getting dates about a young earth

[DP]

I would assume the majority of people on this thread believe in the
creator God, that God created the earth/universe etc and that it did not evolve,
big bang theory etc.

That being the case then as far as I can see, Christians then become split
into two camps, those who believe that a day in genesis
literally means a day; and those who believe God created the universe
via evolution in that he set the universe rolling along free to evolve on
its journey.

That's actually a straw man argument, because there are those who believe God's Word very much but do not believe in man's theories of evolution, yet they still understand that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years.

Even the fundamentalist preacher in the famous Scope's Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tn. said he believed the creation was very ancient while he was against the theory of evolution.

 

[Dino246]

Shem was 98 when the Flood ended. He begat Arpachshad two years after the Flood at 100. after he begat Arpachshad he lived 500 years. Got it?

the ages of each who followed when they bore a son were 35, 30, 34, 30, 32, 30, 29. Terah 70 at which he begat Abraham = 290.

so from the flood to Abraham was 292 years. Got it? Shem was 390. Got it?

Depending when you think Abraham lived (2000 - 1700 BC) that makes the flood between 2300 and 2000 BC.

There is no evidence for a worldwide flood at that time. Full stop!

Thank you for clarifying. As an aside, writing, "Got it?" repeatedly is disrespectful.

One source (The Biblical Date for the Exodus is 1446 BC: A Response to James Hoffmeier) puts the date of the Exodus at 1446 BC, which puts the entry to Egypt at 1876 BC, and that puts Abraham's birth prior to 2000 BC, which pushes the flood back to about 2400 BC.

You assert "no evidence" which is easy to state, and difficult to 'prove'. The absence of evidence does not nullify an assertion. For centuries there was no evidence of the Hittites outside Scripture. Many historians and archaeologists rejected the existence of the Hittites, until 1906 when clear, compelling evidence was discovered in Turkey. Perhaps you'd like to offer some evidence that the flood was at a different time to support your assertion?

 

[thecreationtutor]

Most people that hold Theistic Evolution or Old earth - do not have the faith to say - God I trust you, and I think you'll give me a sound answer. They don't want to be considered a fool in the eyes of men who are lost, and fear them, rather than the creator.

Hands down Jesus Christ, has said, and banked on a literal historical adam, creation, and the length of time.

You can argue all you want - your disobedient. Stop wrangling with words, and word wars,
You are using eisegisis to prove your point - looking for text that supports your answer, rather then drawing it out through exegetical text.

Your actually using the faulty methods ie Scientific Method which is actually a logical Fallacy. to prove your points. So tell me; if your building on a fallacy, are you not just right in your own eyes? The fool has said there is no god on the same merit, so what makes you different

When I was a Child, i thought as a child, but when I became a Man - I thought as a Man - do not be an infant in your thinking, that just because God's word doesn't measure up to your Fallen, brainwashed mind- it must be wrong.

 

[Tintin]

That's actually a straw man argument, because there are those who believe God's Word very much but do not believe in man's theories of evolution, yet they still understand that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years.

Even the fundamentalist preacher in the famous Scope's Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tn. said he believed the creation was very ancient while he was against the theory of evolution.

I hope you didn't learn that from the Inherit the Wind movie. That was pure nonsense. Secular humanist propaganda. Still, the Christian should've had a defence for questions like those about Cain's wife.

Also, you say:

That's actually a straw man argument, because there are those who believe God's Word very much but do not believe in man's theories of evolution, yet they still understand that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years.

I think the word 'believe' rather than 'understand' would be more appropriate here.You're not even considering a 6,000 year old creation to be a viable option.Never mind that the old earth beliefs sans evolution still has many issues (eg. death and suffering before sin) and has to invent things like pre-Adamites and a Lucifer Flood etc. to try to make sense.

 

[Bowman]

so, babies then (previously, I think you'd only used the word 'children', so I thought maybe you were thinking children, not babies).

The term 'child'...'children' has always been defined as from the womb up to puberty...even today...look for yourself.

Obviously, as used in Gen 1, it is used from the ground up...no deception...no predetermined 'age'.

So that YEC argument falls completely flat when examined.

I'll grant that adam and eve being formed as babies is a possibility, though to me, the things God says to them on the sixth day implies at least adolescents.

A lot of time passes on each day.

To say that it all happened in a 24 hour period makes Adam, Superman...and Eve, Wonder Woman.

A YEC worldview forces bazaar and false interpretations into the text.

A YEC worldview is like telling a white lie...and then having to invent more white lies to cover the first mistake....like no animal death before the fall, etc, etc...

also, how do you understand God creating man male and female on the same day?

