How Old Is The Earth?

[Fishbait]

Have you not considered that when Cain said "...every one that findeth me shall slay me" (Gen. 4:14), that the people you refer to---were not yet born!

Sadly, you haven't helped me with the questions I asked as of yet. One by one please and may God bless you.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

To set the stage for this discussion, I would like to first review some of the statements in Genesis regarding the scope and duration of the flood. While I am no scientist, I do have some understanding of the biblical text.

Gen. 7:19-20 says, “The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits (22 ft) higher, and the mountains were covered.”

The only standard of measurement we have for the comparing the depth of the water is “all the high mountains under all the heavens.” Now, only one of these expressions would be sufficient to convey the absolute universality of the flood - “all the high mountains.” However, since the therm “all” is known to be used in the relative sense, any possible ambiguity is removed by the phrase “under all the heavens.” The reason for the 22 ft of water covering the highest mountains would have certainly been sufficient to adjust for the drought of the fully loaded ark. The height of the ark was thirty cubits according to Gen. 6:15, so the 15 cubits, or 22 ft in Gen 7:20 must certainly refer to drought of the ark. In other words the ark sank to a depth of 22 ft while it was afloat.

Now, let's look at the duration of the flood. In chapters 7 and 8 we learn that the flood lasted 371 days. This would certainly be consistent with the idea of a universal flood. While many Christian scholars may debate the actual depth of the flood, there can be no question of its duration when one factors the rate of evaporation. It would seem that the waters reached their maximum height in the first 40 days and according to 8:24, that maximum height was maintained for an additional 110 days before beginning to subside.

Now, to the question of where all of this water came from and where did it go?

In Gen. 1, we are told that the earth was already created in a state of deluge. Water covered the entire surface of the planet at that time, although we are not told to what depth. Then, it says that God separated the waters. Now, you and I both know that mater does not just disappear. Mater is not destroyed, it only changes form. So where did these waters go during this separation? In verses 6-8, it says that God separated the waters into two different groups. Notice, even after he separated the waters and assigned a large portion of that water to the heavens or the firmament (this is what many scholars regard as the canopy of waters that shrouded the earth and we can discuss the implications of this further if you like), the surface of the earth was still covered in water. Then, on the third day, he separated the terrestrial waters into seas and then the dry land appeared. So, even if one discounted the waters of the firmament there was still sufficient water on the earth to cover all the dry ground and this does not even seem to refer to the massive subterranean deposits of water.

During the flood, God simply reverses the process. But this time, he not only opens the firmament to re-deposit all of that water back on the earth, but he also breaks open the “fountains of the deep” or the subterranean waters as well. Such geological upheavals that would be required to bring all of this water to the surface would also result in a dramatic rise of the sea floors spilling the oceans out over the face of the earth as well.

After the flood, God restores this process of water separation through two methods. One method was the evaporation process that was aided by the use of the "wind God caused to pass over the earth." The other process was drainage as the waters of the subterranean chambers drained back into their reservoirs.

Is this sufficient to answer your first question or would you like me to elaborate further on this point?

Just a side point: If the surface of the earth were completely smooth, it is estimated that there is enough water ON the earth to cover the surface of the earth to a depth of two feet. (I looked for this statistic in all of my old notes but could not find it nor could I remember its source).

Peter would agree with you:

[SUP]5 [/SUP]For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, [SUP]6 [/SUP]by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. [SUP]7 [/SUP]But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

No doubting Peter understood it was a whole earth flood and not a partial one.

 

[oldhermit]

One could easily get the impression that you equate your interpretations as having the authority of scripture.

Not at all. It is simply that I place the authority of the written text above all knowledge that comes about as the result of full socialization, i.e. the nine fields of inquiry.

 

[sc81]

To set the stage for this discussion, I would like to first review some of the statements in Genesis regarding the scope and duration of the flood. While I am no scientist, I do have some understanding of the biblical text.

Gen. 7:19-20 says, “The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits (22 ft) higher, and the mountains were covered.”

The only standard of measurement we have for the comparing the depth of the water is “all the high mountains under all the heavens.” Now, only one of these expressions would be sufficient to convey the absolute universality of the flood - “all the high mountains.” However, since the therm “all” is known to be used in the relative sense, any possible ambiguity is removed by the phrase “under all the heavens.” The reason for the 22 ft of water covering the highest mountains would have certainly been sufficient to adjust for the drought of the fully loaded ark. The height of the ark was thirty cubits according to Gen. 6:15, so the 15 cubits, or 22 ft in Gen 7:20 must certainly refer to drought of the ark. In other words the ark sank to a depth of 22 ft while it was afloat.

