Actually, it says "dying you shall die." He began to die on that day. But regardless, its says all the days that he lived. This would go from the day God breathed the "breath of life" into him, and he came to life (Genesis 2:7...same Hebrew word as in 5:5....) So yo would date from then.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does Creation Support EITHER old/young dating?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
- Status
Actually, it says "dying you shall die." He began to die on that day. But regardless, its says all the days that he lived. This would go from the day God breathed the "breath of life" into him, and he came to life (Genesis 2:7...same Hebrew word as in 5:5....) So yo would date from then.
The thickness of coal deposits, the thickness of coral reefs, the thickness of glacial ice, the formation of geologic constructs like the Grand Canyon all point to the earth being much older than 6,000 years old. What about craters from meteor impacts? Some are so large that had they occurred during the last 6,000 years surely there would be some historical record of gigantic clouds of ash dust floating in the atmosphere for months, or even years. The rate of the formation of the Hawaiian Islands is measured and it took longer than 6,000 years. There are trees that have rings that are indicate they are almost 5,000 years old.
The Word of God says that the heavens declare his glory and his handiwork and observing it reveals knowledge. The Bible is the Word of God but so is the physical world a revelation of God.
All of that points to a global flood, as described in the Bible, actually. To measure the rate of something today and assume it was always the same in the past is absolutely the height of naivety. Thick Coal deposits that are all one mass, HAD to be laid down at one time. The Grand Canyon was formed by receding flood waters, as made clear by older rock layers being on top of younger (could not have happened slowly). The rate of formation of the Hawaiian islands almost certainly did NOT happen at a single rate for a long period of time, but instead varied. The oldest tree in the world does not place it outside the biblical timeline; also, tree rings have been proven to be due to changes in environment, not necessarily due to seasons.
It does not say that it is equal with His written word. How can you believe a broken, sinful, corrupted creation can perfectly reveal God? You are trusting your own opinion over what God has actually told you.
I don't know how many times I have to affirm this, but maybe if I simply state it:
I believe in a six day creation with age built in.
Adam and Eve were not created as infants.
I believe in a six day creation with age built in.
Adam and Eve were not created as infants.
You can't reconcile Genesis 1 with modern science. Time is only one problem. Genesis 1 says the Earth was made before the sun, moon, and stars. There was light, with mornings and evenings before the sun was created. There were plants before the sun was created, how could plants survive for long ages without sunlight? The insects came even later, how do plants survive without insects and birds who pollinate them? The first animal mentioned is the whale, the largest animal that ever existed, while science says life started with the smallest life, one celled animals.
So, no way you can reconcile Genesis 1 with modern science.
Setterfield was proven incorrect by Eugen Chafin. Chafin proved that the difference in the distaqnce light traveled was only .4% faster than the 1800's thus proving Setterfield incorrect.
The more accurate way of measruring distant starlight is the Gravitational Time ditalation me. Based on Einsteins theory of Relativity. Steven Hawkings set two clocks in up one in Greenwich England the other in Boulder Colorado. The 5000 ft difference made the clock in Denver move 5 miliseconds faster due to the higher altitude. So extrapulating the distance of the sun from the earth which is 93 million miles away a clock on the sun would run 1 minute faster and so on the further the distance.
The Jewish Calender is based on the creation of Adam not the fall and by it we are in the year 5772. So no Adam and eve were not in the garden for 500 years based on the Jewish calender. So would Moses have counted the creation of Adam to the end of his life as the 930 years since the Jewish calender is based that too?
convicted1
Guest
I am of the young earth age, and that the earth is probably around 6,000 y/o, or so, give or take a few hundred years.
I have read that the earth looks to be older than 6,000 y/o, but there are two events recorded in the Word of God that shows why the earth looks older than it is.
First, take a look at the flood. Imagine the tonage of water that was on this earth as it was entirley immersed in H2O. Imagine the weight that pressed against the earth's crust.
Second, while Jesus was on the cross, there was darkness over the land for six hours. After He cried with a loud voice, and gave up the Ghost, the earth shook, and the graves burst open. I believe that this whole earth trembled at that moment, and imagine what force it took to shake it....but God could do this with the slightest touch of His finger. So, if you take into account these two recorded events, I think that it proves a young earth, and not an old one. These are my two "pennies worth".
I have read that the earth looks to be older than 6,000 y/o, but there are two events recorded in the Word of God that shows why the earth looks older than it is.
First, take a look at the flood. Imagine the tonage of water that was on this earth as it was entirley immersed in H2O. Imagine the weight that pressed against the earth's crust.
