub AND some.
Through redemption and transformation built up into a dwelling place of God, His living temple.

What do you think?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course there is God. Am I right?
Creationism - implies a Creator.

And? Anyone can create a word to designate a referent. This doesn't mean that what is signified by a word necessarily reflects reality. Besides, there's different level of "creationism," so you might keep that in mind.

I did not include this discussion in the Science threads.
Here this discussion is of those who take God's existence for granted.

Why didn't you say so specifically in your OP? It doesn't matter than this thread is placed in the "creationism" section if the term itself doesn't necessitate a strong, literal, fundamental sense of its usage.

 

[didactics]

How do you feel about the Lord saying He saw Satan fall from heaven here?
And He said to them, I was watching Satan fall like lightning out of heaven. (Luke 10:18)

I believe this He saw in relation to His disciples casting out demons. defeating the devil's damage, and opposing Him
by means of the kingdom of God.

That is a good comment from Brother Matthew Henry imo.

It appears that God creating things pefect includes the creation of free will in His beings.
Of course free will entails that some will have their will oppose the eternal will of God.

I would also bring to attention that poetic or no, the New Jerusalem possess in the END what the Anointed Cherub seems to have had.
I speak of the glory of the precious stone covering.

Ezekiel 28:13a - You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx, jasper, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald, with gold.

The New Jerusalem whose wall is adorn with precious stones keeps God's interest in and protects from any damage.
The precious stones represent, if you can receive it, the transformed human beings. They have been made living stones to be built up a spiritual house - sons of God conformed and transformed into the image of the Firstborn Son of God, Jesus. You yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house into a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 2:5)

Now look.

Revelation 21:19,20 -
The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every precious stone: the first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst.

We were created to replace the deputy authority of the Anointed Cherub AND some.
Through redemption and transformation built up into a dwelling place of God, His living temple.

What do you think?

Well, I see the reference in Ezekiel alluding to the new Jerusalem and I get that. But the new Jerusalem is not yet. And I'm not convinced that Satan literally fell from heaven but I think in his revolt he left his duty. The reason being that Satan is said to approach God and question his character in the book of Job and this indicates he still has access to God to challenge him if God permits.