Now, let's look at the duration of the flood. In chapters 7 and 8 we learn that the flood lasted 371 days. This would certainly be consistent with the idea of a universal flood. While many Christian scholars may debate the actual depth of the flood, there can be no question of its duration when one factors the rate of evaporation. It would seem that the waters reached their maximum height in the first 40 days and according to 8:24, that maximum height was maintained for an additional 110 days before beginning to subside.

Now, to the question of where all of this water came from and where did it go?

In Gen. 1, we are told that the earth was already created in a state of deluge. Water covered the entire surface of the planet at that time, although we are not told to what depth. Then, it says that God separated the waters. Now, you and I both know that mater does not just disappear. Mater is not destroyed, it only changes form. So where did these waters go during this separation? In verses 6-8, it says that God separated the waters into two different groups. Notice, even after he separated the waters and assigned a large portion of that water to the heavens or the firmament (this is what many scholars regard as the canopy of waters that shrouded the earth and we can discuss the implications of this further if you like), the surface of the earth was still covered in water. Then, on the third day, he separated the terrestrial waters into seas and then the dry land appeared. So, even if one discounted the waters of the firmament there was still sufficient water on the earth to cover all the dry ground and this does not even seem to refer to the massive subterranean deposits of water.

During the flood, God simply reverses the process. But this time, he not only opens the firmament to re-deposit all of that water back on the earth, but he also breaks open the “fountains of the deep” or the subterranean waters as well. Such geological upheavals that would be required to bring all of this water to the surface would also result in a dramatic rise of the sea floors spilling the oceans out over the face of the earth as well.

After the flood, God restores this process of water separation through two methods. One method was the evaporation process that was aided by the use of the "wind God caused to pass over the earth." The other process was drainage as the waters of the subterranean chambers drained back into their reservoirs.

Is this sufficient to answer your first question or would you like me to elaborate further on this point?

Just a side point: If the surface of the earth were completely smooth, it is estimated that there is enough water ON the earth to cover the surface of the earth to a depth of two feet. (I looked for this statistic in all of my old notes but could not find it nor could I remember its source).

well none of that addressed the point that cultures did live through the time of the flood and were not destroyed because they kept written records and existed through that time period. it wasn't global.

 

[johnluke]

Scientists, interested in knowing what's true, will take this into account as much as possible.

Most science is a shot in the dark, a theory that is impossible to ratify as the truth. How can you go back in time to before the flood and measure the decay rate? It doesn't even matter, they make up a decay rate that will conform to their theories. To scientists these days the truth is in fact secondary to funding. If those people that are funding the science and research don't get what they paid for, the funding dries up and there goes the job of the scientist. So the truth many times is hid or comprimised in order to get the results that are needed to keep funding alive.

 

[oldhermit]

well none of that addressed the point that cultures did live through the time of the flood and were not destroyed because they kept written records and existed through that time period. it wasn't global.

You make two assumptions.
1. That scripture does not sufficiently address the issue of the preservation and care of the animals.
2. That written language had even been invented by this time. The earliest known form of writing does not even appear for about 1000 after the flood.

 

[oldhermit]

well none of that addressed the point that cultures did live through the time of the flood and were not destroyed because they kept written records and existed through that time period. it wasn't global.

I misunderstood your initial statement in my first response, I thought you said "creatures" not cultures. To this point you are trying to place a 21st century interpretation of archeological evidences over the authority of the written text. Any time you do this you will always be wrong. History is not revelation. History does not explain scripture, scripture reveals history.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

When and where was a genetic study done proving that African Pygmies evolved out of Ham? Where, in scripture (or elsewhere do you find evidence that a DNA sample was taken from Ham? Where? Please tell me where.

Five hundred years ago it was people of your mindset who insisted that the Bible required every one to believe that the sun revolved around the earth.

Lol the pygmies are severely inbred dude and have their own tribes. What do you think tribes and clans and the whole family alliance system of all ages is? It's not just Hamite pygmies because pygmies are 100% human, homo sapiens. This implies their short stature is due to DNA and mutation, not to some darwinite monkey offshoot race. Dwarfism, giantism, all these things are found in all the races. The races are just family ties, and history and genetics today which is hard science proves along with tradition and history their origins and the fact the human family is well mixed in at this point in time.

For the African pygmies I asume they are Hamitic mostly because you mentioned pygmies from Africa where Hams sons settled, primarily the Cushites, Mizraimites(Egyptians), and sons of Put. The Canaanites mostly were in the Levant region along with the race of the Phillistines who later settled the coast who are the sons of Mizraim's son Phillistim and possibly mixed in with some of the Japhethites whom settled in the northern meditterannean region.

