How Old Is The Earth?

[Reee]

All you are doing is playing games with the language trying to make scripture fit into you concept of reality rather than allowing scripture to formulate your view of reality.

"The plural is because its heavens and earth not only earth.... If it were only one it would be "this is the generation (history) of the earth.... we wouldn't say this is the generation of the heavens and of the earth.... we say these are hence the plural My point is that if the six "days" means literal six days then "the day" should also literally mean ONE day. I am looking at the text, studying it and searching the scriptures for answer to my questions....

 

[oldhermit]

The plural is because its heavens and earth not only earth.... If it were only one it would be "this is the generation (history) of the earth.... we wouldn't say this is the generation of the heavens and of the earth.... we say these are hence the plural

Moses believed the Gen 1 description of creation, not you interpretation of 2:4. “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." Exodus 20:11. He says all of creation was the word of six days and he uses this same standard of measurement to limit the days of work got Israel to a six day period of time.

 

[Reee]

All you are doing is playing games with the language trying to make scripture fit into you concept of reality rather than allowing scripture to formulate your view of reality.

Actually scripture has reformulated what i believe which is why I have taken to studying the language it was originally written in.... Take this for an example: There are 2 people in a car one 90 years old, one sixteen.... they drive past a woman who is standing next to the road... the 90 year old says wow that's a "hot" woman... does the 16 year old imagine the woman is sweating or does the mental image conjure up a "sexy" woman? A hundred years ago, we wouldn't need to ask this question.... in the same way we can't try to understand a translation of something that has been translated through time and historical bias. You need to study the original source in the context of a whole of its history

 

[Reee]

1. In the begining of the flood. When the floodgates opened. There would have been no sun.
2. The mountains moved mightily when the continental plates started to move, Causing the great catachlisms which followed.
3. The birds would have scattered.
4. The nations and cities would have been destroyed (The bible says adam was the first man. SO you have to explain how large cities and nations existed before man was created)
5. At some point of time, No men were walking the earth.

As I said, it fits perfectly with the flood.

It sounds a bit logical except that by the time floodwaters caused continental plates to move, we wouldn't have hills anymore....

 

[oldhermit]

we wouldn't have hills anymore....

????????????????????????????

 

[Reee]

1. In the begining of the flood. When the floodgates opened. There would have been no sun.
2. The mountains moved mightily when the continental plates started to move, Causing the great catachlisms which followed.
3. The birds would have scattered.
4. The nations and cities would have been destroyed (The bible says adam was the first man. SO you have to explain how large cities and nations existed before man was created)
5. At some point of time, No men were walking the earth.

As I said, it fits perfectly with the flood.

As for the man.... Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. ... in this verse the "there was" has been added it reads correctly without addition: "Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.... where "no" is ayin = As if from a primitive root meaning to be nothing or not exist; a non-entity. The general biblical use of ayin is to denote it never existed ie man had never existed at this stage as in.....Gen 11:30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child. here the "had" was added... the meaning is that a child of Sarai had never existed, we couldn't infer here that she might have had a child that died... it simply means she never had a child.... Other instance where "no" is translated to mean absence of, use the word "lo" they do not use ayin.....

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the hights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that shook kingdoms:
Isa 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed its cities; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

There were other beings on earth... not men

 

[oldhermit]

Actually scripture has reformulated what i believe which is why I have taken to studying the language it was originally written in.... Take this for an example: There are 2 people in a car one 90 years old, one sixteen.... they drive past a woman who is standing next to the road... the 90 year old says wow that's a "hot" woman... does the 16 year old imagine the woman is sweating or does the mental image conjure up a "sexy" woman? A hundred years ago, we wouldn't need to ask this question.... in the same way we can't try to understand a translation of something that has been translated through time and historical bias. You need to study the original source in the context of a whole of its history

Truth is not in the history. Truth resides exclusively within the grammatical structure of the text which you distort to fit your view of reality.

 

[Reee]

????????????????????????????