Second, while Jesus was on the cross, there was darkness over the land for six hours. After He cried with a loud voice, and gave up the Ghost, the earth shook, and the graves burst open. I believe that this whole earth trembled at that moment, and imagine what force it took to shake it....but God could do this with the slightest touch of His finger. So, if you take into account these two recorded events, I think that it proves a young earth, and not an old one. These are my two "pennies worth".
quantumfaith
Active Member
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Thanks
I hold to an old universe and old earth. Will do so until I meet my maker and have the opportunity to be informed by the source.
Man only interprets the things he sees, and extrapolates from there. We cannot think of "scientists" as men free of the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes and the pride of life. They will interpret data within the framework of their world views. Men will hold the truth in unrighteousness. That's a given.
For instance, one can think of the universe as bounded or unbounded (that doesn't mean finite or infinite). The idea of a bounded universe can fully explain the observations of astronomers, but it's rejected in favor of an unbounded universe. Why? Because one can explain the astronomers' observations better than the other? No, because one puts the earth in the center, and the other doesn't. An earth in the center of the universe is disagreeable to a man who insists there is no design or purpose in our existence. A bounded universe is therefore rejected as unscientific, and that not on the basis of available data, but on the philosophical lenses through which the data is viewed.
Same is true of the data one interprets as age. No one knows what a million-year-old rock looks like. No one has watched one for a million years.
A straightforward reading of Genesis is a literal 6-earth-day creation. View the available data through that philosophical lense, and one can easily come to a completely different (and logical) conclusion.
For instance, one can think of the universe as bounded or unbounded (that doesn't mean finite or infinite). The idea of a bounded universe can fully explain the observations of astronomers, but it's rejected in favor of an unbounded universe. Why? Because one can explain the astronomers' observations better than the other? No, because one puts the earth in the center, and the other doesn't. An earth in the center of the universe is disagreeable to a man who insists there is no design or purpose in our existence. A bounded universe is therefore rejected as unscientific, and that not on the basis of available data, but on the philosophical lenses through which the data is viewed.
Same is true of the data one interprets as age. No one knows what a million-year-old rock looks like. No one has watched one for a million years.
A straightforward reading of Genesis is a literal 6-earth-day creation. View the available data through that philosophical lense, and one can easily come to a completely different (and logical) conclusion.
Pot meet Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot.
, Thanks Jbh28
BIG question though is NOT if young/old believe God crested the Earth, BUT did he also use Evolution "process" developing life here on the earth or not?
That's a whole 'nother question than your original question. Why don't you ask it in a new thread? You're very good at that sort of thing.
quote] You do realise that ALL evolutionary scientists pretty much see ANY Creation science as being fake/psedo right?
And just REFUSE to peer review allow it in at all, so that is the circular rreasoning at work..
We cannot accept anything unless/until peer reviewed/publish, but also refuse to do it anyway?[/quote]
Because when I hear this stuff I think of this:
The bias of those oppossed to God and His work will just NOT allow them to ser anything that does not their worldview model!
As I said before on this, BIG difference not IF one holds to God as Creator, but IF He used evolutionary processes on earth also!
And just REFUSE to peer review allow it in at all, so that is the circular rreasoning at work..
We cannot accept anything unless/until peer reviewed/publish, but also refuse to do it anyway?[/quote]
Because when I hear this stuff I think of this:
The bias of those oppossed to God and His work will just NOT allow them to ser anything that does not their worldview model!
As I said before on this, BIG difference not IF one holds to God as Creator, but IF He used evolutionary processes on earth also!
All science, and observation, is based on philosophy.
quantumfaith
Active Member
JF,
No disrespect, but does it really matter that you know what I think on this? But yes, I have no problem with the concept of evolution. I do have a problem with the concept of a "god free" creation.
think that christians need to address this issue from the basis of trying to fit science into the Bible text, NOT other way around!
(not saying is what YOU are doing!)
Are you saying that man made science (which is unreliable) should be used to interpret scripture?
Opposite!
That we as Christians need to interprete any scientific data in the light of the scriptures, that what was wriiten down by God unto us take first priority, over our "evidence"...
This is not accurate, Lambert Dolphin has submitted several reports showing at least two major errors in Chaffin's report, and that his data actually supports that light has slowed.
Google "Implications of a Non-Constant Velocity of Light collected by Lambert Dolphin"
Montgomery and Dolphin analyzed Setterfield and Norman's 1987 report. They agreed with Setterfield and Norman. This report has never been refuted.
By the way, I believe you obtained that info you posted from a fellow who boasts he is not a Christian and has written other articles saying Jesus did not fulfill OT prophecy and could not be the Messiah.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status