However this be a whole other debate we could launch many debates and ponderances off of in regards to what is really race, what's the genetics and humanity mean, etc.

First let's establish one thing, pygmies are 100% human. They did not evolve from lemurs and us from chimps that is ridiculous (plus stalin tried it and it failed thus proving we cannot even hybridize with the primates thus we cannot trully evolve and also we are not related to them by the Darwin fabled ancestor in his Theory of Man (this is to differentiate between Theory of Origin of Species or as one could pun it, Darwin's Amoebanation lol.) Thus ironically one must either redefine evolution back to what is more Biblically sound and it basically becomes them trying to take Genetics away from Creationists (Genetics study founded by a Christian monk Gregor Mendel the intellectual defeater of Darwin.)

I could give you the soundest proof in the world but would you believe it? Lol, look for it for yourself, it's quite fascinating really. Is that not what true science is; observation and experimentation?

However, if you will at least just look into the possibilities here I will give you a wikipedia article (not saying wikipediai is canonized, merely it gives some background info that can be explored more in depth) Also, I personally am moreso into the study of people and their cultures and customs, histories and societies, rather than their genetic make-up personally, so I will also give you one video here on a specific tribe of pygmies in the land of modern Africa though for your own research plus I find it a little more engaging than readign wikipedia, but I still encourage examining both.

Lol obviously our intellectual debate here transcends numerous issues which I would encourage you to investigate and also encourage you to look at each claim and judge for yourself, but before you judge, at least investigate it a bit. If science is trully just observation and experimentation, and you like science, simply observe lol.

Wikipedia article on dwarfism which I think with what it presents displays the fact dwarfism is genetic thus inherited and even also proves it can occur within any of the races descended of Ham, Shem, or Japheth or any combo of the three as there are many combos as the long story of collective histories after the Flood shows as is also the case when just arbitrarily looking at height, skin tone, body frame, etc. Also since pygmies are found in all races and varying cultures, I assume they became genetically isolated either be geography (often deep forest or islands) or through social isolation (height bigotry, enslavement, geographic isolation, etc.) : Dwarfism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A more secular observation of a modern pygmy tribe in Africa by mainstream France 24 Hour News and a problem of theres from a few years ago (not sure if it is still on-going) with oppression by the Bantu race/tribe of their area:
Pygmies: endangered people - YouTube
(caution some tribal topless nudity towards end so I will post link only not the video.)

 

[oldhermit]

Lol obviously our intellectual debate here transcends numerous issues which I would encourage you to investigate and also encourage you to look at each claim and judge for yourself, but before you judge, at least investigate it a bit. If science is trully just observation and experimentation, and you like science, simply observe lol.

I made a similar statement earlier but repeating it certainly seems aparpos.

The problem the atheist has who attempts to confront the biblical text is that he has no earthly idea how to read this book. Any time the atheistic mind engages the text of scripture this immediately creates a state of discontinuity between the mind of the reader and the text itself. Since the atheist does not understand how to create a synthesis between human reason and scripture, the only thing he can do is attempt to discredit the text by appealing to human logic that is rooted in the strict field of observation and examination. He believes that everything must be governed through natural processes. His strict reliance upon observable regularities blinds him to all other possibilities and explanations. What he does not understand is that the natural world does not tell us all the truth about reality. The reasoning of the atheistic mind is singularly dyadic. This is why he is unable to see beyond the field of natural processes. This is what creates the discontinuity between the atheist's mind and the biblical text that he is unable to synthesize.

 

[sc81]

I misunderstood your initial statement in my first response, I thought you said "creatures" not cultures. To this point you are trying to place a 21st century interpretation of archeological evidences over the authority of the written text. Any time you do this you will always be wrong. History is not revelation. History does not explain scripture, scripture reveals history.

http://www.ancient.eu.com/sumer/

sumer was another civilization that apparently survived the global flood, it's history should have ended at 2348 BC abruptly. We're not even dealing with carbon dating or anything geological of nature but history recorded by other groups of people that make a global flood impossible.

 

[oldhermit]

http://www.ancient.eu.com/sumer/

sumer was another civilization that apparently survived the global flood, it's history should have ended at 2348 BC abruptly. We're not even dealing with carbon dating or anything geological of nature but history recorded by other groups of people that make a global flood impossible.

What does the Bible say about it?

 

[sc81]

about sumer? nothing I don't think, but it's history is focused on israel

though sumer was the civilization that lead to the babylonians.

http://www.ancient.eu.com/china/

china also considered the oldest civilization still in existence, china should have been destroyed in the flood and not even exist today.