Again...

NOT a 24 hr period of time!

 

[Bowman]

I forgot was bowman an atheist ?

TCT: 'Hello, my name is forrest, forrest gump.'

 

[Bowman]

You can't possibly be this ignorant...

Your actually using the faulty methods ie Scientific Method which is actually a logical Fallacy. to prove your points.

The Scientific Method was gleaned from the Genesis Creation account to begin with!

 

[Chuckt]

When I was a kid I took a school trip to Redwoods forest and got to see a giant Sequoia tree that was over 2000 years old. They say you can count the rings to estimate the age. Please don't tell me they got it wrong and that tree was planted in 1822. It's more fun to learn about stuff that's old. If aliens visit us, most of these theories are blown out the water anyway. With the size of the universe, there is no way we are the only life forms here. Anyways, thank you for enlightning us with your vast expansive knowledge oh wise one.

The only aliens visiting us are Satan and his minions.

 

[Miri]

That's actually a straw man argument, because there are those who believe God's Word very much but do not believe in man's theories of evolution, yet they still understand that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years.

Even the fundamentalist preacher in the famous Scope's Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tn. said he believed the creation was very ancient while he was against the theory of evolution.

I mentioned this as reading through the thread there has been comments from
some people that they believe in evolution.

i can understand why people wonder if the earth is 6000 or 10,000 years old etc
but I've seen people suggest it is millions of years old etc - which seems to me
to be a belief which mixes creation and evolution. The two just don't sit well with
me. Either God is God, or he is not.

 

[Miri]

The only aliens visiting us are Satan and his minions.

Oh and don't forget Santa.

 

[DP]

I hope you didn't learn that from the Inherit the Wind movie. That was pure nonsense. Secular humanist propaganda. Still, the Christian should've had a defence for questions like those about Cain's wife.

No, got it from actual transcripts of the trial, because after seeing that movie I wanted to know more of what really went on. And yes, you're 100% correct about the movie, it's a secularist diatribe not truthfully based on the actual trial transcripts. But what else should we expect coming from Communists in Hollywood?

Also, you say:

That's actually a straw man argument, because there are those who believe God's Word very much but do not believe in man's theories of evolution, yet they still understand that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years.

I think the word 'believe' rather than 'understand' would be more appropriate here.You're not even considering a 6,000 year old creation to be a viable option.

And you're possibly not considering that the earth being older than 6,000 years does not contradict God's Word as written. Would that involve lack of understanding and more of just a belief too? Yes.

Ideas like natural physical laws for this earth having changed over the history of man being on this earth to make it appear like it's more ancient is just as much a theory equal to evolution than not.

Never mind that the old earth beliefs sans evolution still has many issues (eg. death and suffering before sin) and has to invent things like pre-Adamites and a Lucifer Flood etc. to try to make sense.

That there was a time prior to Adam and Eve when Satan first rebelled against God should be easily understandable from what God gave us to learn in His Word. I recognize many have yet to come to a Biblical understanding about that time of old.

 

[valiant]

Thank you for clarifying. As an aside, writing, "Got it?" repeatedly is disrespectful.

One source (The Biblical Date for the Exodus is 1446 BC: A Response to James Hoffmeier) puts the date of the Exodus at 1446 BC, which puts the entry to Egypt at 1876 BC, and that puts Abraham's birth prior to 2000 BC, which pushes the flood back to about 2400 BC.

You assert "no evidence" which is easy to state, and difficult to 'prove'. The absence of evidence does not nullify an assertion.

to suggest that there was a world wide flood in 2400 BC that left no evidence in spite of centuries of archaeology shows me just what your words are worth. Nothing.

And we have plenty of evidence of nations which existed long before 2500bc. Your position is sad.

For centuries there was no evidence of the Hittites outside Scripture. Many historians and archaeologists rejected the existence of the Hittites, until 1906 when clear, compelling evidence was discovered in Turkey. Perhaps you'd like to offer some evidence that the flood was at a different time to support your assertion?

I think that the evidence points to a massive Flood around 10,000 BC.

 

[DP]

I mentioned this as reading through the thread there has been comments from
some people that they believe in evolution.

i can understand why people wonder if the earth is 6000 or 10,000 years old etc
but I've seen people suggest it is millions of years old etc - which seems to me
to be a belief which mixes creation and evolution. The two just don't sit well with
me. Either God is God, or he is not.

I realize how one would think that, but it's just not so that some Bible scholars who interpret from God's Word that this earth is very ancient are trying to align with man's theories of evolution.

