Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?

[wildfry]

Hi, just so I understand, which element of a discussion of events 6000 years ago must have happened...

 

[valiant]

Not so with Adam's chrono-genealogy, but with say Jesus genealogy, yes, there are some men missing. Early Genesis doesn't necessarily list the eldest child in each family, but only lists the ones essential to God's narrative for humanity. That said Adam's chrono-genealogy lists the ages of each from birth to death, birth to death and so on. There's no real wiggle-room.

All ancient genealogies jumped generations. The number of ten generations from Adam to Noah, and Noah to Abraham must be seen as suspicious from a literal point of view. Lists of ten generations of kings were common in and around Abraham's time. And they ALL omitted generations.

Furthermore the ages given are clearly not literal. Notice how many end in 0 or 5. Had they been literal that would not have been so. The truth is that to the ancients the numbers probably had some deeper significance.

It is not without interest to note that Adam died 70 (the number of divine perfection) short of 1000 (the perfect age).

That as in many ancient genealogies the seventh was a 'heavenly man' and his age equates to the number of days in a year.

That Lamech, the father of Noah died at 777. (His parallel Cainite was also closely involved in sevens).

That Noah was 600 when the flood came and died at 950, both nice round numbers, while being 500 when he had his sons..

I realise this will be unacceptable to some 'modern' Americans (who all know what God meant without any question). But it does not give the impression of literal and exact numbers.

 

[Bowman]

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
(Mar 10:6)

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
(Rev 3:14)

Quit trying to change the debate. My argument is that FROM the beginning of creation God made them male and female not AFTER millions of years. Your introduction of Rev 3:14 is nothing but smoke, 'cause you have no real argument against it except deny it. You are using your own faulty reasoning by introducing Rev 3:14.

The same Greek terminology is used in both verses.

Thus...if you want to be consistent in your assertion, then you MUST admit that Jesus was the first born of creation at the same time that Adam & Eve were.

Is this what you want....?

 

[Bowman]

Fourth day. Either that or teach me why not.

The creation verbs employed on 'Day 4' do not warrant that the sun and moon were created at that time....if they had been, then we would expect that the verb 'bara' would have been utilized.....but it was not...

 

[Bowman]

Check out who you're agreeing with.

Jack, Post Human, Age of Knowledge, and I all agree that the world is billions of years old.

We are in good company....

 

[GaryA]

The same Greek terminology is used in both verses.

Thus...if you want to be consistent in your assertion, then you MUST admit that Jesus was the first born of creation at the same time that Adam & Eve were.

Is this what you want....?

You are in error. The same Greek word ( 'beginning'; Strong's #746 ) is used in both verses. It is the 'grammar of the language' that makes the difference...


The word 'beginning' means the same thing in both verses:

"the commencement ( beginning / orgin ) of the creation of God"


Mark 10:

[SUP]6[/SUP] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.


This verse is saying:

"But from [ the time of ] the beginning of the creation of God..."

i.e. - since the beginning of the creation of God


Revelation 3:

[SUP]14[/SUP] And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;


This verse is saying:

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, [ who is ] the beginning of the creation of God;"

i.e. - the author ( source ) of the beginning of the creation of God

 

[posthuman]

They also don't like when some of their own finds dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them.

eh, actually they get head-over-heels excited about it.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian

 

[Bowman]

You are in error. The same Greek word ( 'beginning'; Strong's #746 ) is used in both verses. It is the 'grammar of the language' that makes the difference...


The word 'beginning' means the same thing in both verses:

"the commencement ( beginning / orgin ) of the creation of God"


Mark 10:

[SUP]6[/SUP] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.


This verse is saying:

"But from [ the time of ] the beginning of the creation of God..."

i.e. - since the beginning of the creation of God


Revelation 3:

[SUP]14[/SUP] And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;


This verse is saying:

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, [ who is ] the beginning of the creation of God;"

i.e. - the author ( source ) of the beginning of the creation of God

Perhaps now you YEC's can grasp the silliness of plucking a verse out of its original context.

CN thought it would be nifty to take a one-liner out of a discussion regarding MARRIAGE, and apply it to the age of the world!

 

[wildfry]

Thanks for that interesting reply. The groupings of the numbers are definitely worth exploring. I took the slightly crazy view that in Genesis 6 Yahweh says he decided to shorten human's lifespan to just 120 years and so over the 10 generations they gradually dropped from 950 years to that number. Aging research indicates that human cells start to 'commit suicide' when you reach this cieling. We could theoretically live alot longer bt for some strange genetic coding. There are clams in the baltic sea that are 400 years old. I guess I was taking the ages very literally. They seem very specific and as the old testament is such a sincere attempt at early jewish history, why would they randomly start having unbelievable numbers?

