getting dates about a young earth

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
I think that the evidence points to a massive Flood around 10,000 BC.
is this the same flood that noah experienced?

what's your thinking on the "numbered" geneologies?
like, "Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of Shelah"
 
T

Tintin

Guest
lol your maths is awful
Yes, Maths most certainly isn't my forte, but it's still a d@mn sight better than yours. Shem living 2000 years? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Show me where my Maths is wrong in my post. I won't be offended. Just remember it includes both BC years (the number of years Before Christ) and AM (the number of years from Creation).
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
Hello Bowman. I am not wanting to get into this debate nor highjack the thread, but I am just learning about doing these types of studies and happened to look up "aorist" earlier today. Finding what seems to be a contradicting definition of this tense.

"(especially in Greek) an unqualified past tense of a verb without reference to duration or completion of the action."

Derived this from a Bing search for the word "aorist". Here it says "without reference to duration or completion of the action."

You seemed skilled at this level of study. What am I missing?

The other half to this definition is explained by Dan Wallace in his book 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics'...in which 'this contrasts with the present and imperfect, which portray the action of an ongoing process. It may be helpful to think of the aorist as taking a snapshot of the action while the imperfect (like the present) takes a motion picture, portraying action as it unfolds.'


Thus....the reader is told in Heb 2.14 that Satan was already bound at The Cross.

He was rendered impotent.

It is completed action.....not action that is taking place, or that will take place in the future.

Its already a done deal.

Most people these days deny that Satan is bound, and give him full credit and praises for the evil in this world....an honor that he most assuredly does not deserve....all the while denying what Jesus did for us on The Cross!
 
Last edited:
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
Yet he roams freely like a roaring lion seeking who he may devour. He is at the throne room of God all the time making accusations against the saints. And he is seen around the world affecting rulers.. And we are warned our war is not against flesh and blood but principalies and powers.

yep. Satan is sure bound, He can not decieve any nation today (rolls eyes)

And you want us to listen to your OEC proof when you can not even get this basic thing correct??

You obviously get your 'Satan is unbound' doctrine at the same place you get your YEC doctrine......a lonely place called ignorance...
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
Clinic time...

Your adversary the DEVIL....

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

1 Peter 5.8



νηψατε γρηγορησατε ο αντιδικος υμων διαβολος ως λεων ωρυομενος περιπατει ζητων καταπιειν

nēpsate grēgorēsate ho antidikos hymōn diabolos hōs leōn ōryomenos peripatei zētōn tina katapiein

Be sober-minded, watch, the adversary devil of you walks about as a roaring lion seeking whom to devour;





This passage does not refer to ‘The Devil’ himself, as ‘diabolos’ is anarthrous (i.e. it lacks a preceding Greek definite article).


Further, ‘ho antidikos’ (the adversary) is used in only one other NT passage, Mat 5.25, and is in the context of being thrown into prison.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
well, I disagree... if the point is that adam was formed as a newborn, then imo baby is a more precise word.
We were talking about the formation of Eve.

Gen 2 informs the reader that Adam was formed out of the dust of the ground....this is as ground-up as you get....obviously NO deception of age here!
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
certainly! for samuel

God tells samuel to annoint someone in place of saul... sam says if saul finds out, he'll kill me... God says take some sacrifice stuff and say you're going to sacrifice.

so, samuel doesn't actually lie, but the truth is 'veiled' from saul, who isn't careful to remember God's revelation up to that point (moses and samuel, maybe some others).

I think this is a good parallel with how God might have created the universe, creating it already looking old.

the truth is 'veiled', but only from those who don't access the revelation.

That's not exegesis, my friend.

You would have to post the scripture for us, and then explain the original words...
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
and for the wine


Jesus turns water into wine, which has the appearance of age.

seems the waitstaff heard what Jesus said, but headwaiter hadn't (yet) heard that.

so he thinks this liquid has been fermenting for a while, the truth is 'veiled' from him.



I think this is a good parallel with how God might have created the universe, creating it with the appearance of having undergone previous processes.


the truth is 'veiled', but only from those who haven't (yet) heard God.

The problem with your assumption is that it ignores the text.

One event is clearly labeled as a miracle.

The other events (plural) are shown to be sequentially going from simple, to more and more complex in stages.

There would not be any need to have sequential stages of development if they had the appearance of age to begin with.
 