 

[oldhermit]

about sumer? nothing I don't think, but it's history is focused on israel

though sumer was the civilization that lead to the babylonians.

http://www.ancient.eu.com/china/

china also considered the oldest civilization still in existence, china should have been destroyed in the flood and not even exist today.

You are totally missing the point. Scripture records the global nature of the flood and describes it in such detail that it cannot be understood in any other way. Scripture also records that only eight members of the human race survived. Even the apostle Peter records that only eight people were saved from the flood. It does not matter what tertiary secular sources have to say about the flood. Since secular sources deny the inspired account, one of these two accounts is wrong. If you are suggesting that the biblical account is wrong then your problem is that you do not understand the nature of scripture. I will accept no other explanation than that given in the biblical account.

 

[Tintin]

well no one is stupid, but if water covered the top of mount everest there would be no low point for it to run off to. The entire earth would have been permanently turned into a water world.

Ba-doom. No soup for you! The highest mountains were a result of the global flood, they weren't around before that. There was enormous volcanic and earthquake activity during the Flood. The violent waters, over time, even broke up the land mass into the continents we have today. Naturally, many mountain ranges etc. have formed since the Flood or been added to since then, but the highest peaks were the result of the Flood. Remember Noah and his family were in the Ark for over 1 year! That's plenty of time for substantial changes to the landscape due a worldwide flood.

 

[sc81]

You are totally missing the point. Scripture records the global nature of the flood and describes it in such detail that it cannot be understood in any other way. Scripture also records that only eight members of the human race survived. Even the apostle Peter records that only eight people were saved from the flood. It does not matter what tertiary secular sources have to say about the flood. Since secular sources deny the inspired account, one of these two accounts is wrong. If you are suggesting that the biblical account is wrong then your problem is that you do not understand the nature of scripture. I will accept no other explanation than that given in the biblical account.

i'm suggesting translations over multiple languages have been made in error about certain words that people have assumed it was talking about the entire earth and not a local area. The physical existence of multiple civilizations that were not affected in that time period confirms that. If you will only accept an incorrect biblical version as truth to ease your conscience then that is up to you, but I am not content to dismiss everything written outside the Bible as wrong.

 

[Tintin]

i'm suggesting translations over multiple languages have been made in error about certain words that people have assumed it was talking about the entire earth and not a local area. The physical existence of multiple civilizations that were not affected in that time period confirms that. If you will only accept an incorrect biblical version as truth to ease your conscience then that is up to you, but I am not content to dismiss everything written outside the Bible as wrong.

That's not how the translation process works. Bible translators go back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek to translate the Bible into various languages. It's not like a game of Chinese Whispers. That's an atheistic misunderstanding (probably deliberate - because it makes Jews and Christians look stupid).

 

[sc81]

Ba-doom. No soup for you! The highest mountains were a result of the global flood, they weren't around before that. There was enormous volcanic and earthquake activity during the Flood. The violent waters, over time, even broke up the land mass into the continents we have today. Naturally, many mountain ranges etc. have formed since the Flood or been added to since then, but the highest peaks were the result of the Flood. Remember Noah and his family were in the Ark for over 1 year! That's plenty of time for substantial changes to the landscape due a worldwide flood.

a totally made up hypothesis that no one outside young earth creationists would accept.

anyway my arguments about the flood all revolve around the culture evidence and recordings of peoples living in that time period, I don't even need to touch geology.

 

[oldhermit]

i'm suggesting translations over multiple languages have been made in error about certain words that people have assumed it was talking about the entire earth and not a local area.

What evidence are you offering that to support a corrupted text? I am not talking about translation, I am talking about the original language. Which word are you suggesting is mistranslated?

The physical existence of multiple civilizations that were not affected in that time period confirms that. If you will only accept an incorrect biblical version as truth to ease your conscience then that is up to you, but I am not content to dismiss everything written outside the Bible as wrong.

Any time physical evidence does not appear to agree with the biblical account on ANY matter, it is not the biblical text that is wrong, it is man's interpretation of the evidence.

If you have not read post #409, Perhaps you should.

 

[sc81]

That's not how the translation process works. Bible translators go back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek to translate the Bible into various languages. It's not like a game of Chinese Whispers. That's an atheistic misunderstanding (probably deliberate - because it makes Jews and Christians look stupid).

well it is in a way because some languages don't even have words that exist in corresponding languages so substitute words have to be implemented that can't relay the original intent

anyway look how many different versions there are of the english Bible, dozens with different wording, they aren't all inspired by God

 

[oldhermit]

well it is in a way because some languages don't even have words that exist in corresponding languages so substitute words have to be implemented that can't relay the original intent

anyway look how many different versions there are of the english Bible, dozens with different wording, they aren't all inspired by God

How much time have you spent studying the original languages?