Hills are small...tsunami's cover hills without causing earthquakes (although earthquakes do cause tsunami's), the amount of water needed to cause tectonic movement would cover the hills completely. The marianas trench is deeper than everest is high and it is filled with water, but there is little to no tectonic plate movement activity in the atlantic ocean...... the water in the atlantic is enough to cover everest, but it doesn't cause tectonic movement

 

[Reee]

Moses believed the Gen 1 description of creation, not you interpretation of 2:4. “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." Exodus 20:11. He says all of creation was the word of six days and he uses this same standard of measurement to limit the days of work got Israel to a six day period of time.

The proper language again is "for six days... not IN six days, the "IN" was added.... for starters... and as I have said these 6 days were a restoration to produce what we have now... there is no conflict

 

[oldhermit]

Hills are small...tsunami's cover hills without causing earthquakes (although earthquakes do cause tsunami's), the amount of water needed to cause tectonic movement would cover the hills completely. The marianas trench is deeper than everest is high and it is filled with water, but there is little to no tectonic plate movement activity in the atlantic ocean...... the water in the atlantic is enough to cover everest, but it doesn't cause tectonic movement

I suggest you spend a little time looking at the science of hydroplate tectonics.
[h=2][/h][h=2][/h][h=2][/h]

 

[oldhermit]

The proper language again is "for six days... not IN six days, the "IN" was added.... for starters... and as I have said these 6 days were a restoration to produce what we have now... there is no conflict

You have no idea what you are talking about and I have better things to do that waste my time addressing your amturish treatment of the language of scripture. All you are doing is trying to manipulate the language to make it agree with your sense of ideological reality. You need to allow scripture to define its own use of language rather than trying to force you definition into the text. This violates the integrity of the text.

 

[Reee]

Truth is not in the history. Truth resides exclusively within the grammatical structure of the text which you distort to fit your view of reality.

I didn't write the words or put the grammar in place... it is there for anyone with an eye to see... but you know, stick to what works for you, it doesn't change who Jesus is or what He did

 

[Reee]

You have no idea what you are talking about and I have better things to do that waste my time addressing your amturish treatment of the language of scripture. All you are doing is trying to manipulate the language to make it agree with your sense of ideological reality. You need to allow scripture to define its own use of language rather than trying to force you definition into the text. This violates the integrity of the text.

The word "in" is added in all english bibles..... sorry that's a fact.... the original hebrew reads: "For six days" not For, in six days".......... whatever floats your boat, I won't stoop to insulting you because you clearly don't speak or read hebrew..... and obviously the bible was originally written in english and I would hate to violate the integrity of that text

 

[oldhermit]

The word "in" is added in all english bibles..... sorry that's a fact.... the original hebrew reads: "For six days" not For, in six days".......... whatever floats your boat, I won't stoop to insulting you because you clearly don't speak or read hebrew..... and obviously the bible was originally written in english and I would hate to violate the integrity of that text

You are really straining at this aren't you. Whether you use the word 'in' or omit it makes absolutely no difference in the meaning of the text. It still tells us that God was engaged in the creating process for six days. "For six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

 

[jamie26301]

Actually scripture has reformulated what i believe which is why I have taken to studying the language it was originally written in.... Take this for an example: There are 2 people in a car one 90 years old, one sixteen.... they drive past a woman who is standing next to the road... the 90 year old says wow that's a "hot" woman... does the 16 year old imagine the woman is sweating or does the mental image conjure up a "sexy" woman? A hundred years ago, we wouldn't need to ask this question.... in the same way we can't try to understand a translation of something that has been translated through time and historical bias. You need to study the original source in the context of a whole of its history

This... this is absolutely superlative. Good show!

 

[jamie26301]

You are really straining at this aren't you. Whether you use the word 'in' or omit it makes absolutely no difference in the meaning of the text. It still tells us that God was engaged in the creating process for six days. "For six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

I think what she means is that "For six days" leaves open the possibility of there being OTHER days in which creating took place, whereas "In six days" makes it exclusively six days. You could say "For six days I did x" but that doesn't mean it was ONLY those six days. Think of it like this: "For six days, I painted a picture." Then later on you could say "I painted again today." Whereas "IN six days" makes six days exclusive.