S

secondtimearound

Guest
The other half to this definition is explained by Dan Wallace in his book 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics'...in which 'this contrasts with the present and imperfect, which portray the action of an ongoing process. It may be helpful to think of the aorist as taking a snapshot of the action while the imperfect (like the present) takes a motion picture, portraying action as it unfolds.'
Thank you. I found this very helpful.
 

DP

Banned
Sep 27, 2015
3,325
41
0
God, through His Son, created everything that is created, including the carbon that is being dated. He was able to make it look as old or as young as He wanted. He will be sending delusions to fool the unsaved when Satan is revealed, so why assume that an unchanging God has not already created delusions to make unbelievers believe the lie. The part about sending delusions when Satan is revealed is from 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
Well, for one reason why what you say isn't true, is because in Isaiah 45:18 God said He did NOT... create the earth tohuw.

He said He created the earth to be inhabited. If you don't know what I'm talking about in His Word with that Hebrew word tohuw, then it shows you actually have not looked into this matter in His Word for yourself of how this earth is very ancient.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
You obviously get your 'Satan is unbound' doctrine at the same place you get your YEC doctrine......a lonely place called ignorance...
says the one who gets his doctrines from a pagan church.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
We were talking about the formation of Eve.

Gen 2 informs the reader that Adam was formed out of the dust of the ground....this is as ground-up as you get....obviously NO deception of age here!
as I remember it, we were talking about both adam and eve.

I understood you to be saying that when they were formed (adam from dust, eve from adam's bone), they were formed as newborns.

did I misunderstand that?
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
That's not exegesis, my friend.

You would have to post the scripture for us, and then explain the original words...
the passage is 1 sam 16. since samuel only anoints one person in place of saul, I assumed it wasn't necessary to indicate that.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/exegesis
"...the exposition or interpretation of Scripture."

I showed how I interpreted the passage, and how it fits as a possible analogy of how God created the universe.

if that doesn't look like exegesis to you, then I decline your request that I exegete the passage.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
is this the same flood that noah experienced?

what's your thinking on the "numbered" geneologies?
like, "Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of Shelah"
whatever they are they are not directly consecutive, unless you accept that Shem was alive when Abraham died. (there are other problems too).
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
The problem with your assumption is that it ignores the text.

One event is clearly labeled as a miracle.

The other events (plural) are shown to be sequentially going from simple, to more and more complex in stages.

There would not be any need to have sequential stages of development if they had the appearance of age to begin with.
I disagree that I ignored the text. I agree it's a miracle, in which something has the appearance of undergoing a process that in fact it didn't undergo... possibly the same as the universe.

I believe the creation/forming of the universe is a miracle as well.

given that God did create the world in stages, I don't know how a human could draw conclusions about why s/he did it that way, unless they know God's thoughts at the time.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
whatever they are they are not directly consecutive, unless you accept that Shem was alive when Abraham died. (there are other problems too).
is this the same flood that noah experienced?

I can accept the possibility that Shem was alive when Abraham died.
is there a difficulity in there somewhere?

true, genealogies are sometimes not consecutive... I think Matthew's is that way.
but in Matthew's case, there seems to be a reason... seems he wants there to be 14 generations in each section.
also we have other histories of the people Matthew talks about to compare genealogies with.

why do you believe they aren't consecutive?
what is the scripture communicating?
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
Yes, Maths most certainly isn't my forte, but it's still a d@mn sight better than yours. Shem living 2000 years? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Show me where my Maths is wrong in my post. I won't be offended. Just remember it includes both BC years (the number of years Before Christ) and AM (the number of years from Creation).
so you think the ice age was 180 years after the Flood? LOL My friend historical records are against you

and many creationists disagree with you
 
Last edited:
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
as I remember it, we were talking about both adam and eve.

I understood you to be saying that when they were formed (adam from dust, eve from adam's bone), they were formed as newborns.

did I misunderstand that?

Adam and Eve were created and raised as children, as indicated by the text.

Again...a child from the ground-up....Adam from dust....and Eve from his side.

The reader is informed of a process involved with each one.

Adam was not created out of nothing, looking like an adult.

Eve was not created out of nothing, looking like an adult.


YEC's are unable to accept this because they are attempting to make scripture fit within a 24hr day...and, as I already stated...this makes for some pretty outrageous doctrines for the YEC.