Young Earth Creationism tries to assert that the idea of the earth being older than 6000 years is because of Darwin's evolution theories and such, but in reality prior to Darwin there were Bible teachers that understood God's Word pointing to an ancient earth history (Thomas Chalmers-1780 to 1847 for one).

 

[Dino246]

I think that the evidence points to a massive Flood around 10,000 BC.

What evidence is that?

 

[Word_Swordsman]

They most certainly know of their works, and, more importantly, employ their works in their research.

Einstein was a Nobel Prize winner in physics.

I'm catching on to this guy "Bowman". A little too much strutting with no clue about real-life science employees.

I'm only going to point out that the science teams at universities are heavily involved with the peer review process in search of grant money to keep doing that. They have their own world. Relatively few actual free-world scientists bother with trying to publish articles in the top journals. Most don't have a budget for it nor the time required. They do their specialties day to day, making their companies money, satisfying customers. Government scientists mostly publish in government journals, the selection process far more fair, with no bias as to selection of reviewers, and there is no competition between board reviewers and authors. There are creationist scientists in government whose papers are not automatically tossed because of their persuasion, as long as the publication meets standard requirements.

The rest of your post appears to be a knee jerk response to difficult statements. Study up. You are free to ignore all creation science offerings, sticking with the atheists.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

[/B][/COLOR]Scripture states very plainly, and repeatedly, that he is bound.

Other than the future event of Rev 20, where do you think that is, chapter and verse?

Satan wasn't bound when tempting Jesus. Scriptures have him going up and down, to and from, appearing as an angel of light.

Enough goofey stuff!

 

[Dan_473]

{again, I'm answering your post with several small posts}

The term 'child'...'children' has always been defined as from the womb up to puberty...even today...look for yourself.

that's correct, 'child' can be aged between birth and maturity. at the same time, 'baby' refers to a very young child. so, if you were always thinking newborn in this context, 'baby' would have been an excellent choice, imo.

 

[Dan_473]

Obviously, as used in Gen 1, it is used from the ground up...no deception...no predetermined 'age'.

So that YEC argument falls completely flat when examined.






A lot of time passes on each day.

To say that it all happened in a 24 hour period makes Adam, Superman...and Eve, Wonder Woman.

A YEC worldview forces bazaar and false interpretations into the text.

A YEC worldview is like telling a white lie...and then having to invent more white lies to cover the first mistake....like no animal death before the fall, etc, etc...









Again...

NOT a 24 hr period of time!

First off, I'm impressed with the obvious amount of time you've put into studying the hebrew and details of this issue.

Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, I think adam's apparent age
when he was formed came up because I said

that God may have made the universe 'already aged'. you responded that such a process would involve deception (as I remember it).

I gave three examples of God being 'deceptive' (though, looking back, I think a word like 'veiled' would've been a better choice)

Samuel, adam's age, wine.

at this time, I don't think we will easily reach an agreement on adam's age, so I suggest we take that off the table as an example.

after we resolve the samuel and the wine examples, I believe I can come up with more examples of God 'veiling' things

if more examples would be edifying.

 

[valiant]

Other than the future event of Rev 20, where do you think that is, chapter and verse?

Satan wasn't bound when tempting Jesus. Scriptures have him going up and down, to and from, appearing as an angel of light.

Enough goofey stuff!

satan was bound in Matthew 12.28-29; consider also Rev 9.11

 

[valiant]

I'm catching on to this guy "Bowman". A little too much strutting with no clue about real-life science employees.

I'm only going to point out that the science teams at universities are heavily involved with the peer review process in search of grant money to keep doing that. They have their own world. Relatively few actual free-world scientists bother with trying to publish articles in the top journals. Most don't have a budget for it nor the time required. They do their specialties day to day, making their companies money, satisfying customers. Government scientists mostly publish in government journals, the selection process far more fair, with no bias as to selection of reviewers, and there is no competition between board reviewers and authors. There are creationist scientists in government whose papers are not automatically tossed because of their persuasion, as long as the publication meets standard requirements.

The rest of your post appears to be a knee jerk response to difficult statements. Study up. You are free to ignore all creation science offerings, sticking with the atheists.

your reply to Bowman shows deep prejudice (although I suspect he isn't bothered). Many good Christians believe in evolutionary theory. It is NOT an atheist prerogative. we in uk are not so bound by old earth/young earth theology.

Whilst I agree about the Universities not publishing items that are written by those who disagree, these include many Christian scientists who do believe in evolution, but object to modern theories,

Your attack on Bowman is quite needless.