 

[jamie26301]

You have no idea what you are talking about and I have better things to do that waste my time addressing your amturish treatment of the language of scripture. All you are doing is trying to manipulate the language to make it agree with your sense of ideological reality. You need to allow scripture to define its own use of language rather than trying to force you definition into the text. This violates the integrity of the text.

To be fair, just because of the VERY NATURE of language translation, especially an ancient one to a modern one, EVERYONE is manipulating the text in some way. That's why we have so many translations - there's dispute on the shade of meaning that the text implies. Everyone reads and understand what they want to read and understand, in Scripture.

 

[oldhermit]

I think what she means is that "For six days" leaves open the possibility of there being OTHER days in which creating took place, whereas "In six days" makes it exclusively six days. You could say "For six days I did x" but that doesn't mean it was ONLY those six days. Think of it like this: "For six days, I painted a picture." Then later on you could say "I painted again today." Whereas "IN six days" makes six days exclusive.

There is only one account of creation and that account offers no alternative to a literal six day period of time. What she is trying to do is find some way to forge scripture into her belief that the earth hosted a productive atmosphere complete with both human and animal life prior to the creation account recorded in Genesis one. There is simply no way to get this out of the text.

 

[jamie26301]

There is only one account of creation and that account offers no alternative to a literal six day period of time. What she is trying to do is find some way to forge scripture into her belief that the earth hosted a productive atmosphere complete with both human and animal life prior to the creation account recorded in Genesis one. There is simply no way to get this out of the text.

If chapters 1 and 2 are written by different authors, then yes, there would be an alternative. But this has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Just saying that it's a matter of how you approach the text - if you think it's infallible, and you take the traditional avenue of believing in Moses authoring the whole book of Genesis, then yes, I can see how you come to your conclusion. However, people who approach the Bible from a historical, archeological, and even critical perspective, the text isn't quite so clear. We all bring biases to the text - whether we believe it's infallible, or inspired with errors, or just a book of fairy tales, that influences how we read the text. There is no "text speaking for itself." Our belief about the very nature of the text colors how we read it.

 

[oldhermit]

If chapters 1 and 2 are written by different authors, then yes, there would be an alternative. But this has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Just saying that it's a matter of how you approach the text - if you think it's infallible, and you take the traditional avenue of believing in Moses authoring the whole book of Genesis, then yes, I can see how you come to your conclusion. However, people who approach the Bible from a historical, archeological, and even critical perspective, the text isn't quite so clear. We all bring biases to the text - whether we believe it's infallible, or inspired with errors, or just a book of fairy tales, that influences how we read the text. There is no "text speaking for itself." Our belief about the very nature of the text colors how we read it.

The authorship of Genesis is the same as every other book of scripture. The Holy Spirit is the author and the person who was used to pen the writing was merely an incidental tool of the Holy Spirit. It is a mistake to think of the Bible as a historical, archeological, cultural narrative, ecclesiastical, or a soteriological document, nor is it just a collection of morals and ethics. The Bible is exclusively a representational document that reveals the mind of the Creator. This makes it unlike any other document in the history of the world.

The greatest mistake one can make is to approach this book as a dyadic reader. Dyadic reasoning needs to be understood as man reasoning toward his natural existence on the basis of human intelligence. Triadic reasoning, on the other hand, is man reasoning toward his material existence based on an inspired intelligence. Cosmic evolution certainly falls within this category of dyadic reasoning.

Historically, men have employed a dyadic structure of reasoning in the exercise of biblical interpretation. The world uses a hierarchical structure of human intelligence that we call the nine fields of inquiry to compile information about the Biblical text as it is fitted within the framework of these nine fields. All human knowledge is catalogued within these nine fields. This type of textual approach appeals to the respective fields of inquiry to see what each of these have to say about the text of scripture. The world feels that it is somehow important to know what the scientist, the historian, the clergy, the legal apparatus and others have to say about the value and place of scripture within the human community. This form if intertextuality regards scripture as only one of many texts that is subordinate to human analysis based on all other texts. The practice of intertextuality places the Word of God within the dyadic structure of human intelligence. This elevates human intelligence over the inspired intelligence of revelation. The world will never allow the Bible to be regarded as the single hierarchical text that relativizes all other knowledge.