The poor translation of the original hebrew text into latin in the 'Vulgate' has left us with a basket load of misconceptions.

 

[popeye]

Good question. The only reason Gobekli Tepe can't be a pre-Flood site is because that world no longer exists as they knew it. Great violence was done to the Earth during the flood eg. massive volcanic activity, tsunamis and earthquakes during and after. The land tore apart into continents during the Flood. The land went up and down, it went below the waters. The earth's crust was forever changed. As such, the land that replaced it doesn't show any evidence of life before the Flood. All archaeological sites therefore must be post-Flood. In short, a world-wide Flood that destroyed every living thing would also wipe away any human-made structures.

Did you watch the vid I posted?

One revelation about the flood was that the reason "science" makes it erroneously into a local event is so the marine fossils and bones in the mountaintops can be explained another way.

 

[Tintin]

Did you watch the vid I posted?

One revelation about the flood was that the reason "science" makes it erroneously into a local event is so the marine fossils and bones in the mountaintops can be explained another way.

Sorry, no. It's past midnight here. I'll check it out tomorrow. Thanks, brother.

 

[popeye]

All ancient genealogies jumped generations. The number of ten generations from Adam to Noah, and Noah to Abraham must be seen as suspicious from a literal point of view. Lists of ten generations of kings were common in and around Abraham's time. And they ALL omitted generations.

Furthermore the ages given are clearly not literal. Notice how many end in 0 or 5. Had they been literal that would not have been so. The truth is that to the ancients the numbers probably had some deeper significance.

It is not without interest to note that Adam died 70 (the number of divine perfection) short of 1000 (the perfect age).

That as in many ancient genealogies the seventh was a 'heavenly man' and his age equates to the number of days in a year.

That Lamech, the father of Noah died at 777. (His parallel Cainite was also closely involved in sevens).

That Noah was 600 when the flood came and died at 950, both nice round numbers, while being 500 when he had his sons..

I realise this will be unacceptable to some 'modern' Americans (who all know what God meant without any question). But it does not give the impression of literal and exact numbers.

Since adam would have most likely NEVER aged w/o the fall,high age numbers would not be unlikely.

 

[popeye]

Sorry, no. It's past midnight here. I'll check it out tomorrow. Thanks, brother.

LOl
I was just wondering what time it was on the other side of the planet.

 

[Tintin]

LOl
I was just wondering what time it was on the other side of the planet.

12:30am on Wednesday morning. Goodnight from me to you. Good day to you!

 

[wildfry]

I was in Gobekli Tepe December last year. Its not at all dangerous but when you land at the airport I got questioned because alot of foreign fighters for ISIS are going in through Urfa to cross the border. The ruins were disappointing as the rock is soft, making carving easy, but it is interesting that it is intentionally buried and not in the most obvious look out position for the hunters that were suppose to be there.

 

[flob]

cool, why were you there?

How come Jesus' genealogy is different in Matthew and Luke?

'Cause one's Joseph's genealogy and the next is Mary's.

 

[Jimbone]

eh, actually they get head-over-heels excited about it.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian

LOL, I love how once they found the tissue that it was "we must not understand decomposition", and never even consider that it's the age that could be wrong. We can "observe" decomposition rates and watch it in a lab, but removing millions and millions of years just can’t possibly be an option. They “know” it has to be this old (unobservational), but say their observational knowledge about decomposition is what has to be wrong. Small disclaimer- I am not a scientist and don’t claim to be an expert on any of this, but my common sense and logic can’t help but see this premise as illogical and desperate. I think they are really that scared to go against majority opinion and being labeled and dismissed as a nut job if they go against the programmed view. That’s just my opinion on the situation.

 

[JackH]

um...i hate to rain on your parade but...

old earth creationism hasn't exactly gotten to establish its claims in peer reviewed science journals either!

How many thousands of research papers in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals do you want me to cite where it indicates that specific dinosaur fossils that are the subject of the paper are more than 65 million years old?

Can you show me any that indicate the dinosaur fossil is less than 6,000 years old?

 

[Tintin]

How many thousands of research papers in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals do you want me to cite where it indicates that specific dinosaur fossils that are the subject of the paper are more than 65 million years old?

Can you show me any that indicate the dinosaur fossil is less than 6,000 years old?

Preach evolutionary peer-reviewed journals as truth in action, and if necessary use words. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say no more.

 

[JackH]

science is not decided in court...that approach is directly counter to the scientific method...

Who has determined what is taught as science in public schools in the United States?

Who determined that the Institute for Creation Research can not offer a master's degree in science?

The YECS bring their expert witnesses to federal courts. They testify under oath and are cross-examined.

The YECs lose the case and they are made to look foolish.

That's how that story has gone, over and over.